Austerity and colonialist paternalism: what the Tories do for us

It’s been an eventful week in politics and the slow disintegration of the British state. Yesterday the UK Supreme Court announced that on Wednesday of next week it will publish its ruling on the indyref2 case brought by the Scottish Government which is seeking legal clarification on its plans to hold an independence referendum in October next year.

The court has been asked to give its judgement on the narrow question of whether the Scotland Act gives Holyrood the legal competence to hold a referendum without the explicit consent of Westminster in the form of a Section 30 order, however the implications and constitutional and political ramifications of this case go much much further.

It is no exaggeration to say that this is the most important case ever to come before the court since it was established by Gordon Brown’s government in 2009. This case goes to the very heart of the nature of the United Kingdom, a polity which has always in the modern era characterised itself as a voluntary union of nations based upon consent. This case will test whether that is indeed the case, or whether the traditional unionist claim that the UK respects Scottish sovereignty is just another convenient and self-serving lie like Gordon Brown’s infamous Vow.

It has always been the proud boast of British nationalists in Scotland that Scotland could leave the UK any time it chooses and that claim was what allowed them to angrily howl down suggestions from certain independence supporters that as a part of the UK Scotland is effectively a colony of England.

However should the Supreme Court rule that internal democratic processes within Scotland are not sufficient to allow Scotland to revisit the question of whether it wishes to remain a part of the UK, but depends upon obtaining the prior permission of politicians who derive their power from voting decisions of the English electorate, then it becomes very difficult to refute the claim that, at least politically, Scotland is an English dependency without any sovereignty of its own. Indeed, Scotland being placed in the position where its people are told that their own democratic decisions cannot be put into effect because a higher authority which Scotland cannot hold to account has abrogated to itself the power to decide what is in Scotland’s best interests is in many ways the very definition of classic colonialist paternalism.

This would have massive ramifications for traditional Scottish Unionism, and would destroy any pretence that Scotland is an equal partner in a voluntary union of nations. Scotland would have been told that it does not matter how its people vote in elections, even in elections to the Scottish Parliament, they will always be subjected to being overruled by a Conservative party which has not won an election in Scotland since the 1950s.

By the normal rules of elections in the UK, rules which have held since the introduction of the democratic franchise, the current Scottish Parliament has an indisputable democratic mandate for another referendum. Appeals to opinion polling or claims that ‘now is not the time’ by the parties which lost the 2021 Holyrood election are specious special pleading without merit, the cries of sore losers unwilling to accept that the people have spoken and the political debate about whether there ought to be another Scottish independence referendum has been settled. If democracy in Scotland is to have any meaning then there must be a referendum. A poll out from YouGov today found that only 32% of respondents think it was right to leave the EU, with 56% thinking it was wrong. For people under the age of 50 the figures are even more stark. 19% and 66% respectively. Yet the Scottish Tories who bleat about opinion polls when it comes to another independence referendum will not be deterred from their Brexit fetish.

Should the Supreme Court rule in the Scottish Government’s favour, all well and good, we will have an independence referendum in October next year. However should the Supreme Court rule that the current unelected occupant of Ten Downing Street can thwart the democratic will of the people of Scotland, this will be a ruling that within the UK, democracy in Scotland is a performative substance free exercise in play acting without import in the real world. The question of independence then becomes a question about the very preservation of democracy itself in Scotland.

There is a third possibility, the court might rule that it will not make a decision on the substance of the question until there is actually an independence referendum bill which has been passed by Holyrood. This risks trapping the matter in legal limbo, with the Scottish Government being unable to proceed with a bill which the Lord advocate is unwilling to sign off because she is not confident of its lawfulness, and the Supreme Court unwilling to rule on its lawfulness because the Lord Advocate has not signed off on it. That would be a disgraceful betrayal of Scottish democracy. Effectively from a political point of view we would be in the same position as if the Supreme Court had ruled against the Scottish Government. The legal framework of the British state will have prevented democracy in Scotland from taking its normal course and will have blocked the implementation of a mandate given to Holyrood by the electorate of Scotland in a democratic election.

A ruling against the Scottish Government will absolutely not mean that the question is settled or that the Scottish Government must go back to futile requests for a Section 30 order which will never be granted as long as the British Government believes that there is an outside chance that Scotland might vote for independence. It will mean instead that Westminster will never accept a Holyrood mandate for a referendum, and a reversion to the situation which held prior to the establishment of the devolution settlement. This will see the next election in Scotland being run as a de facto referendum, one way or another, Scotland will have its say, with Westminster’s permission or without it.

Meanwhile in Westminster the Chancellor appointed by the latest unelected Conservative Prime Minister was announcing a new round of austerity which he blamed on the Tories’ favourite bogey man in the Kremlin. Brexit has nothing to with it, the Conservative mismanagement of the economy and the energy sector has nothing to do with it. The catastrophic mini budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng which cost the public purse £30 billion has nothing to do with it.

But it’s the poor and the vulnerable who are going to pay the price. Not the profiteering energy giants or the wealthy who hold non-dom status. The UK gives Scotland the patronising colonialist paternalism of Alister Jack, soul crushing austerity and the trashing of democracy itself.


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 (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 and send a payment to the email address 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

134 comments on “Austerity and colonialist paternalism: what the Tories do for us

  1. Capella says:

    It would be liberating to have our colonial status ratified by a Supreme Court in another country. What a campaigning gift that would be. There would be a deafening clatter as scales drop from the eyes of the Don’t Knows.
    Well ye ken noo!

    OTOH a decision that the Scottish people can ask themselves a question in the normal time-honoured fashion, will be refreshing.

  2. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    NOT the courts who will have the ultimate decision on Scotland’s future path but THE people of Scotland who will decide………

    Just seen video online of BBC Glen Campbell and Douglas Fraser….

    Video showed them saying SAME thing but on opposing tax positions :

    Via the TORY Truss/Kwarteng tax policy last month they, Campbell and Fraser, both said that the pressure was now on the Scottish government to match the TORY UK government on high earners taxes…danger of high earners in Scotland leaving if tax NOT cut for higher earners…….

    NOW via TORY Hunt lowering tax threshold for high earners for the 45% from £150,000 to £125,000….pressure is now apparently on John Swinney… match this in his budget…..

    The TORY UK government must be perceived as somehow leading the way….with the Scottish government trailing behind and thus under pressure to follow all that they, the TORY UK government, do via the never ending BBC propaganda machine…..rinse and repeat.

    Dross and co aka TORIES at Holyrood will echo THIS also now….no shame or sense of hypocrisy will they feel in doing so…..they have THEIR job …which is to shore up support for the (non) Union and THE party which they do by holding flexible opinions dependent on circumstances via HQ…..confident that the media will back them up and not hold them to account in a forceful way… that behaviour is only reserved, by the media, for ‘other’ parties who are supportive to independence…..

    We are now BACK into the BBC “pressure now on the Scottish government” terriTORY……

    A formula applied constantly…..not one that is for OUR good but one that is applied to bolster the (non) Union and discredit independence…..all actual MANY mistakes that have been done by the UK TORY government is expected to be forgotten by all ……the ever evolving opinion of the TORY branch office manager Dross and his TORY enablers aka MSP’s (many unelected) at Holyrood is also to be forgotten…but then his YES but NO changes in what was supposed to be his former ‘firm’ position(s) is never given the scrutiny it deserves by the BBC or t’other media…..however THIS change by the TORIES Sunak/Hunt on tax for higher earners is a clear OPPOSING position on what formerly Dross and co aka TORIES at Holyrood were previously endorsing, via the TORIES Truss/Kwarteng changes on tax, that was something they stressed that the Scottish government SHOULD match/follow…….

    We the public are expected to NOT focus on what happened with the disaster that unfolded via the Truss/Kwarteng TORY tax measures as in the damage to the economy and the resulting losses it generated for their UK by their reckless TORY actions….now that another U turn has been taken via yet another TORY PM and chancellor having taken over and reversed the previous TORY PM and Chancellor’s tax policy we are all just supposed to MOVE ON and marvel at their decisions…while simultanously berate the Scottish government if THEY do NOT follow the action of yet another NEW TORY UK government…..which as a supposed NEW TORY government still has some of the dregs of the former TORY government(s) as ministers within it including a former chancellor a La Johnson’s TORY regime…as in Sunak now PM… Boris Johnson is now but a (bad) memory who is also to be forgotten by us all and too his many mistakes and bad judgements…..

    A pro UK rinse and repeat for EVERY new TORY government…..all Hail yet another NEW TORY UK government……which may be replaced ,come 2024, by a NEW version of a TORY government as in New New Labour aka the Red TORIES.

    Labour of course will ignore any action or inaction taken by the Welsh Labour government and will , like the other British Nationalist parties, apply ALL pressure upon the Scottish government too……another formula adopted to discredit the Scottish government…..Anas will also not be over scrutinised by the media on either what the Labour Welsh government are doing or rather NOT doing and also HQ Labour’s changing position on what is seen by many as TORY policies and opinions that Labour seem to be adopting…..or indeed their, Labour’s, support for the damaging policy that is Brexit…as like the Tories he will parrot the ‘it was a UK wide vote and I respect democracy’ and also ‘the Scottish government need to MITIGATE constantly to offset anything and everything the UK government applies’ when clearly he and his party, like the Tories, propose that democracy and real change is NOT something he or they either want to endorse or are keen to support/uphold for the Scottish people to have the power or ability to enforce or be able to alter ……

    All British Nationalist parties have failed to deliver all they promised to Scotland in 2014…not just on MORE powers for Scotland but more importantly on what they assured Scots would be the case on staying within their UK….as in the supposed UK benefits of stability, financial security, prosperity and kinda a supposed Nirvana existence……the reality has been far removed from that Utopian vision they presented to us all if we voted NO to independence……it has in REALITY been HELLISH……NO stability, NO financial security, NO prosperity indeed we are NOW in a WORSE position and one where we are now incredibly STILL being demonised and ridiculed by them when tis THEY who should be on the receiving end of ALL negativity…..they FAILED us , they CONNED us and so they should apologise for having done so….and the so called media should be EXPOSING it all….but no instead we are still being DUPED and MANIPULATED to enable them to imprison us in this NIGHTMARE of a disunited kingdom that sees us all being disadvantaged citizens controlled by rogues and subjected to a second rate media that is nowt but propaganda merchants for the so called but NOT actually Union …..a so called Union that NOW sees us all in a very much NEGATIVE position within THEIR UK whose broad shoulders are NOW well and truly SLUMPED……

    MORE disadvantaged and poorer…….well here is a HUGE NO THANKS to that…..and tis ALL THANKS to British Nationalists political parties and their media that this has all been forced upon us and thus been allowed to happen to us , Scotland, in their UK……

    BT used NO THANKS as a way to promote their (non) Union and DENY us our Scottish independence……well I bet LESS people will say YES PLEASE to their (non) Union NOW in Scotland considering all that has gone down, down, down and still to go further DOWN since 2014……….CON merchants is what they were and still are…………for me it was a NO THANKS to YOUR UK in 2014 and now tis STILL the same for me to all of the lies and propaganda that YOU BT said that YOUR UK really offered Scotland when the OPPOSITE has been the case in staying within YOUR UK…..

    Saying YES now to independence seems the BEST and most SANE option for Scotland as to believe otherwise , with all things considered, staying in their UK would be the WORSE and most INSANE option … EVER.

    If you are NOT angry nay seething then please check your pulse…..

  3. Dr Jim says:

    The question for those who *don’t know* what the right thing to do is………

    If you were a country would you join the UK union?

    • Here’s yer answer:

      If Scotland was independent, would you vote to surrender control of tax, welfare, defence & oil revenues to join the Union?
      Field work dates: 1 August 2013 – 6 August 2013
      Yes 18%
      No 55%
      Don’t know 28%

      And support for indy was 10% or more lower ex DK back then.

      • Dr Jim says:

        The 18% of rabid mentals I can understand, it’s the 28% don’t knows that makes me gasp
        The very idea that if you were say German or Danish or French or really any other country in the world you wouldn’t know what to do if asked would you surrender your country to the control of England
        If ever you were to put your faith in mankind doing something, anything, 28% of people wouldn’t do anything but sit with their finger up their Ars*s waiting for somebody else to make a decision for them then blaming them whichever way it turned out

        Ah got it! Labour voters, the do nothing party, because they’ll always tell you that next time they’ll get it right, or at least the time after that, honest we will, just wait

        • The 18% is the only number that really has meaning. The poll is old and very hypothetical. Likewise it must be understood in terms of the atmosphere of the time, that it was pre-brexit, and the fact iref1 had come out almost nowhere, surprising even the SNP, meaning many didn’t really know what they thought about the subject of indy. That’s where the DKs are coming from.

          If Scotland actually was independent the answers would be a lot different, if simply because people would be much less British or not at all if the UK had never happened.

          But the 18% is really the % that actually like the union as the country/state they identify with. The rest are Scots (not British to some affinity) open to persuasion, as e.g. the 3/4 yes in 1997.

      • Luigi says:

        Bit of a leading question – “surrender” ???

  4. Bob Lamont says:

    An excellent synopsis again.
    – I do hope to be wrong in suspicions the SC will opt for the third possibility of leaving the matter in limbo, thence adding uncertain law to uncertain constitution as benchmark for the mother of all parliaments, the “F” is optional.

    • Dr Jim says:

      I’m sure the powers that be in England have leaned on every judge in every possible way they possibly can to come to the decision of no decision

  5. yesindyref2 says:

    Apparently (via Aileen McHarg / Stuart Kenny twitter):

    If you want some Scottish history but also want some chain Italian food, know that the exact spot where the 1707 Act of Union between Scotland and England was signed is now the lady’s toilets at Bella Italia on the corner of North Bridge/Royal Mile

    So women certainly know what to do on the Act of Union.

  6. andyfromdunning says:

    Thanks Paul, a good round up of the three options. I cannot understand why the referendum bill was not passed before the case went to the Supreme Court.
    In the Micheal Keeting case last year that case was thrown out because there were was no referendum bill in place and therefore theoretical. Why then did Scotgov allow it to go ahead without ensuring that problem had been put to bed. Don’t forget prior to the 2019 U.K. general election we were promised a referendum bill by the early part of 2020. Before Covid. Mind you that promise was before a vote.

    • The Lord Advocate advised the Scottish government to take this approach when consulted on the bill.

      Also because it takes the initiative away from the unionists / UK government, yet the outcome is at worse the same, and more likely better in that the Scottish government and population knows where things stand. It is the UK government now on the back foot and will be no matter the UKSC decision.

      You answered the other question yourself by saying ‘covid’. Elections could not be stopped as these are not a choice, but a legal requirement. A referendum is a party political choice, as is the timing. The Scottish government opted not to hurt a Yes vote by putting party political ambitions ahead of the biggest public health emergency in living memory, the outcome of which was very uncertain in 2020-21. That’s the sort of thing the Tories do, which is why they are very unpopular in Scotland.

      The SNP are not trying to win over people who back Yes, but those currently saying No when it comes to timing the referendum. Alba etc seem to forget that.

  7. “A reversion to the pre-devolution days”?
    Not so, surely. Thatcher and Major both agreed a majority of pro-independence Scottish MP’s were the requirement for independence.
    Some senior Labour people also thought so.
    I think it inevitable non-democratic means will be the outcome of the courts (baked in) decision.

  8. yesindyref2 says:

    I didn’t want to say it before, but there is effectively a fourth way – and that is that whether or not the UKSC decides that the Ref Bill is within the legislative competence of Holyrood within the strict confines of the Scotland Act, they can decide (and must) that it IS permanently within Holyrood’s competence because of the right to self-determination under international law. And THAT can not be over-ruled in any way by Westminster.

    That comes from the SNP’s submission which the UKSC is bound to consider as it accepted the intervention:

    2.1. The Intervener’s submissions focus on the requirement to construe the Scotland Act 1998 (the ‘1998 Act’) in accordance with – rather than contrary to – the right of all peoples to self-determination.

    The Scotland Act sits under International Law, as does all UK Law, as the UK signed up fully to the United Nations Charter.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      For some reason it reminds me of these (adapted) lyrics:

      Don’t you see yon bonnie, bonnie road
      That lies across the ferny brae?
      That is the road to fair Scotland
      Where you and I this night must go.

    • I would hope the cardinal principle of the right to self-determination in International law is taken into consideration, but they may rule on the narrow issue of the sovereignty (a purely English conceit) of Westminster.
      However there is also the legally acknowledgement situation that Ireland (north and south) enjoys that right.
      How could the judges, only one of them Scottish, square a circle that the architecture of the UK constitution imparts rights on some but, but denies it to others?
      Whatever the outcome, the judgement will make interesting reading to many, perhaps some in the EU and some in the UN.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Very important I think, to get as many of us out next Wednesday as possible to support the 10 rallies. The more we are, the more the international media will sit up and notice.

      • benmadigan says:

        “there is also the legally acknowledgement situation that Ireland (north and south) enjoys that right”.
        Please remember Ireland fought long and hard and negotiated long and hard to have that right legally acknowledged internationally.
        Let no one misunderstand or underestimate Ireland’s years of struggle

    • James says:

      Yes but in the UK international law does no always superseed domestic law.

      In the UK, provisions of an international treaty can only have effect in domestic law if they are written into or incorporated by domestic legislation. Therefore, provisions of treaties that are not made part of UK law (i.e. have not been incorporated) are not usually recognised by UK courts

      Click to access CBP-9010.pdf

      This is not that unusual, the supreme courts of both Spain and Germany have blocked self determination referendums becasue domestic law has superseeded international law.

      • Hamish100 says:

        Thanks for this. Of course the U.K. briefing paper says that the U.K. (aka England) Parliament is sovereign and not the Scots people.

        • James says:

          Two different types of soverenty. UK Parliment is soverign becasue it alone decides what will be law in the UK( or has agreed to devolve that power). No other country / countries parliment. Once Scotland is independent then its Parliment will be soverign for the same reason. The Scots people will also be soverign becuase they will decide who sits in the parliment and therefore the type of Goverment Scotland has.

          • Golfnut says:

            The UK parliament claims to be sovereign though it is by convention, rather than law and can only apply within the legal jurisdiction of English law since it predates the union. Dicey’s, or indeed Gallagher and Boyles assertion that Scotland was extinguished by the Act of Union doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny, unless of course your job depends on it.

            • To quote Lord President Cooper from the often quoted test case on this matter MacCormick vs Lord Advocate (1953):

              ‘the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law’

              I did find it odd that the Westminster briefing paper talked about ‘UK Law’ when no such thing exists. Must have meant English law, which stops at Gretna, as per the Treaty of Union.

              • James says:

                Both vaild points, but neither relate to the fact that the UK Parliment is soverign by the fact that only it can enact legislation(or devolve the power enact legislation). Another country cannot put legislation on the statute books no can the judicary add or remove legislation from the statute books, hence it is soverign. Not an unusual cocept pretty much every member of the UN has soverign parliment in the respect that another ocuntry cannotput legislation on the statue books although some are not fully soverign as the judicary can stop the legislation from going on the statute books or force the Parliment to repeal the leglistion.

                Yes, you are correct there is not something called UK law, is just a lazy phrase used for legislation passed by the UK Parliment that applys to all of the UK rather than just Scotland or just England and Wales etc.

              • Golfnut says:

                Unfortunately SS, the world is sadly under the impression that English Constitutional law is UK Constitutional law, they’ve done a good job of pissing up everyone’s leg over this, but you right, it’s stops at Gretna and we must make sure they regret it’s blatant imposition.

              • I’m a wee bit lost as to what’s actually under discussion here. Parliaments ultimately derive power from peoples in democracies. Popular will is the power underpinning everything.

                The UK parliament, rightly, legislates for the UK and the Scottish Parliament should not be able to make laws that change UK law.

                The UK parliament is ‘sovereign’ in terms of making laws that apply UK-wide as it derives power from the UK electorate. At the same time, the Scottish parliament ultimately trumps it when it comes to Scotland as it derives power from the Scottish electorate. The most powerful parliament in Scotland is the Scottish parliament as it represents Scots. The will of the people.

                Of course Scots have consented for their country to be part of the UK as recently as 2014, and that means accepting some law making powers are reserved to Westminster. The same would apply if Scotland re-joins the EU; some law making would transfer the EU union parliament. This is nothing unusual.

                As we all know, the iref2 bill won’t change UK law as it only applies to Scotland. The result itself will change nothing in Scots law or impact laws UK wide either. It will just measure popular will. But it will need acted upon to respect democratic principles / human rights.

                Which is why English / British politicians are terrified of it. It is democratic, about civil rights, and these are not something they like it seems.

                Anyhoo, I’m just mildly interested in the case as it won’t decide whether Scotland becomes independent of not. Scots will decide that, not English courts. The naivety of British nationalists in thinking a simple court decision solves everything shows how little they understand the world around them.

                • Golfnut says:

                  I don’t think you will find anywhere in the Articles of the Treaty of Union, nor in the ratifying Acts of Union that the United Kingdom Parliament was made sovereign. Since it was the Treaty that created the Union Parliament I think we can assume it wasn’t meant to be.

              • Legerwood says:

                McCormick vs the Lord Advocate was not a test case on sovereignty. The case was about the regnal number Queen Elizabeth should use. Lord Cooper’s opinion, note opinion not ruling, on the sovereignty of the people of Scotland was given Obiter dicta. It was incidental to the case being argued therefore is not legal and so does not create a precedent.

                • daveytee19 says:

                  It seems clear that in Scotland prior to the union parliament, or possibly the monarch through parliament, was sovereign. The people, i.e. the common people of the land, had no power at all – that was all vested in the aristocracy, the landed gentry,and the wealthy merchant classes. Popular sovereignty was an untterly alien concept, just as it was in most European countries of the time. If you want an example, just take the Act of Union; hugely unpopular with the people, it was nevertheless passed and put into effect by the Scottish Parliament. No popular sovereignty there. Besides which, Parliament today is answerable to the people who elect it at least every five years. Is that not popular sovereignty in a pragmatic form?

                  • James says:

                    Yes the term ‘the people’ was very restrictive historically. By ‘people’ it ment people that were not nobility, but the right to vote was based on the value of your land or how much tax you paid etc etc, ie only the rich got the vote. As an exmaple prior to Scottish Reform Act in 1832 only 0.2% of the Scottish population had the right to vote. The reform act increased this percentage to 4% but the right to vote was still based on your wealth. It was not till 1918 for men and 1928 for women that the right to vote was not based on wealth.

                • yesindyref2 says:

                  No, but it can and is quoted in for instance the SNP intervention:

                  6.2. The Scottish constitutional tradition as distinct from the English equivalent is set out famously – and most succinctly – by Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 at 411:

                  • daveytee19 says:

                    That was merely an opinion, not in any way binding, and in any event was countered by Lord Russell in the same case: “During the last 250 years…there has grown up a system of representative government embracing adult suffrage, five-year parliaments and the like until today it seems possible to affirm that the will of the majority of the population – both in Scotland and in England – is represented by and vested in its Parliamentary representatives.” Was Lord Cooper really suggesting that if the Scottish people did not like something done by Parliament they could just ignore it? I think not – a situation where the people could if they wished merely ignore laws made by parliament because of their claimed popular sovereignty would lead to anarchy and mob rule and would be unworkable. If the people of Scotland really are sovereign, then they exercise that sovereignty by electing representatives to parliament every five years or so. Yes, just the same as England. And if, as seems to be the case presently, the people we elect are not doing what they were elected to do, we can and should get rid of them at the next election.

                  • Legerwood says:

                    Lord Cooper’s Obiter dicta can be quoted in as many places as pleases people to quote it but it does not change the fact that is an opinion with no legal standing and as such does not set a precedent.

                    What in reality does it actually mean? How do the people of Scotland express their sovereignty? Is it homogenous or does it have a multitude of forms and expressions?

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Replying here to avoid too many imbeds.

        Well, as in the prorogation case I think it was, the UKSC does try to incorporate Scots Law into UK Law, even when it’s different. It will be interesting to see if they go round in circles biting their tails this time to try to do the same – or just take the cowardly way out.

        Yes, I did say: “cowardly”, I don’t feel the same restraint Mike Russell has to patronise them – they have a duty to the Rule of Law, and they SHOULD do their duty rather than duck and run for cover.

        That includes International Law as even if not directly incorporated into UK Law to make it easy, it is implicitly incorporated whenever any signing of treaties or conventions or memberships, is ratified by the UK Parliament – and they should not shirk their responsibilities any more, lest that be their legacy when they retire, write their books, and look for respect.

        First they need to earn our respect.

        • Golfnut says:

          When it went to the SC, the media bent over backwards to avoid mentioning the Scottish courts ruling instead Gina Miller ( previously refused the right to appeal) became the centre of attention. Funny that.
          I will be very surprised if the SC don’t hide behind the Scotland Act.

          • yesindyref2 says:

            It’s one of the reasons I keep posting this, in the (small) hope it gets attention in the right places.

            On the other hand I don’t see this ending legally at the UKSC if they duck out, and that will inevitably lead to extreme embarrassment for them in further courts. Further courts furth of the UK!

            So be it.

            And the UK Government and UK Parliament will rightly be reviled for allowing it to happen.


            It just slows things down, that’s all.

        • Not sure where to reply given how many sub-thread have developed!

          If we want to assess the success of a government using the courts to block independence, we should look at global examples of this.

          How many countries do we have in the world where it is established that the people want independence, but a court ruling by ruling imperial power continues to prevent this?

          How many colonies of Britain have been successfully prevented from going independent by court rulings?

          Can independence movements be peacefully prevented by court rulings or is a little more, erm, ‘force’ needed?

          How has the use of ‘a little more force’ worked out for Britain in past cases of colonies seeking indy?

          The coming UKSC ruling itself matters not a jot in determining whether Scotland will become independent. It’s effect is political and that’s it. The case, whatever the outcome, is very bad for the UK and unionism. It can only hurt support for the union and take Scotland another small step to giant leap towards independence. The SNP know this and it’s one of the reasons they sent it to court. Even if the court rules iref2 is fine and the UK government accepts that, some irreparable damage has already been done by the fact that they tried to challenge it. When baseline ‘lost to the union’ Yes is already at 50%+, unionism really didn’t need this case and London’s actions could well have killed Scottish unionism stone dead.

          Democracy means people being able to freely vote for the government they desire. If Scots can’t freely vote for an independent Scottish government and get that if it’s the will of the majority, then the UK isn’t a democracy in any way shape of form. End off. Elections would be pointless as they cease to have any meaning. They’d be simply a sham like you get in dictatorships. A total joke where ‘unionism’ wins a magical 100% of the vote every time; more than Saddam used to get.

          Which is why if we actually found ourselves in that situation, Scots would start to take more direct action. People are not going to accept living in an English dictatorship where elections are just pretend as the winner (unionism) is always guaranteed, even if they lose. Marches become mass protests etc. The 3.5% rule kicks in and can be readily met…

          Even in states where they have written constitutions which ban secession, the reality is that these mean nothing if you have such a popular independence movement. Normally, autonomy is offered to try and find a compromise at the ballot box. That is often enough, and many examples exist. It’s worked for Scotland since 1997. But sometimes it isn’t and when that happens, independence becomes inevitable.

          Attempts have been made many times by lots of states / empires to stop indy movements by force, but that invariably comes at cost in terms of cash and lives, while strengthening said movement and ensuring the secession comes to pass. Britain has lots of experience of this. Every attempt to stop former colonies leaving by legal means / force of arms has failed spectacularly each time.

          Scotland will be no different. I find it truly bizarre that the British media and some politicians seem to think somehow it can all be different. But then I do think wiser heads will prevail in England (and I feel these forces have put Sunak in charge) and some sort of agreement will be reached for the only way to save the union is to persuade Scots to freely back it. Nothing else can work.

      • yesindyref2 says:


        Well, the most relevant part of 6.2 is this from Cooper:

        The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.

        but also this:

        … Bagehot and Dicey …

        Dicey is used a lot, but Dicey was peculiarly relevant to England, not Scotland, and perhaps it’s time Dicey disappeared. Bagehot was more relevant perhaps.

        Russell of course as one of the 3, may well have had a different opinion from the Lord President. It happens a lot during the discussions and you see it in judgements. It’s very possible the case this Wednesday will be a majority of the 5 rather than unanimous.

        You’ll know of course that it’s always an odd number so a majority decision can be had!

    • Golfnut says:

      Well said yesindyref2, the 4th option. By far the most pertinent comment so far.

    • Must say I’d prefer to be part of Germany in terms of respect for international law based on a read of the above document!

      ‘General Rules of international law are seen as an integral part of German Federal Law. These international rules take precedence over national laws and directly create rights and duties domestically.’

      Dualist Approach to International Law. Parliament is Sovereign. International law has to be applied by Parliament domestically for it to have any domestic effect.
      International law still applies to the UK on the international level – it is still bound by obligations it has accepted on the international level.

      Both Spain and Germany do of course have a very recent history of fascist governance. Germany has come so very far since the defeat of these in WW2, but Germans cannot let their guard down as the far right never goes away, just retreats. The fact that the UK has not yet fallen to fascists makes it more vulnerable here; ‘once bitten, twice shy’ as they say.

      We all saw how strong the imperialist right still is in Spain when faced with people simply marking bits of paper and putting them in boxes in Catalonia; that being put down by troops being sent in, elected politicians being arrested etc. The Spanish Supreme court had already ruled the vote illegal, so one wonders why there was any need for such drastic action. Surely they could have just ‘ignored’ it? 😉

      Anyhoo, Scots will soon learn whether what they believed about the UK – i.e. it was a democracy they were voluntary in – is actually case in the next few weeks. It will, potentially, change everything.

      If the union is voluntary and Scots are free to vote for independence, the UK has a chance of survival, however slim that seems to be. If not, it will, as Scots believe (latest MORI poll), be all over within a matter of a few years. If it cannot be maintained by people’s freely given support, the only option open to the UK government is the use of force, which just accelerates the end.

      Every unionist / UK voter who believes in the union should be praying the UKSC says a referendum is fine and if not, then says it should be and the UK government legislates to that effect immediately. That is how you unite the peoples of the UK and ensure its survival. I was no fan of David Cameron, but this he seemed to understand, hence facilitating iref1.

      I guess he also understood that while the UK may not respect international law (e.g. Chagos Islands), the intentional community expects it to, so would side with Scots if the former were not doing this for Scotland. This is particularly the case since the UK has started making enemies all over the place since brexit.

  9. Where British leaders are educated.

    Eton College boys ‘booed’ visiting state schoolgirls

    Eton College has apologised after it was claimed girls visiting from a nearby state school were subjected to misogynistic language and racial slurs.

    The school told the BBC a number of its pupils had been “sanctioned” after an investigation following an incident during a speech by Nigel Farage.

    The former politician told the BBC the atmosphere was “riotous”.

    The college said it had apologised “unreservedly” for the “totally unacceptable” behaviour.

    Money can’t buy you happiness… Nor love… Nor intellect… Nor manners… Nor respect….

  10. Dr Jim says:

    The law of a country is determined and made by representatives elected by the people of a country
    The option the UK don’t want is the one that comes out that Scotland isn’t a country but a constituent territory of England, because then they’ve just told every Scot who ever lived in the last 300 years that England was and is a liar, but liars by justification of their law

    If the answer is not yes then we are all English renamed British by the English, but allowed to call ourselves Scots by England’s largesse and lovely generous and giving nature

    Promises will have been made and gifts exchanged and the judges will find a way to dodge

    Wales will also be interested in this

  11. barpe says:

    O/T, but I watched the wheelchair rugby WorldCup final last night, between England and France, and found the game very entertaining.
    But, prior to kick-off there were the national anthems, and I failed to understand why “GSTK” was announced as the ‘English’ national anthem. Surely it’s time they got one of their own?

  12. Hamish100 says:

    KSTK – rebellious Scots to crush isn’t my anthem. They can keep it.

    Sad to see so many scotch sportspeople over the years singing away to it, as they await their British empire medal and a spot on a sports programme. They should realise that’s the spot for lionesses and lions!!

  13. Hamish100 says:

    Back to austerity.

    BBC Shereen chatting with her fellow tories as to how to dress during dinner parties.

    Maybe the bbc luvvies would take in folk who can’t heat their home over Christmas or have to visit foodbanks as a wee treat.
    Moray MacDonald of course, ( Shereen gave a wee subtle plug for his company) mentions that a dinner party one of his lawyer flatmates brought in staff to do the work.
    Yip bbc toryland where austerity never arrives to the luvvy brigade.

    Do tories live in the same universe?

  14. Welsh_Siôn says:

    The sort of thing that happens behind closed doors – but are we really surprised?

    For Colonial-General of the Western Provinces, read Colonial-General of the Northern Provinces and the Isles, I wouldn’t be surprised:

    Boris Johnson’s handling of Welsh Secretary role ‘major mis-step’ before resigning as Prime Minister

    19 Nov 2022 3 minute read

    Boris Johnson’s handling of the Welsh Secretary role was a “major mis-step” during his last few hours before resigning as Prime Minister, according to a new account of his downfall.

    According to Sebastian Payne, the Financial Time’s Whitehall editor who is publishing a new book The Fall of Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister had accidentally attempted to find a replacement Welsh Secretary before Simon Hart resigned.


  15. jfngw says:

    Whenever these Tory/Labour/LibDem unionists tell us Scotland leaving the UK would be worse than Brexit, what they are actually saying to us is they believe Scotland is inferior to England and could not manage its own affairs without Westminster’s supervision.

    Is there any other country with citizens who have such a low regard for the people of their country and their abilities.

  16. yesindyref2 says:

    OT and all over the place if you’ll pardon the pun.

    Are falling sperm counts the new global ‘pandemic’?

    and other factors in the declining birth rate in Scotland, an actually very serious problem, not just long-term but increasingly NOW. From people I know I can very much recommend IVF in Scotland, for those to whom it’s appropriate, don’t be afraid, don’t be embarrassed, the service is filled with caring professionals.

    I think it’s 3 shots and they’re free 🙂

  17. This is a good read on the complexities of the UK and its lack of any constitution.

    It shows you how far down the right-wing authoritarian / anti-democratic road the UK has gone with brexit when you have the hammer of the Scots of days gone by standing up for our rights:

    ‘As a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.’

    M Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (London: Harper Collins, 1993), 624.

    And in all this talk of law, the most important power is often lost:

    …Constitutionally the Scottish Parliament will clearly be subordinate [to the UK parliament]. Politically, however, it will be anything but subordinate. For the Scotland Act creates a new locus of political power. Its most important power will be one not mentioned in the Act at all, that of representing the people of Scotland.

  18. Welsh_Siôn says:

    In startling and extremely new news, Labour proposes to abolish the House of Lords:

    Keir Starmer: I will abolish House of Lords to ‘restore trust in politics’

    Exclusive: Labour leader plans a new elected chamber after accusing successive Tory governments of handing peerages to ‘lackeys and donors’

    19 November 2022.

    Shock news: Knight of the realm ‘vows’ [sic.] to slay peers of the realm.

    [Pardon me if I yawn.]

    • Capella says:

      Didn’t Tony Blair already abolish it 20 years ago?

      • Dr Jim says:

        Wasn’t it around 1916 the Labour party first promised to abolish the House of Lords ?

        And every couple of years since then they’ve promised to restore something or other whenever they can get England’s voters to vote for them

        Voters in Scotland have always been promised all sorts of stuff by the Labour party knowing fine well they can and never will deliver it if England’s population don’t want it or vote for them, and Scotland’s Labour voters have fallen for this since before I was born and my father before me, I’m 74 so do the math

        All of this promising guff began when they were actually a socialist party, now that they’re full blown Tories there’s absolutely fat chance of that ever happening in anybody’s lifetime

        Don’t mention *the Brexit*

    • Azel says:

      The “why” is interesting too: from the article it’s not because he actually wants too, it’s merely to show Labour is different from Labour. That makes one think that the second opinion polls show any fondness

      • Azel says:

        …for the Lords as they are, he’ll jettison that quick as you like telling people to read the small print as Brown did in his time. Or hell, when the press will.

  19. In the excellent ‘Breaking Bad’, it appeared to be Walter White’s joke to himself, when he created his alter ego, ‘Heisenberg,’ the evil drug king chemist.

    It may be that he was referencing Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, in which the theoretical physicist postulated that certain pairs of measurements of subatomic particles, such as, where a particle is and, where it is going (its position and momentum), cannot be precisely pinned down.

    A particle can be in two places at once, but we can only measure one state at any given time.

    Its movement can be measured, or its location.

    My brain hurts too.

    Anyway, like a true psycho, ‘Mr White’ revelled in the knowledge that he was so much smarter than the crooks and drug lords with whom he had to deal as he built up his drug empire.

    Sometimes, Walter White appeared to be the mild-mannered chemistry teacher, devoted to his family, at other times, a vicious murdering psychopath.

    Hence, the criminal handle, ‘Heisenberg’.

    Scottish politics has its very own ‘Heisenberg’, in the shape of Dross, Underboss of the Blue Tories Up Here.

    On Thursday, he was in Holyrood at FMQ, on his pins, chuntering on about the ‘ferry fiasco’, again.

    Meanwhile, Doon There in the Big Hoose on Thames, Jeremy Rhyming Slang was delivering his 2028 budget, a tad early, methought, backed by his baying, shrieking Cabinet and the Party Faithful.

    I noted that Bowie, and Mundell, isolated, up on the bleachers, doubtless exhausted after his latest trip to buy some New Zealand lamb, were dutifully present, as Hunt trundled through his ‘Autumn Statement’.

    There was no sign of Lord Jack of Borismate, or Duguid, or Lamont, or the lightweight subatomic Dross, in the Chamber.

    Dross is the perfect example of the uncertainty principle.

    He is an MP, but also, in defiance of the laws of physics, he is also an MSP.
    He does two full time jobs simultaneously.
    It’s just tha we mere humans lack the ability to track both shifts at the same time.
    And we pay him wages for both positions.

    The same lightweight particle but in two places at the same time?
    It’s just that we humans cannot see him.

    Aye, right.

    I wonder what the poor souls who voted for this subatomic nonentity to represent them in WM think when they realise that their MP is dogging off, absent, dodging the issues that affect them most in their Unionist pocket, but instead, is hiding in plain sight, shrieking rubbish Up in Edinburgh?

    One day he is posing with Sunak in a wee cubby hole at number 10, the next, he is snapped with Swivel Eye Hunt, on a Persian rug, in a plush room in No 11?

    The not so subtle message to his flock in Scotland?

    Look at me, rubbing shoulders with the Big Boys in London, our spiritual home.

    Now what is all this tittle tattle about toppling me as ‘leader’?

    Heisenberg Dross.

    He can be in two places at the same time…
    By the Chief, we need to plug this obscene corrupt loophole soon.

  20. The state of this.

    I’ve kissed a Tory and I’m not ashamed, Keir Starmer reveals

    Labour leader says he is not tribal, has broken the ‘never kiss a Tory rule’ and has many Conservative friends

    I might add that people do very much tend to befriend those who are of similar political leanings, even if they only discover this afterwards.

    • James says:

      Musr admit I don’t know if I have ever kissed a Tory, quite possibly have, when I was young and meeting girls in pubs and clubs what political party they voted for was not a question I asked or cared about!

      • I don’t know either; I went to St. Andrews Uni* so there’s a fair chance!

        I certainly didn’t go around asking this beforehand, but my experience is that when the political leanings of those ladies I have been attracted to / people I’ve become friends with have at some point come out, they’ve invariably matched my own fairly closely, as I alluded to.

        I don’t think like a Tory, don’t desire the same things, don’t look at the world in the same way, so naturally, we are much less likely to find ourselves hitting it off from the start, even if we are completely unaware of each other’s voting habits.

        Anyway, I posted the story primarily because of its utter cringeworthiness. We all know Sir Starmer, knight of the empire, isn’t on the left of Labour!

        *I must admit to having had amorous relations with English girls. I do hope that doesn’t get me banned! 😉

    • Golfnut says:

      Is he advocating kissing tory’s or just giving us permission, the Scottish branch has of course gone full tonto, they’re already in bed with them.

  21. Hamish100 says:

    I see in the National, McKenna for the 2nd time in the week supporting wings over Scotland and the guy from Bath.

    Does McKenna actually think Campbell will get us Independence?
    If so, he is more delusional than I thought.
    From his recent postings in the herald and other papers McKenna is more interested in attacking the snp, independence supporters and cosying up to Starmers labour. Yes the undemocratic, pro Brexit, kiss a Tory Labour Party.

    • Capella says:

      He might think he can help get rid of Nicola Sturgeon which seems to be the goal of many fellow travellers. I noted Roddy Dunlop KC offered to represent Campbell no-win-no-fee in his effort to be reinstated to Twitter again. Dunlop said he might move to England to benefit from Kwasi Kwarteng’s tax cuts. Illustrates the political acumen of people who are too clever by half.

      Roddy Dunlop KC, who holds the position of Dean of the Faculty of Advocates made the comments responding to a tweet which criticised the Scottish Government after the First Minister hinted that it was unlikely to match income tax cuts to the highest earners elsewhere in the UK.

      Mr Dunlop said: “I’ve lived in Scotland all my days. I love this place. I do not want to leave. But if there is this level of tax difference, I’d have to consider it. Northumberland is nice, apparently.”

      • Golfnut says:

        Obviously not very far travelled if he’s only heard Northumberland is nice.

        • Capella says:

          He knows his way around the legal system though. He replaced Gordon Jackson QC as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates after someone secretly recorded GJ on a train discussing his case, client Alex Salmond. He also represented Craig Murray on his Contempt of Court case. He seems to be currently undermining, by twitter, the Scottish Government’s intervention to the Supreme Court. We’ll find out soon enough what the outcome is. Oh and he called to the bar of England and Wales in 2019 so sunnier uplands may well await him.

    • Aye, Sturgeon has Ellon Musk in on the anti-Salmond secret unionist conspiracy now if McKenna is to be believed! 😉

  22. davetewart says:

    Heard a phone in to lbc, an englander comment on the ‘budget’.

    He was happy that the ‘living’ wage had been incresed by 9.8% as he was on minimum wages and a tory voter.

    So, you may well have met a new labour voter.

  23. Dr Jim says:

    I don’t believe for one second the SNP is trying to *silence* Stuart Campbell, to use the words of troublemaking wee Labourite Kevin McKenna
    Why would they? the guy’s an asset in his open deranged hostility, exactly as Trump or Steve Bannon is an asset to everyone who believes the opposite from them

    The more a lunatic rages the less anyone pays serious attention to it
    Campbell’s been trying for a few years now in his personal attacks on the FM and the threats of setting up a revenge party to dislodge her
    Well they did it, it’s called Alba, and it’s failed, and failed because didn’t these folk realise when Nigel Farage was popular in England Scotland just wasn’t that stupid and spotted what he and his lot were up to pretty damn quick

    If Kevin McKenna thinks a foul mouthed sweary wee man from England banned from social media for personal hate speech is going to lead some sort of charge for, well what exactly? the removal of the FM and her party from Scotland seems to be the goal doesn’t it? well I hate to state the bleeding obvious but the only people they must hope to convince of that goal are the half the country that votes for her

    Let them rant and rave then if you’re interested ask them what their solution is,
    and the answer sounds familiarly like the Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnon Liz Truss answer, burn down to make Scotland great again, Aye right!

    Didn’t we already establish Scotland doesn’t like these guys?

  24. I’d kiss a Blue Red or Yellow Tory…goodbye… forever.
    Il bacio della morte. the Mafia kiss of death.

    Think Michael Corleone as he kisses his brother Fredo before he goes out on a fatal fishing trip on the lake with one of the Godfather’s enforcers who ‘paints houses’.

    Think Judas Iscariot kissing Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane as he fingers the Jewish separatist for the Roman soldiers come to arrest the rabble rouser.
    Think Matt Hancock with his tongue tickling the tonsils of his mistress while he ordered the plebs to keep two meters distance, stay at home, and sing god save the Brengilsh queen every time they washed their hands.

    In out teens, we would often carry a packet of spearmint chewing gum to local dances, more in hope than anticipation. The innocent kiss of youth.
    This, a couple of stanzas from KISS’ ‘Creatures of the Night’.

    ‘Breathing in the madness
    Spitting out the lies
    Searching for an answer
    Keep your alibis

    Don’t know where we’re goin’
    Just know where we’ve been
    Remember when the clock strikes twelve
    The losers always win.’
    We are no longer ‘breathing in the madness’.

  25. Eilidh says:

    Once again the National allows unionist journalist Kevin McKenna to write articles in the paper Why!!. I think it is time the editor explained that,because I seriously object to my subscription money paying him for these articles. Kevin is a journalistic schill who will take money from any newspaper and write what they want him to. it really doesnt matter what sort of politics that newspaper supports. If Vladimir Putin offered him a contract I believe he would write articles for the Kremin newspaper too. His current obsession about the Snp , Pete Wishart in particular and that pathetic obnoxious excuse for a human being Stu Campbell and poor Stu being so badly treated is beyond the pale. As I have pointed out before Stu Campbell lives in England and what he thinks about Indy is irrelevant as he didn’t get a vote in 2014 referendum and won’t get one in the nexy Indy Ref. 99% electorate have never heard of Stu Campbell People have a right to report stuff that Campbell writes on Twitter that they feel is abusive or breaks Twitter rules including those who work for or are in the Snp. There is absolutely no evidence that those people caused the Wings Twitter account to be suspended again or they over reported the account so Kevin is just making things up. Roddy Dunlop is offering to defend Campbell apparently well it takes one right wing moron to defend another one. Elon the idiot Musk has just allowed Donald Trump back on Twitter so I am sure Wings will be back on soon to issue more vitriolic misogynist abuse. One thing is for sure if Stu Campbell had said some of the abusive things he has written on his blog or on Twitter face to face in one or two Glasgow pubs I used to frequent he likely would not have got out in the one piece. I don’t think the pretendy Rev or McKenna will ever be beneficial to the Indy cause. I am also beginning to worry if Kevin has a slippers fetish

    • Hamish100 says:


      Wholeheartedly agree with your analysis.

      McKenna will get his award with a wee knighthood in due course. LibDem/ Tory/ labour are one in the same.

      It would be good for ALBA to distance themselves from the vitriol but I don’t think we should hold our breath.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      I hate to say this, but I think Wings being back is funny, and my gut tells me that it’s good for Independence. Maybe it’s because irritants have their place to play in creating pearls.

      • I tend to agree. He’s not influential. Even the visitor stats he quotes are lies; he uses total visits rather than unique visitors as SGP has recently discussed.

        As I noted on the National article comments, he threw the kitchen sink at Sturgeon / the SNP in his attempts to harm them ahead of May 2021, yet they got a record share of the vote (constituency). Maybe we can thank him for that!

        His downfall was when he started to become his supposed enemy, and began lying through his teeth. I used to follow the blog in the early days and was a regular BTL commenter, but in time the mask slipped and when I questioned this, I got quickly banned and called an a**hole by him.

        ‘the polls have not changed under sturgeon’ (as per past WoS blogs) is for example a massive porkie and he knows it.

        Crème de la crème SSAS three way:

        Y/N (to date, including the IPSOS poll recently out which had a more pro-union non-standard question, but still gave a strong 54% Yes):

        To try to convince people nothing has changed here since 2014 (when Sturgeon became FM) is not the actions of an indy supporter. Only unionists push this line, cherry picking polls to suit. TBH, if anything, the data suggest nothing changed under, erm, Salmond 2007-2014, within variance.

        But of course the changes are not due to either Sturgeon nor Salmond, but many other fundamental underlying factors largely outwith their control. What Sturgeon, like her predecessor and mentor have done, is be decent FMs and, along with SNP/Green colleagues, show we are better at governing ourselves than any British/English government in the country next door ever can be.

    • Roddy Dunlop, like Stuart Campbell, seems to prefer English Tory governance to that of pro-indy parties.

      Top Scots lawyer ‘would consider move to England’ for lower taxes

      One of Scotland’s top lawyers has said he would consider moving to England due to tax cuts proposed in the chancellor’s mini-budget.

    • Capella says:

      I suspect they publish Kevin McKenna articles because he is a good writer with a sharp turn of phrase. His article on the highjacking of Remembrance Day by belligerent Britishness was spot on IMO. He is highly sceptical of Labour and Keir Starmer in particular, as in this article:

      SNP will have to think long and hard about how they deal with Sunak

      All that latterly separated Sir Keir from the UK Tory leadership was that he began appearing with two Union Jacks at his back rather than the mere single ensign the Tories began deploying as their television props.

      He waited for the weekly malfeasances and inchoate splutterings of Johnson and Truss, and then stood there in his bland suit and with his funereal demeanour looking disappointed. He was the bank manager who expresses empathy when you tell him you’ve been made redundant but nonetheless insists on repossessing your home.

      You find yourself barely managing to suppress a chuckle when Labour supporters get all sanctimonious about the new Prime Minister’s reputed £750 million family fortune. He’s so removed from the day-to-day reality of people’s lives, they say.

      Listen up, you roasters: It’s the bloody Tories we’re talking about. Do they think there are High Tories out there jouking about in hi-vis jackets and working for the council as health and safety officials?

      Of course, Sir Keir, the People’s Millionaire is reputedly worth a much more morally circumspect and humble £8m or so. Which I suppose really does make him “one of us” compared to Sunak.

      I agree he believes the SNP leadership lack diligence in delivering independence. He seems to belong to the “Nicola ate my hamster” club. It has a few members I won’t mention here. But nobody is ALL bad – not even Stu Campbell. I used to enjoy reading his articles too until he went completely tonto.

  26. Dr Jim says:

    British media have cried wolf so often now nobody believes them when it’s the truth

    The great British media has completely shot itself in both feet and barely has the stumps left in the world of journalism now, because of their past performance of lying and promoting British propaganda it’s not only here in these islands where folk don’t believe a word they say or write, even the people of Russia are refusing to talk to them and prefer instead to go along with the lies they already know are lies from Vladimir Putin

    I suppose those folk feel it’s better to stay out of trouble and believe their own domestic lies than foreign British anything

  27. Ken says:

    Underthe terms oftheTreaty of Union. Scotland was granted a separate legal system forever.Scottish Law is based on Roman Law. English Law is based on Latin Law. Under Scottish Law
    the people are sovereign. Under
    English Law the people are subjects of the Crown.

    Scotland wasguarnteed aseparate Protestant Church. A shared Protestant monarch. Scotland has a differentEducation system asked on former Church education. Scotland was one of the first countries to have tertiary education. Up to 14.

  28. Ken says:

    A Scottish qualified lawyer has to get English legal qualifications to practise in England

    • daveytee19 says:

      Yes, and an English qualified lawyer has to get Scottish qualifications to practise in Scotland, as is right and proper. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. As for your previous posting, what’s the difference between Roman Law and Latin law, assuming that the latter even exists? In fact, the English system is based on common law, which has also seeped into Scots law over the last few centuries so that Scots law is now a hybrid system (and frankly not a very good one).

      • Golfnut says:

        “which has also seeped into Scots law over the last few centuries so that Scots law is now a hybrid system (and frankly not a very good one). ”
        When you say seeped, it would perhaps be more accurate to use the word imposed starting with the imposition of English Treason laws. As to your opinion as to the worth now of Scots law, if it’s bad, where does the fault lie for its now perceived failures.
        I on occasion scroll back up a thread to see if there had been further discussion on commentary I had been party to, yours were of interest.
        Lord Cooper’s observation on Parliamentary Sovereignty deserves better than a casual dismissal as nothing more than an opinion and of no legal standing. It certainly grabbed Lord Russell’s attention.
        Parliamentary Sovereignty or otherwise had no bearing on the issue and was always going to be judged correctly as the monarch’s prerogative to choose how they will be styled.
        That some saw fit to introduce it during the proceedings seems strange to me, it could never be part of the judgement but it was an issue that could not now be ignored.
        Rather than the usual commentary which accompanies Lord Cooper’s opinion, there are 3 points salient to any discussion.
        1) That the Scots Parliament was never a sovereign parliament, it did not represent the people, it was de facto the monarchs parliament.The
        The Convention of the Estates was a much more powerful body and was much more representative of the people.
        2) That Scots Constitutional law does not recognise the principal of parliamentary sovereignty, however sacrosanct the convention is to the English, it is worth remembering that the union Parliament is constrained in law by both the Scots and English constitutions.
        3) If Scots law does not recognise parliamentary sovereignty, but instead the people of Scotland create a second house which can overturn parliaments decisions, refuse approval for the monarchs taxes, overturn judgements by Scotland’s Supreme court, make legal armed rebellion, sack the monarch, make the Claim of Right a condition of the Treaty of Union, just where do you think sovereignty lies if Scotland’s constitutional principals make both the monarch and parliament subordinate to the people now empowered by the extention of the voting franchise.

        • daveytee19 says:

          Thanks for your reply.

          I should perhaps have said that Scots law is derived not only from Roman and common law, but also from statute, as is English law. The Treason Acts of 1708 were statute and applied to the whole UK, as have numerous statutes since. I think it fair to say that they modernised the Scots law of treason which until then comprised “”theft in landed men, murder under trust, wilful fire-raising, firing coalheughs, and assassination”. While applying English treaon laws to Scotland, the new act nevertheless took account of Scotland by making it a new treason offence to counterfeit the Great Seal of Scotland and to slay the Lords of Session. (The term “common law”, incidentally, refers to law which does not come from statutes but instead is based on custom and principles, institutional writings and judicial precedent).

          AS you say, Lord Cooper’s remarks had no bearing on the case so were not tested by judgment. Lord Russell’s remarks were a contradiction, but the same applies. As for the Scottish Parliament, it always represented the interests of the monarch, the aristocracy and the landed gentry, not to mentiuon the Kirk, but seldom if ever “the people”. The Convention of Estates was not, however, a more powerful body; historically it was called by the king to raise taxes, but for no other purpose – it could not legislate. The Convention of 1689 was called by the Privy Council to settle the succession but because its authority to do that was in doubt it was subsequently turned into a Parliament which had the necessary powers. Curiously, and often ignored, the 1689 Convention was very keen on Union with England!

          I don’t accept that Scots constitutional law does not accept the sovereignty of parliament – throughout the pre-union history of Scotland Parliament’s sovereignty was constrained only by the monarch and even then there were times when parliament asserted its authority. So the monarch might have been sovereign, or Parliament might have been sovereign, but I can think of no instance when “the people” were sovereign, or how they might express that sovereignty. As I said earlier, in passing the Act of Union in 1707 clearly against the will of the people, the Scots parliament showed beyond any doubt that it and not the people were sovereign.

          If you’re suggesting that “the people” created the second house, by which I assume you mean the convention, it was in fact established by the nobility and the clergy, presumably out of self interest, and even then it was subordinate to Parliament. I do hope, incidentally, that we don’t (and won’t) have an executive that feels it can overturn judgments made by the land’s highest court! But there again I believe in the rule of law. But in placing so much faith in the Claim of Right you seem to ignore the grossly bigoted anti-Catholic rants it included and the provisions removing virtually all rights from Catholics. Applying your logic, you also presumably believe that post union Catrholic emancipation laws passed by the Westmister Parliament were also imposed, presumably illegally, on Scotland?

          • Golfnut says:

            I’m guessing that you got most of that from wiki, which is never a good place to try and garner information regarding Scottish History. You do appear to be mixing my comment with someone else’s which makes your response a bit eratic as well as wrong. I’m glad you understand the difference between statute and common law, Dicey, when challenged on the origins of parliamentary sovereignty, replied that it was English common law. It’s a good story, not Dicey of course but how and when it first surfaced, worth the effort, not wiki of course.

            • daveytee19 says:

              No, most of my information comes from academic sources and knowledge I currently have. I’m not at all sure where you get your information from – Salvo perhaps? Nor am I mixing your comments with someone else’s – all my reply related to your posting, albeit some was no doubt expanded a bit. You assert that my posting was both erratic and wrong, but, as is usually the case with someone who has no real case to make, you don’t say why or how.

              • Golfnut says:

                No, you were quite off piste, more care needed and less rush. As for academic sources and knowledge, well that’s a matter of opinion.
                Your response to SS is classic 2014.

                • daveytee19 says:

                  You’re an amusing chap, Golfnut, but that doesn’t hide the fact that you can’t substantiate your claims. I fear that the problem is that you can’t, but do at least make an effort.

                  • Golfnut says:

                    I’m glad your enjoying the banter.
                    So you maintain that Scotland’s ancient parliament was sovereign despite Lord Cooper’s assertion that Scots Constitutional law has no equivalent. You dispute his veracity where Lord Russell didnt?
                    I made no Claims regards the Claim of Right other than its origin and I think you’ll find should you care to read the full text it deals with much more than just religious bigotry. I suggest you read the much vaunted ‘ Bill of Rights ‘ the similarity in text is striking.
                    As for the power the Convention of the Estates and it’s predecessors wielded in relation to the Scottish Parliament that is undeniable, though correctly you identify the founders which included those entitled to attend Parliament, the convention members came from Burgh’s, merchants and freeholders, as well as the Nobles and Kirk.
                    They sacked a King, how powerful is that.

                    • daveytee19 says:

                      Interesting chat (and I am enjoying the banter) but I can’t continue as I’m about to go off the edge of the page.

          • In the end, Scotland only has one parliament / one government, and it ultimately derives its democratic ‘sovereign’ power from the Scottish electorate. We give it permission to make laws for us.

            Unionists like to talk about Scotland having ‘two governments’, but that’s just sh**e, it only has one government, with Nicola Sturgeon the most senior politician in our country. Nobody outranks her in Scotland.

            The UK government isn’t Scotland’s government and Sunak is not Scotland’s PM. Scotland has just one government in the same way France has, even if these are both in political / economic unions. Sunak may outrank Sturgeon ‘UK wide’, but in Scotland she outranks him democratically.

            The UK government does make laws which apply in Scotland, but it isn’t our government; the clue’s in the name. It can continue to do so as long as we give it permission for this. If we withdraw this, e.g. by referendum or election plebiscite, the UK government would cease to have any democratic mandate for governance of Scotland. It would need to accept this or become an occupying power ruling Scotland by force; something which it has a zero past success rate on.

            Aye, as the history of so many former colonies (of Britain and other empires) are testament to, the union cannot be saved by the courts, nor the baton, nor even the gun, only by the ballot box, which is what unionists best focus on if they wish to save it. However, they seem otherwise distracted, so each day draws independence closer.

            The UKSC court case is effectively meaningless, being merely political. It does not decide our country’s fate, even thought it might yet have a hand in directing that.

            • daveytee19 says:

              Rather wishful thinking. Whether we like it or not, Scotland is part of the UK. The supreme legislative body in the UK is the Westminster parliament. It makes laws for the whole UK, including in many cases for Scotland. While there are devolved legislative bodies, Westminster only allows them limited powers. Important powers it keeps for itself.

              Parliament is defined as the supreme legislative body of a major political unit. Scotland is a major political unit, but its “parliament” isn’t the supreme legislative body. Realistically its little more than a regional council which can only do what the Westminster parliament allows it to do. Whatever it may call itself it’s not really a parliament at all – it’s just a glorified cooncil.

              As you say, the UKSC case is not that important. If it decides anything it will merely be whether the Scottish “parliament” has the power to hold a referendum on independence. It has not been asked to rule on whether Scotland has the right of self-determination. What we have to do is to find a way of exercising that right although first we have to convince the Scottish people of the merits of independence. As things stand we are still some way short of doing that.

              • ‘it’s just a glorified council’.

                Careful now, folk might think your mask is slipping. 😉

                Those who are doing the wishful thinking are those that believe indy can be stopped at the stroke of a legislator or judge’s pen. This shows an extreme level of naivety consistent with a total lack of statesmanship, hence an inability to run a country, hence where we are with brexit.

                Scots have a multitude of options to express their desire for independence at the ballot box and if they choose to do so, it can’t be ignored. Which is why dictators stop people voting or rig elections, because while it would so much easier to just let people get on with it, ignore the result and go for beer, that just doesn’t work. It fails every time.

                A Scottish parliament election – which can be triggered at any time by the Scottish government – can be used to by Scots to vote for independence, so leading to the end of the UK democratically. That’s pretty powerful for a ‘toon cooncil’. But that’s because, as the article I posted the other day noted, the one power not mentioned in the Scotland act is this; it gives the people of Scotland a means to say what government they want, including an independent one. If they say that, it’s not possible to ignore. That’s wishful thinking.

                • daveytee19 says:

                  For the last eight years Scots have been expressing their desire for independence through the ballot box and it’s been ignored. Contrary to what you say, that’s worked every time and our pretendy parliament has been unable or unwilling to do anything about it. But let’s just say that at the next opportunity, whether referendum or plebiscite election, the people of Scotland vote for independence, but once again the UK government ignores them, what does Scotland do then? Realistic answers only please.

                    • daveytee19 says:

                      Good for you, Jack, lead on. I’ve just been listening to Rod Stewart’s version of “Grace” and am reminded yet again just how brave these men were who were prepared to lay down their lives for a freedom that was by no means assured. I don’t think we have that same mindset in Scotland.

                  • For the last eight years Scots have been expressing their desire for independence through the ballot box and it’s been ignored.

                    Sorry, but that’s either a porkie, or you don’t know what you are talking about. Are you sure you aren’t wearing one of those masks from Bath that keep slipping?

                    At the very earliest, indy has become the settled will of a (narrow) majority since around 2019/20 when covid struck, but only in restrospect can we be increasingly confident.

                    The creme de la creme of academic surveys SSAS:

                    And every Y/N poll there’s been:

                    Personally, while some want a referendum or plebiscite election, I’m interested in indy being the settled will. No brexit regrets which just lead to disaster. No whims on the side of buses that could be undone at the next vote…

                    Excellent progress has been made since 2014. Baseline ‘lost to the union’ Yes is now 50%+ and finally the time us upon us. It was just the preferred option of 33% when Sturgeon took the helm, now it’s 51-52% including don’t minds / don’t knows. That’s nearly a 20% rise.

                    • daveytee19 says:

                      Excellent progress…. Well, let’s see. Sturgeon took over in November 2014 and there was an immediate increase in indy supprt to 48%. However Yes soon fell behind No again save for a brief period in June 2016, and thereafter Yes was consistently behind No, stagnating in the early to mid 40%s, until covid when support went up again, largely I think because of Sturgeon’s performances during the pandemic. However, it then went back to the mid 40s and Yes has only been ahead one more time, in October this year, at 50%. So basically minimal change in the polling since Sturgeon took over in spite of all that has happened since 2014. I don’t call that excellent progress.

  29. One for W_S.

    ‘Still here’: a Welsh World Cup odyssey sets seal on emotional awakening’

    …Wales’s official World Cup video carries a harder edge. Yma o Hyd is played throughout footage which splices together iconic Welsh football moments with archive film of Iwan and other activists being arrested in the 70s.

    I have to say I’ve added the Welsh FA’s version of Yma o Hyd to one of my celtic playlists. So emotional and rousing; thanks W_S. And Michael Sheen is some guy. Wow. I’m Welsh for this World Cup.

    It’s nuts that people were still being arrested and jailed for protesting in support of civil rights for Scots/Welsh/Irish people so very recently. The return of this – i.e. the UKSC court case – is worrying. I do hope sense prevails.

    • Welsh_Siôn says:

      Thank you.

      Maybe because the journo is a Scot that this article – so unlike many Guardian pieces otherwise – is a bit more pro-Cymru and pro-Cymraeg than usual.

      Otherwise, there’s a warm welcome to all Duggers and lurkers to join the Red Wall for the duration!

      • Yes, I thought the article was good. I was quite taken aback when I read Iwan and others had been arrested for their Welsh Language activism back in the 70’s. How the tables have turned now his words are leading Wales to Qatar!

        • Welsh_Siôn says:

          Things have moved on in some respect – the language is now de jure official in Cymru since 2011, but there are still plenty to do in order to maintain it. (We await the results of the 2021 Census with much interest and whether Government policy of 1 million speakers by 2050 can be achieved. And don’t forget, there are still campaigners and others who have to fight four language rights and go to jail or fined for doing so.)

  30. Hamish100 says:

    Is McKenna giving up his time to speak at one of the Independence rallies or will he turn up to report for the unionists?
    I think we should know so we can avoid him!!

  31. yesindyref2 says:

    To all SNP MSPs and SNP Councillors:

    Be at one of the 11 or more rallies on Wednesday or totally lose my respect (previous important appointments acceptable – but make your excuses public in advance).

    To all SNP MPs:

    Organise your own rally outside the UKSC on Wednesday or totally lose my respect.

    To the First Minister of Scotland:

    Be at the Holyrood rally on Wednesday and talk, not about how great the SNP are blah blah blah, nor “We’ve never been nearer to Independence”, but thanking all those that come to that and other rallies (I’ll be in Glasgow) and with further plans whatever the decision is. Or totally lose my respect.

    Wha daur meddle wi’ me

  32. Hamish100 says:

    I assume Greens, ALBA, Labour pro Indy( will they put their head above the parapet?) will be there?

    I suspect we may be told that we can have a referendum but when and the time is a political decision —- for the U.K. I hope I am wrong.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Yes, it’s up to Green and Alba voters to tell them what to do – I’ve never voted for them so can’t pressurise.

  33. Capella says:

    Be there or be square is the message.

    SNP ask members to be ‘brave and visible’ on Supreme Court verdict day

    THE SNP are calling on their members to “take to the streets” to join rallies across Scotland on November 23, no matter the outcome to say, “Scotland is ready and we’re here to kickstart our campaign”.

    In a historic move for the party, senior party figures are urging members to channel their emotions “through mass mobilisation” and say now is the time to “be bold and be visible” to the world.

    Thirteen rallies have now been organised across Scotland. They will follow the announcement of the Supreme Court decision on whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a referendum on independence without Westminster’s consent.

    Toni Giugliano, the SNP’s policy development convenor, urged both representatives and members to attend the rallies in large numbers and make the day as noteworthy as possible in the eyes of the international media.

    • yesindyref2 says:


      And I think the representatives that are there should take selfies and put them on their twitters to prove it.

  34. Capella says:

    Our friends in Europe intend to demonstrae support.

    Support rallies in Europe to react to Supreme Court indyref2 verdict

    EUROPE will stand in solidarity with Scotland in the face of the Supreme Court verdict, by holding support demonstrations in five European cities.

    Europe for Scotland, a pan-European civil society initiative, said that local organisers are working on the events presently and “expect a dozen people in each location and hope for more”.

    At each demonstration, a statement of solidarity with the Scottish people in support of the right of self-determination will be read out in each place in a different European language.

    READ MORE: Our Judgment Day rally guide

    Support demonstrations have been organised for Wednesday 23, in Brussels, Paris, Rome, Berlin, and Munich.

    Oxford will also host a demonstration.

    Supporters will be in Brussels near the European Parliament, in Berlin under the Brandenburg Gate, in Rome in front of the Colosseum, in Paris at The Auld Alliance and in Munich in the central Marienplatz.

  35. Eilidh says:

    Just read this scummy article on the BBC news app. I wonder who leaked Draft NHS minutes to the BBC. Hmmn
    BBC News – NHS chiefs in Scotland discuss having wealthy pay for treatment

    Here is Cabinet Secretary for Healh Hamza Yousef response in the National response

    BBC propaganda again. They should be working for Putin

    • It’s what happens when a foreign country controls your media. BBC is not the national broadcaster of Scottish people, but of British/English people, hence the name.

      The BBC is to Scots as Russia Today is to Ukrainians.

      Scots, Welsh and Irish N. Irish have no respective national broadcasters within the UK.

    • jfngw says:

      If you were cynical you could think it was collusion between the Tories and the BBC, I of course would never think that.

  36. Bob Lamont says:

    The article itself appeared after midnight simultaneously on UK, Scotland, and Scotland/Politics pages, it could only have been purposely delayed to overnight release, and HMS James Cook have been promoting it on every bulletin since first thing.

    Quite how they got their hands on DRAFT minutes is not really as important than the timing.
    With the SC decision expected wednesday and increasing support for rallies in all sorts of places, there you have the answer – DISTRACTION.

    We saw the same on the Perth demo, step forward one James Cook to personally divert the the real news of Tory embarrassment….

    • Dr Jim says:

      BBC Scotland reporting toilet door scratchings as facts next
      What was funny though was when the big England BBC news had Scotland’s political editor (their title) James Cook on to take us through all this breaking rumour mongering news they announced his name at the end as James Shaw

      They didn’t even know who he was, such is the importance of BBC Jockland to their big southern masters

    • Eilidh says:

      I agree re the timing of this so called news item. It is still showing up on the bottom of the screen banner on BBC News Channel no mention that Hamza Yousef has refuted it. BBC = Ministry of Disinformation

    • Capella says:

      More fodder for Dross ‘n Sarwar, the comedy duo, at FMQs? It may be a draft minute but it reads more like a semi literate note taken by some junior admin person. Where is the agreed minute?

      As you say, a distraction from the SC decision and accompanying rallies.

  37. I am done with the phoney war; the Them and Us.
    There are give or take 5.4 million Scots citizens.
    In 1922 there were 4,898,000 of us.
    So in 100 years our population has increased by a mere 500,000.

    The population of England in 1922 was 37,932,300, in 2022 55,977,178.
    England’s population has increased by just short of 18 million in the same 100 years.

    Our Celtic cousin Wales’ population in 1922 is recorded as 2,656,000.
    In 1922 is ‘estimated’ at 3,100,000. (They’re lumped together with England’s population stats these days.)
    Ergo Wales’ population has increased by an ‘estimated’ 440,000 in a hundred years.

    Norn Irn? Population: 1,903,175 (2021 census)
    Population 1,260,000 around about the time of Partition, 1921/22.

    It may be argued that doesn’t take a Prof Sir Curtice to draw conclusions from these stats.
    England grows, the rest of us stagnate.
    I’ll leave it to the stats anoraks to work out the percentage growth of England compared with its three colonies.

    As a Scot, I feel entitled to make observations with regard to the population stagnation in my wee country.
    Norn Irn and Cymru can speak for themselves…WS and s_s.

    In 19th and 20th Century 1/5 of the world’s ships were built on the Clyde.
    Now, not so much.

    Nothing was done to replace this by English Governments from the 1960’s onwards.
    Mining, sewing machines, car manufacturing…gone, but not replaced with new industries.
    They were too busy sucking the oil and gas out of their Northern Colony.

    After WWI, nearly a million Scots returning from the conflict were refused land to eke out a meagre living but were transported to the colonies, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, to boost their white populations.
    There’s a BBC documentary on this mass deportation somewhere in the archives, if it did not perish in the Great Tea Trolley Disaster of 2014.

    Lord knows, we have had immigration, of sorts.

    An estimated 350,000 English born have had the good sense to move North to God’s Little Acre, for a variety of reasons..the oil and gas Klondyke, retiring to the Highlands, financially secure on the back of bloated equity from selling their million pound 2-bedroom semis in the SE of England, and those Up Here on tours of duty in the Brit army navy and air force, or whatever.

    The upshot is that Scotland’s population has been allowed to stagnate, it may be argued, by design, deliberately, by England’s Oligarchy.

    18% of our landmass (which is roughly the same as England’s) has been laid waste as grouse moor, killing fields, for a few thousand of the Filthy Rich to slaughter animals for sadistic pleasure.

    We have stood by powerless as a few hundred wealthy folk were allowed to ‘own’ 4/5ths of Scotland.

    The Bloody Barons who sold our land for a pocket full of silver, and a State Religion who colluded in the Great Scottish Sell Off, still dominate our lives…

    We were taken out of our continent Europe without our consent..and Glen Campbell and Colin McKay still talk of England as ‘the country’.

    I have had enough.

    If I am the ‘Them’ to the Glasgow Herald’s ‘Us’, with their regional newspaper status of less than 15,000 readers, then they draw their authority from a ‘foreign’ country, England, not from me, for I am millions.

    John Lamont made an absolute fool of himself on Geissler’s Sunday Show yesterday.
    Geissler had no option but to play Lamont’s earlier I’m Backing Kwasi video clip.

    The Jock Blue Tories very own Hiram Holliday (oh, look it up, younger Duggers.) John Lamont came across as a blithering idiot, without any help from Geissler.

    Of course, now that the writing is on the wall, the Scotia Nostra and the Jock media are backing the Red Tories, New Labour reborn, now the Great White Hope to keep us rebellious Scots, the ‘Them’, in the Scotia Nostra’s eyes, in our colonial cage.

    Stephen Barclay was on Kuennsberg’s Sunday bubble.

    Some may recall that I invited Duggers to play ‘Autumn Statement’ Bingo last Thursday.

    You would have had a Full House following Barclay’s wee cosy chat with Laura K.

    ‘Efficiencies’, ‘savings’, reforms, streamline management, Ukraine, the pandemic, …Thatcher’s Greatest Hits.

    The Blue Tories know that they are out on their ears come the next UKGE.
    They can say and do what they like now.

    Let Wednesday be our Bastille Day; our Storming of the Winter Palace; our Boston Tea Party.

    I am done being nice to greedy wee carpetbaggers like Dross and the Lone Gunman Murray.
    We take our freedom..not ask permission of anyone.
    Independence NOW, then watch our country, at long last, grow and flourish.

    • Dr Jim says:

      It doesn’t do at all to allow the colonies and territories you own to grow more prosperous and powerful by increasing their populations, they could end up outvoting you or fighting back by Jove, or even worse just willy nilly making their own decisions without permission like real countries, we had enough of that sort of thing with those damn Indians and Pakistanis, not to mention the uppity Americans who all turned on us

      These damn colonials never have any gratitude for what Imperial England has done to them, eh, I mean for them, yes, for them!

  38. davetewart says:

    The ebc admit to having a training course , on-line, for dis information.

    • Dr Jim says:

      BBC Scotland’s Toodle OO the Noo Bryan Taylor used to run a course on *how to GET the SNP* there was even a partial video sneaked out of Pathetic Quay showing him doing it

      Bryan was pictured with a pointer and whiteboard tutoring *how to* phrases to use as a guide for all BBC up and coming Lois Lanes and Jimmy Olsons on how to *get them*

      • ‘Get them’? That’s ‘Us’, isn’t it?
        The NHS nonsense piece has been snuffed out by the Front Page Headlines that the Gers have sacked GVB!

        That’s the whole week’s Dead Tree Scrolls and Distorting Scotland taken up by the spluttering rage of the Blue Knuckledraggers and the guffaws from the Green Knuckledraggers?
        They’ll appoint a new sensation by Wednesday, so that there’ll be no space left to give an account of the SC decision and continent wide Independence rallies on Thursday then?
        Who leaked the ‘draft minutes’?

  39. Ken says:

    In Scotland the King, nobles, Kirk andpeople were equal. The Declaration of Arbroath. Many Democracies are based on the principles. The Enlightenment 1750. French Revolution + USA Independence. Founding fathers principle.

    English and Scottish Law are separate.and different. Guaranteed forever under the terms of the Settlement. It is agreed that the Settlement of Union can be changed by agreement of representatives of ea h nation. Scotland was also guaranteed to be treated equally.

    The Westminster Gov has not treated Scotland equally. Secretly and illegally taken Scotland’s assets and revenues. Kept it secret under the Official Secrets Act. Thatcher. Iraq, Dunblane and Lockerbie kept secret for 100 years. Scotland has been paying for Westminster illegal actions. breaking International Law.

  40. UndeadShaun says:

    NHS leak is a tory kite flying exercise, or whatever scotland in union call themsells noo.

    As for source, all NHS boards have local councilors as board members, this includes from party in power and opposition.

    So look nae further than a tory councilor for the source.

    Everyone and their dog knows the NHS is underfunded and wastemonster chancellor *unt has announced an increase that is in reality a decrease in funding.

    Plenty non doms or oil and gas companies that could be used for funding. Along with a one off windfall tax on rich with more than 1 million in bank/shares/offshore funds.

    But thats not the tory way!

    Only with independence can we fully fund the NHS. (And get staff from the EU to fill vacancies like we did pre 2016.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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