The Pyrrhic victory

Wednesday was a very big day for the Scottish independence campaign. Scotland is imprisoned in a failed democracy that refuses to accept the outcome of Scottish elections that are not to the liking of the Anglo-British nationalist parties. We now find ourselves in a so-called voluntary union which is indeed voluntary, but it is only voluntary for England. It is certainly not voluntary for Scotland. The other nations of this so-called union effectively require the permission of England, or more precisely MPs who are predominantly elected to represent English constituencies, if they wish to ask their people about whether or not they wish to remain a part of the UK. However should England ever wish to leave the United Kingdom, it requires no one’s permission but its own. A union in which only one member has the unilateral right to leave, but can trap all the other members for as long as it sees fit is not a union at all.

The right to an independence referendum is like the right to divorce: you don’t have to want to leave your spouse to accept it as a right. In the 2021 Holyrood election The Scottish electorate voted for parties which back a referendum: denying Scotland that that right now is an attack on democracy itself. On Wednesday evening Douglas Ross and Alister Jack were falling over themselves to rewrite history and to claim that the 2021 Holyrood elections were not really about another independence referendum at all.

This is not a union. Legally in the eyes of the British state the UK is composed of England and its dependencies. We know that definitively now, and logically it follows that those parties which oppose Scottish independence are not unionist parties, they are parties which are determined to keep Scotland subjected to the decisions of the electorate in England and dependent upon the electoral choices of England in order for Scotland to be granted permission to ask itself about the nature of its relationship with the other nations of the UK. That is not unionism. It is certainly not the unionism that has always been presented to Scotland by the anti-independence parties. It is Anglo-British nationalism, pure and simple.

In some ways it’s a good thing that we now have clarity about the reality of Scotland’s position, even if that clarity is a product of an answer that was unwelcome. For the wider independence movement is is a positive development that we can now focus on the real issues of independence and on developing arguments to persuade undecided voters and soft no voters to support independence instead of devoting most of our energies to interminable and often bad tempered debates about process, debates which do little or nothing to convert those vital soft Noes and undecideds to Yes.

We have clarity now about process. There will be no more wasting time on futile attempts to beg Westminster for a Section 30 order which will never be forthcoming as long as the parties of Anglo-British nationalism fear that there is an outside chance that Scotland might vote Yes. We are now looking at the next election in Scotland becoming a de facto independence referendum. There will be a special conference of the SNP early in the New Year – just a few weeks away now – to plan for that historic election. It is early days but it is heartening that a poll for Channel Four News on Wednesday found that 50% of Scottish voters would vote SNP at the next general election if it could lead to Scotland leaving the UK and 51% if it led to negotiations on independence with Westminster.

There are challenges ahead for the Yes movement, but for those whom we must now call Anglo-British nationalists, what the Supreme Court delivered on Wednesday is a Pyrrhic victory which will prove to be their undoing. They have lost some of the key weapons in their armoury, the claim that the UK is a voluntary union of nations in free and equal partnership, and the ambiguity about the democratic route to another independence referendum. Most importantly of all they have lost the pretence that the democratic decisions of Scotland will be respected within the UK.

The anti-independence parties must now be hounded on the question of just how Scotland can obtain a legal referendum through its own internal democratic processes. They do not have an answer, but that is precisely the point. The questioning serves to illustrate their lies and deceit.

Starmer the Tory not so Lite leader of Labour also refused to spell out the democratic route to another referendum and said on Wednesday: “It is for those who want to break up the United Kingdom to set out how they propose to do so.” Well we did, Starmer, we said that we could do so by achieving a majority in the Scottish Parliament for another referendum, a route that the anti-independence parties agreed on right up until the pro-independence parties achieved it whereupon it was suddenly not good enough.

The Anglo-British nationalists have also lost devolution as a plausible alternative to independence. Devolution has now definitively failed, it cannot guarantee that the people of Scotland will get what they voted for, and it cannot protect Scotland from the unwanted decisions of Westminster governments that Scotland did not vote for. The ‘world’s most powerful devolved parliament’ is toothless and impotent in the face of Westminster intransigence. History will look back on devolution as a stop gap measure introduced by Westminster in a vain attempt to stem the tide of independence. Labour can announce whatever ‘reforms’ it likes, but it cannot prevent them being undone by a future Conservative government.

The ruling told us that the only way in which Scotland can be the equal of the other nations of this archipelago is with independence. The Anglo-British nationalists have not avoided a vote on independence, they have created a vote on independence which they must contest while trying to defend the unequal nature of this so-called union and to defend the subordinate position of Scotland within it. “Scotland we love you, you are an equal partner in a family of nations” is just risible now. the plea made in 2014, “Scotland lead us don’t leave us” is exposed now as a sick joke. Moreover the Anglo-British nationalists will be forced to defend their denial of democracy in a vote which they cannot boycott and which will be far harder for them to gerrymander, undermine, or derail.

We now not only have an independence movement which has put questions of process behind it, it is a movement which is galvanised and energised. It is a movement which counts on the support of half the population and that is just as the starting pistol is fired on the countdown to the vote. Additionally the independence movement is facing an Anglo-British nationalism whose anti-democratic deceit has been exposed and which has nothing to offer Scotland except more lies, bullying, threats, and contempt.

_____________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Donate Button

379 comments on “The Pyrrhic victory

  1. Hamish100 says:

    Well said.

    And the Anglo Brit bbc will support and continue its quest with the Anglo Brits to remove Scotland from the map.
    MSP’s and MP’s must challenge them at every turn.

    Win🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

  2. Naina Tal says:

    Paul : second last paragraph. Redferendum was 2014 not 2024 Typo!

  3. Tony Maries says:

    The struggle for Scottish Independence is looking more and more like the struggle for Irish independence at the beginning of the last century. The Irish nationalists won election after election and even managed to win seats in Liverpool, which had a large Irish diaspora. The Tory government dug in its’ heels and eventually got a drubbing at the polls in 1906. I can’t see a Starmer government at Westminster being any more sympathetic to independence than the Liberal government in the years immediately preceding the First World War. Labour may even get a majority at Westminster without winning a single seat in Scotland and it would be great if at the next election the Tories don’t win any seats in Scotland either.

  4. Capella says:

    Brilliant statement of the new reality. Unionism is dead and devolution is on life support. Time to dismantle the failed apparatus that is preventing us from living in the early days of a better country.

  5. iusedtobeenglish says:

    Some genuine questions – so please don’t banish me…

    Firstly, I think it’s brilliant that 50% would support the SNP without ‘provocation’ 😀 . But I’m thinking about the other party supporters who want independence but don’t necessarily want – perhaps even fear – a SNP government. Those who may have different ideas on how Scotland should be and want to make sure their views are also taken into account. And some people would just “never vote SNP” even if they agreed with independence.
    How are these people to be reached and reassured?

    The SNP/Green emergency conference is a great idea, but could it not be opened up to include all major pro-indy organisations – maybe even including, say, pro-indy labour and libdem? (Risky, I know) It’d help blunt the teeth of the “Nicola Sturgeon’s indy” trope too.

    If the next GE is to be a plebiscite, would it be possible to create a new, cross-party, pro-indy Party? Perhaps making it plain that this will mean that a temporary cross-party ‘founding’ coalition, working together to secure the best independence for all the people of Scotland between then and the first, proper, Scottish election. It would show that, unlike Brexit, all parties would be involved in the re-founding of the Nation and avoid splitting the vote.

    I’m probably being very naive here. I make no pretence to be politically knowledgeable, so there may be many many reasons why it wouldn’t work. If so, what are they – and what do you think would work instead? (Asked with interest, not aggression, btw!)

    • Capella says:

      AFAIK the Electoral Commission, which the Tories now rule directly, will not allow a coalition of parties to stand for election. It would have to be a new separately constituted and funded party.

      • iusedtobeenglish says:

        Thanks for getting back, Capella. I thought there’d be a catch.

        Still, we’d have 2 years to do just that.

      • grizebard says:

        Times move on, but I seem to recall that in the early 1980s, the new SDP and the old Liberals fought one UKGE then as two distinct parties but under one banner as “The Alliance”, simply taking care to divvy up constituencies so that they never competed directly against each other anywhere. It was only after FPTP sunk their chances that they actually formally united as the LibDems (leaving behind rumps of Liberals and Owenite loyalists). And that arrangement has persisted if less formally, vide these recent attempts at explicitly coralling pro-Union votes, for example. So I don’t see any problem with having a multiplicity of co-operating pro-indy parties. Their election expenditures must be treated separately, of course, but where they don’t compete, they don’t waste money and effort either.

        • Capella says:

          Yes that is true. But did they register with the Electoral Commission as one party called The Alliance?
          info on wiki here doesn’t make it entirely clear.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_alliance#United_Kingdom

          Electoral Commission site advises on party registration but I can’t find specific info on an alliance of two or more parties standing at an election. Pretty sure that’s against the rules because it would confuse the voter.
          https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk

          • Welsh_Siôn says:

            You may remember , Capella, at the 1992 GE, that in a constituency in in Pembrokeshire (South West Wales) that the winning candidate, Cynog Dafis, won on a joint Plaid Cymru-Green ticket.

            I’ve always said that this was the first Green MP (or maybe half) to sit at Westminster – not Caroline Lucas.

            I forget the complete details and am deep at work at present, but I’m sure Duggers can google for more info.

          • grizebard says:

            I can’t quote chapter-and-verse, but any party can put up a candidate and include direct or indirect reference to a joint ticket in their electioneering (which can even include out-and-out lies, don’t forget!). The crux where it may get more sticky might be what appears on the ballot paper. But any party gets something like 4 official names for that purpose, which is how eg. “Scottish Labour” gets to use that description. (I once complained to the EC about the use of “Scottish” in party descriptions of UK-wide parties as being outright misrepresentation, and was duly rebuffed, so that’s how I got to know.) So it may well be that one of the descriptions any pro-indy party might choose is one with some joint name appended. In the case, as here, where only one such would be standing in any constituency on a very visible common platform, the EC couldn’t argue there was any confusion. (Though of course they might anyway.)

            In any event, if it isn’t possible officially, it can always be done by word-of-mouth, as did the Unionists in several UKGE elections of late. That’s how they took down Alex Salmond, for example, thanks to their beloved FPTP.

    • Closer tae 60% ex DK.

      • Hamish100 says:

        We need to change don’t knows to Yes for independence and democracy.

        Win🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

        • grizebard says:

          This poll seems to be showing that’s already happening. Don’t forget, there are always ~10% of know-nothings in any poll on any subject. The only thing to watch out for in a situation like this is a cohort of ashamed pro-Union voters (there aren’t many ashamed pro-indy voters, interestingly enough) who hide their real allegiance under “won’t say” or “don’t know”.

    • daveytee19 says:

      You are of course absolutely right. The matter of our independence should not be left to politicians, especially as they have made such a mess of it over the last few years. The vast majority of Yes voters do not belong to any political party – indeed, I doubt if parties supprting independence number more than 100,000 members between them. Many such people are sick of the politics of independence, of the bitter infighting within the movement, of the exclusion of ordinary people from party decision making, of the supine attitude taken by so many of our politicians. An SNP confernece some time in thenew year? Big deal. What we should have is an independence Convention made up not just of the SNP and not controlled by the SNP leadership. Paul says that the movement is energised and galvanised – well, you wouldn’t have thought that if you’d been with the couple of hundred or so people (I was one of them) who gathered in Dundee City Square yesterday evening – really a disappointing turnout.

      Meanwhile, let’s be awkward. There’s our MPs sitting in Westminster, a body that apparently does not recognise Scotland as having any rights at all. So why are they still there? They should withdraw and not go back. It won’t make any difference to Scotland’s position – I recall that back when the Scotland Act was going though Parliament Scottish MPs put forward over 80 amendments, most of which were eminently reasonable. Each and every one of them was defeated by English MPs. We should now get out of there. Let’s not co-operate in any way we can. And please, politicians, stop being so meek and mild. When our politicians are interviewed on TV, they should take a leaf out of the books of union leaders like Dave Ward and Mick Lynch and treat hostility with hostility. Don’t let the interviewers get away with mis-statements or lies. Have the facts at your fingertips so that you can correct the interviewer when necessary. Take charge – guide the interview thw was you want it, not the way the interviwer wants, i.e. a unionist way.

      Er, I think that’s enough for now!

      • Laladumdedum says:

        100% agree with everything you said! I was in Stirling and there can’t have been more than 100 folk. I get the feeling people are tired of politics. I myself can barely watch the political news programmes because it’s the same scripted, bland piffle repeated endlessly. We need speakers who are inspiring and excellent communicators who know their stuff and who can call out B.S when they hear it.
        I think an Independence Convention is an excellent idea but how do we go about creating one? Who has the know how to get the ball rolling?
        We need the best minds in Scotland to raise the profile of the independence campaign. Too much of the narrative is generated by the MSM and they are obsessed with NS and the SNP. We need to take charge of the narrative but I have no idea how when there is only one newspaper who supports Indy.
        We have been discussing Indy for 8 years! I feel we should be more organised and focussed. Instead I feel like we are wading through treacle. Sorry for sounding negative! I’m just frustrated at the lack of progress from our MSPs.

    • grizebard says:

      I see where you’re coming from, since there are those who might be persuaded to vote for indy in a referendum who might be reluctant to vote SNP, even once. (Though getting less and less reluctant, mibbe.) But a political party wins (or loses) votes by earning a hard-won reputation, and that matters. A lot. A UKGE is FPTP, so it would be perfectly reasonable to return to Thatcher basics and claim that a majority of SNP MPs would trigger indy. (Oh wait, that’s already been done!) But if votes for indy are being tallied in such an election, even though there’s only one official winner in each constituency, every single vote for indy matters, irrespective of party. It’s the sum that counts! (Forgive the pun!)

      So the answer to your point is not to have some amorphous construct that no-one really knows, but actually the opposite – for Labour supporters, for example, to create their own Indy Labour Party to get votes that wouldn’t otherwise register. In a way the actual winning candidate doesn’t matter in such an election, there are bigger issues at play.

      Better still, though, would be for all of us to display solidarity and resolve and fight this next one, if this one only, mostly under the SNP banner. The party (of which I’m not a member, incidentally) has surely earned the right.

  6. ArtyHetty says:

    Well said. I was thinking, now that the English government are apparently sovereign over Scotland, and the people of Scotland, our SNP politicians should make sure to tell any media interrogaters to direct their questions to the London parliament, they call the shots, after all. SNP arm yourselves with the contacts for the English government to hand to the so-called media if as they tend to do, question anything about policy.
    Just say, ah here’s the people you would need to talk to regarding that matter, next question, on repeat.

    • CATHY says:

      wellsaid!!

      • Molly McC says:

        I agree…if Scotland is perceived to have no rights….then have them answer any Qs.
        We know they will have none…they don’t know anything about Scotland..
        …and Paul this was one of your best on a list of many.
        Stay well

  7. ST says:

    The benefit of a plebiscite election is that they come every 4 to 5 years. I note that Unionists are now trying to change the scope of GE and Scottish Elections claiming that campaigns cannot be run on a single ticket issue… Which is simply bollocks. They know that every election cycle now means they have to defend the Union every time. It also means Indy parties can campaign indefinitely for Independence

    • t also means Indy parties can campaign indefinitely for Independence

      Aye, they cannot stop us biting the cherry, as I’ve said many times, not unless they stop us voting at all.

      Scottish government can trigger a new Holyrood election if Sturgeon steps down as FM and a new FM cannot be elected, which is possible if Yes parties hold a majority.

      Scots Yes MPs could also step down to trigger by-elections, then stand on pro-indy tickets, so changing the timing of ‘UK elections’ in Scotland for the vast bulk of seats.

      The UKSC ruling has not solved London’s problems, it’s made them far worse as Paul discusses. If straws in the wind initially polling is right, then we could be looking at those saying Yes in 2020 to give us mid 50’s Yes, and more, are now swinging behind indy as this becomes a pro-democracy movement.

      I think a Yes-Yes 1997 60% or more is achievable right now. The more England tries to subjugate Scots, the more this will rise towards the 3/4 Yes of 1997.

  8. It is early days but it is heartening that a poll for Channel Four News on Wednesday found that 50% of Scottish voters would vote SNP at the next general election if it could lead to Scotland leaving the UK and 51% if it led to negotiations on independence with Westminster.

    Mind that was with the normal levels of DK included. Take that away and the result would be closer to 60% SNP.

    I don’t think the English government has thought this through one bit. If Scots are in the UK against their will, then they are not going to use Westminster elections to select what type of Westminster government they want, e.g. Con, Lib, Lab…, dwelling on manifestoes etc. That would like being locked up by an enemy in a cell with a tin of paint plus a big blank banner and using the paint to spruce up the place rather than to make a big sign saying ‘Help – free me now!’ and hingin it oot the windae.

    Nope, Scots will start using every election to vote for independence, obviously. It will be a protest vote every time. A protest against English rule by a pro-democracy movement. Will be on the news in Europe, USA etc as the world watches on like when pro-democracy demonstrators clash with Lukashenko’s troops in Belarus.

    In what fantasy world would this not happen? The idea that Scots will be like ‘Ok, cannae vote for indy. Och well, would have been nice but hey ho, back to normal’ in face of what has happened is magic roundabout thinking.

    Anyway, it’s time for ‘free Scotland’ banners and chants at sporting internationals etc. Twist the thumbscrew folks. Lets show the world the true nature of our current English government.

  9. Hamish100 says:

    And if you vote Green or ALBA that also has to be added in tomYes.
    Still I would like to see the Anglo parties lose even more seats in Scotland so we can come out with a stronger hand.

    Win🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

  10. Bob Lamont says:

    Indeed very well said Paul.

    However disappointing the SC ruling was, it at least put what had hitherto been a ten year old political ‘assertion’ of such a referendum being “illegal” finally onto a firm factual basis – It was but one more necessary step in the process, it HAD to be ticked off the list.

    However, it is not just the Union which is getting extra nails in the coffin, but democracy itself. eg :
    -There has been an increasing majority of the electorate in England, Wales and Ireland in favour of Scots having the right to hold a referendum on independence.
    -There has been an increasing majority in England, Scotland and Wales in favour of reversing Brexit, NI is a special case obviously.
    — Note that on both issues it is ONLY the political parties in Westminster and the MSM who have turned a deaf ear, democracy is essentially being denied by a minority in London.

    The electorate of England may enjoy a majority of MPs, but the days of them being democratically answerable are gone, as much trapped by Westminster hegemony as Scotland, Wales or NI.

    The goalposts have been shifted multiple times since “a simple majority of SNP MPs in the Commons” would constitute a right to independence, now it’s become Westminster’s Groundhog Day.

    Time to switch this film off.

  11. CATHY says:

    Onwards and upwards….I’m heartened by the many rallies which took place and well done Lesley Riddoch for having that idea and organising them through all the YES groups. There were appeals for unity tho I am sceptical of a certain faction who are bent on criticising Nicola and SNP…..that will be my last word on them. I will not rise to the bait.

    My concern however re a defaqto vote at GE is that it will exclude so many people from voting who are entitled to vote in Scottish elections and referendums. Under 18s, EU citizens etc etc

    It does mean an even bigger fight to win over those who actually can vote and I look forward to that early 23 SNP conference.

  12. Unchained Unicorn says:

    “The anti-independence parties must now be hounded ….. ”

    Indeed they must. They are trying to silence us. So every time that Jack or Ross or any other Scottish Tory MP speaks at a meeting in Scotland, they should be heckled. They should be challenged about democracy in Scotland until they are forced to stop speaking. And there should be a demonstration outside any Tory event.

    We can adopt some of the non violent practices of Extinction Rebellion.

    Eventually it is THEY who will have no voice in Scotland.

  13. WT says:

    Hello Paul. I know that we are not allowed to criticise the Scottish Government on here but if we want to press the case for independence then we have to be able to discuss it openly and properly. You have one of the most read sites, yet criticism of the SNP is not allowed. I am purposefully not criticising (although it is obvious that I would) in order to comply with your wishes. This is a difficult time for us all in the movement – I don’t think Westminster is where the answer lies. In the article you say “The anti-independence parties must now be hounded on the question of just how Scotland can obtain a legal referendum through its own internal democratic processes. ” That will just waste more time. If we can’t answer that question, it is because there is no answer. Gaining independence is our responsibility and ours alone – that is what they have told us.

    • Interpolar says:

      But I think Paul is right. The kafkaesque position of the London parties must relentlessly be exposed. One way to seek a political route is to show the absurdity of their positions to the point that they become unelectable for all sanely-minded Scots.

    • Instead of criticising the Scottish government, why don’t those who think they have better ideas go out and actively pursue them? Start new campaign groups, political parties? Vote for a different party? Or even join the SNP and become active?

      Such positive campaigning is far more constructive approach IMO, and what WGD encourages.

      The SNP have just made a stroke of strategic genius timed to perfection which initial polls indicate may have finally tipped the balance to Yes as the settled will and by a potentially whopping margin.

      Some may think that approach not good, but they are out of touch with Scots, notably Yes Scots, who overwhelmingly back the approach taken by the SNP/Greens. Some other minor parties proposed different strategies ahead of May 2021 and with PR, needed a small fraction of the vote to get MPs. However, Scots looked at their manifestos and most decided they didn’t like what they saw.

      I, like many others on here, have put forward ideas and thoughts which commonly didn’t fit with what it seemed, at least ostensibly, the SNP were doing, but I did this constructively, so no problems.

      There are plenty of places where people can bicker to the max about the SNP, so it’s not as if this is somehow stifled!

    • grizebard says:

      Oh, but (as usual, ho-hum) you’re very light on this magic solution of yours.

      We get some like you who seem to have a permanent need to join with opponents of indy and criticise the SG (even despite the new clarity it’s just achieved) and others who now demand unity above all. I wish you inveterate negativists would make up your mind and start offering something credible and substantive for a change.

    • WT says:

      Hello all
      Interpolar thank you for your response, but I don’t think exposing their position is any use – looking intransient, ridiculous or anything else isn’t any use – they don’t care. If you hold the jewel in your hands, then it doesn’t matter what anyone shouts at you – you have the jewel. They just don’t care.
      scottish_skier you give ideas for what people can do if they are not happy with the present situation and many are doing them. I cannot agree with you that what has just occurred is the result of ‘…a stroke of strategic genius timed to perfection…’. and I didn’t post to ‘ bicker to the max about the SNP’ and I haven’t. But I don’t think it is healthy not to take a critical look at your own government.
      grizebard “Oh, but (as usual, ho-hum) you’re very light on this magic solution of yours.” I never said I have a magic solution. I said that they have told us independence is our responsibility and ours alone. I don’t post on here much but every time I have you have resorted to insults – for what? Is that your solution? To coin Skier’s phrase, you just want to bicker?

      I don’t want to bicker – I want us to find a solution but if you cannot even critically discuss the strategy then you will not find the solution. I have held to rules of the site as best I can to respect Paul’s wishes. As I said – this is a difficult time for us ALL in the movement and perhaps a little less aggression and open ear might be useful?

      • But I don’t think it is healthy not to take a critical look at your own government.

        Who’s not doing that? Not me. I regularly debate SNP policy with others, at home, in the office etc. I have voted for other parties / candidates too in the past (but never unionist).

        Who is preventing you from doing so? Nobody. Certainly nobody on here.

        The purpose of this particularly blog is very clear, it’s about promoting independence. If it’s judged you are not doing that, your posts will be modded.

        Blogs are not public spaces where people are free to say what they like. They are a private space which belongs to the blogger. The blogger decides what to post, who is allowed in, and which comments are permitted based on the aims/goals of the blog. That is how free speech works. It is the very essence of it. This is Chez Paul; his hoose. It’s not like your taxes are paying for WGD! People read and post without making any donation.

        You or anyone else can set-up place next door and do exactly the same. Can be a blog for discussion of SNP policy / strategy, with that the focus if you like. Why don’t you set that up if you feel it’s missing? You’ll have competition from southern England though! It’s certainly nobody’s place what to tell Paul or any other blogger what they should / should not allow on their blogs, that goes directly against free speech as it’s trying to control the voices / conversations of others. That’s why people trying that get short shrift.

        And if you really want to direct SNP strategy, what would you be doing on here anyway? You need to join the SNP and become active. That’s how it’s done. Or maybe start your own blog that puts forward good ideas that the party notices? You could even go beyond that and start an alternative party, which is the next step up.

      • Oh, I note that the National is a good place to discuss wider government policies with other Yessers, from GRA reform to the NHS. You’ll find me there, albeit under my name rather than a moniker. But then that’s what the National aims for, which is different to WGD, which has its own goals.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      I mean no offence by this but you have misinterpreted Paul’s guidelines I suspect deliberately – “If you want to mouth off about how much you dislike the SNP leadership” etc ? – SG is not above criticism nor are SNP nor are perceptions over where it is going wrong, but not absent a realistic and workable alternative strategy POLITICALLY, otherwise you’re in “torches and pitchforks” territory.

      Primarily I understood Paul’s strategy was to avoid the unproductive nonsense from the “Nicola ate my hamster” and “Wur doomed” brigades who so dominate other blogs, even blatant racism as seen elsewhere has disappeared from here, is that such a bad thing ?

      Your “I don’t think Westminster is where the answer lies” is a perfect case in point, because that is precisely where the problem lies by way of refusal of a S30 by POLITICAL convention – Exposing the political chicanery of Westminster to the world view is paramount, but you say somehow it should be different without proffering the slightest shred of a politically workable solution.
      Or is that your point, criticism absent solution ?

      As to your “That will just waste more time” I would repost it is London Government who are doing so, and this has not been lost on the international community either, who beyond your narrow view are crucial to how we are welcomed there.

    • WT says:

      Hello again
      Particularly Scottish skier – in my family we have a saying ‘are you alright?’ we use it when anyone behaves bizarrely.
      You say:
      “This is Chez Paul; his hoose.”
      I know that.
      You say:
      “(it’s) nobody’s place what to tell Paul or any other blogger what they should / should not allow on their blogs”
      I haven’t.
      You say:
      “And if you really want to direct SNP strategy…”
      I don’t want to.
      I don’t know why you have taken this tack. There is no need to ‘go off on one’ as they say. I have tried to be polite and to follow Paul’s rules as a visitor to his site – as you are – as we all are.
      If you look you will see that all I did was to give my opinion on something he said in his analysis of what has just occurred.
      This (to remind you) is what I said:
      “Hello Paul. I know that we are not allowed to criticise the Scottish Government on here but if we want to press the case for independence then we have to be able to discuss it openly and properly. You have one of the most read sites, yet criticism of the SNP is not allowed. I am purposefully not criticising (although it is obvious that I would) in order to comply with your wishes. This is a difficult time for us all in the movement – I don’t think Westminster is where the answer lies. In the article you say “The anti-independence parties must now be hounded on the question of just how Scotland can obtain a legal referendum through its own internal democratic processes. ” That will just waste more time. If we can’t answer that question, it is because there is no answer. Gaining independence is our responsibility and ours alone – that is what they have told us.”

      Now please tell me where any of the accusations you put in your diatribe are in that.
      Skier – anyone can be rude or insulting or accusatory – I have done none of these things, but you and grizebard have. Why?
      As I say this is a difficult time for us all in the movement, but if you cannot open the door to someone on your own side, than how on earth can you open the door to those on the other side?
      Some time ago Paul asked us all to try to ensure that this site could be a beacon for independence and that it could be a place that welcomed NO voters to persuade them to change. How on earth does the input from yourself and grizebard help in that respect?

      All I did was try to raise an issue with Paul, in a polite manner.

      • WT says:

        Sorry Bob I put my response under yours by accident – fisrt I don’t ‘want to mouth off’ (why use that term?)
        Second you have an opinion on my opinion which is fine. I just had opinion on Paul’s – which (obviously) is not fine with you. I don’t know what Paul thinks. As I said All I did was try to raise an issue with Paul, in a polite manner.

      • WT says:

        Sorry Bob but my reply got sent before I had finished:
        You say:
        ” I would repost it is London Government who are doing so, and this has not been lost on the international community either, who beyond your narrow view are crucial to how we are welcomed there.”
        Two things – I don’t think my view is narrow – I can stretch my view as far as you can, it is what is relevant that matters. Second yes, the London Government may be doing so also – so why do we waste our time with it? It is in their uinterests to waste time – don’t you see that?

        • Bob Lamont says:

          I only just caught up with this, so my apologies.
          When I referred to your view as narrow I meant with regard to the influence on the international community as to what is happening in and to Scotland and it’s wider importance.
          Your perspective would appear to be that time is somehow precious, that something so monumental as ending a dynasty such as the Roman Empire or the British “State” is simple.

          “so why do we waste our time with it?” – Perhaps because some of us look to our grandchildren having a better life than being trapped in Fortress England Inc ?

  14. Welsh_Siôn says:

    We’ll join you when we can – the dragon is a-stirring:

    https://nation.cymru/news/uk-a-tyranny-of-the-majority-for-england-says-welsh-green-party-councillor/

    UK a ‘tyranny of the majority’ for England, says Welsh Green Party councillor

    24 Nov 2022 2 minute read

    The UK is not an equal union of nations but a “tyranny of the majority” for England, a Welsh Green Party member has said.

    Chris Evans of the Swansea and Gower Green Party made the comment after the UK Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Scottish Government does not have the power to call an independence referendum.

    Cllr Evans said: “The United Kingdom is supposed to be an equal union of nations. The decision by the Supreme Court means that this is no longer true.

    “One member is unable to leave under its own volition and is left with no effective mechanism for deciding its own destiny. This is true for each of the members except England which effectively holds a Tyranny of the Majority over the other three nations.

    […]

    __________________

    Oh, and there’s gonna be a Broontervention:

    https://nation.cymru/news/gordon-brown-expected-to-reveal-labour-plan-for-more-devolution-to-wales-early-next-month/

    Gordon Brown expected to reveal Labour plan for more devolution to Wales early next month

    24 Nov 2022 2 minute read

    Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown will reveal his party’s plan for the constitutional future of the UK which is expected to include more devolution for Wales – alongside Scotland and Northern Ireland – early next month.

    Labour leader Keir Starmer is expected to accept the proposals in the plan which has been the subject of internal debate within the leadership of the party over the summer.

    The plans also include the devolution of significant new economic powers to the regions of England. The content of some aspects of the plan have already been divulged, including by Keir Starmer himself and his deputies.

    […]

    • James Mills says:

      After months of discussion and many , many hours of deep thinking on the Scottish nation’s Independence issue , the Brown Proposal is simple and succinct :

      ”Gonnae no dae that !”

    • iusedtobeenglish says:

      And I note that, as per usual, they don’t bother asking the constituent part what they want. They merely tell them what someone else has decided they can have. Probably. But don’t forget to read the small print…

      BTW, do you think they’ll explain why we haven’t got what we were promised in 2014 yet?

  15. jfngw says:

    I just see the three London headquartered parties ensconced in Holyrood as merely a branch of English Nationalism, there to tell us it is perfectly normal for our country to have no real democracy. They lie with the same ease as the Johnson, Sunak and many of the current WM cabinet, telling you black is white, that we are in a voluntary union and in the same breath defend the mandate given by the Scottish voters.

    Scotland is ruled by a party were 94.5% of its MP’s are from England and 1.6% of its MP’s are from Scotland.

    Scotland is ruled by a party which holds only 10.2% of Scotland’s MP’s.

    The party which won 81.3% of Scotland’s Westminster seats and the parties which won 55.8% of Holyrood seats are told they don’t have a mandate.

  16. Skintybroko says:

    Am both disgusted and heartened by yesterdays decision, disgusted i live in a dictatorship and heartened not just by Nicolas response but that of all the yes groups coming out in appalling weather to demand our right to democracy. Drossy was on insisting we are in a voluntary union and wont accept the SG mandate for a referendum so whats voluntary about that?? I sincerely hope I get to see an independent Scotland through fair and democratic means but until Paul and his ilk get the same coverage as the BBC in Scotland we are on a slow grind up that hill. Btw should Scotland in Union not change their name to the more honest fro their pov Scotland in England

    • jfngw says:

      I would say D.Ross is not accepting the peoples mandate, the party is irrelevant. Over 50% of the list voted for independence parties, this is the vote that decides the make-up of the parliament. He is in effect supporting the vetoing of democracy, along with all the other English headquartered parties.

      I’m using English now as to me that is the reality, Scotland (and Wales) is being held captive by England.

  17. One_Scot says:

    I have not read all the comments so I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but I really like Martin Keatings proposal which is not to wait until 2024 for the UK General election to have the defacto Independence vote, but to hold a Scottish general election, possibly next May.

    People are angry now, they may be less angry in a year and a half. Also it would allow 16 and 17 years olds to vote along with the EU citizens.

    • grizebard says:

      Hmmm, intriguing. Especially that last part. The entire ramifications aren’t immediately obvious, but it seems worth careful consideration…

      • daveytee19 says:

        Also, using an early Holyrood election, the timing of which is within the SNP’s power, would ensure that the Wesminster Government’s invidious new voter ID requirements for general elections will not be used. The acceptable forms of ID are predominantly those held by older people, and as a result younger people who may not have or indeed qualify to have the necessary ID will be prevented from voting. This has been roundly criticised by the Electoral Reform Society, but as usual these concerns have been largely ignored by the UK Government.

    • Capella says:

      Personally, I would like to vote next week. However, if the SCUK deems the Scottish Parliament to have no right to legislate on constitutional matters then even a Holyrood Election could be dismissed as inferior to the mighty Westminster.
      So it is probably better to campaign for the next Westminster election and make sure that everyone eligible to vote is registered to vote, including ID requirements.

      Also, who knows how long this clown government will last. I’d be surprise if they make it to next summer.

      • Raab is toast.
        It won’t last another 18 months.
        Sarwar Dross and Coal-Scuttle can no longer (falsely0 describe themselves a ‘Scottish’ parties now. Sarwar dross and The Tailor’s Dummy are Britengland Nationalists.
        Wait ’til the winter and gas bills hit the door mats.
        And the first hyperthermia death.
        There is no going back now.
        ‘We shove the ‘United’ adjective in their face every time they are on a ‘debate’ set up on the telly.
        Dross and Sarwar were working as one today….the leaked minutes…
        They are as one now. Enemies of the people of Scotland.
        Has any Dugger got access to these minutes? I’d love to look over those in attendance and apologies.
        Was Dr Buist present?
        Come on ferrets, I demand names, as Ally McCoist was wont to say.
        It is clear that minutesgate was a sinister collaboration between the Anglo Brit Nats and vipers to the SHS bosom.

        • Capella says:

          Here are the minutes of the SNHS Chief Executives Board from March 2022, published in August 2022. Lists the members, attendees and apologies. Obviously it takes a long time for minutes to be published 🙂
          https://www.gov.scot/publications/nhs-chief-executives-minutes-march-2022/

          • Capella says:

            They also had a Business meeting in May where they approved the March minutes. They don’t say when the date of the next meeting is.
            https://www.gov.scot/publications/nhs-chief-executives-minutes-may-2022/

            • This from the 11th May Meeting, Capella.

              “Directors of finance are meeting next week and will then expect to work through any required changes with Chief Executives, focussing on fixed commitments.

              There is likely to be significant financial challenge across all boards and government over the Resource Spending Review period. There should be an open discussion about the best approach to take this forward.

              A two day session was suggested to give colleagues appropriate time to fully engage and re-evaluate the current approach, using as examples, the improvements and efficiencies achieved during COVID-19, with a view to developing a new strategic plan. The Care and Wellbeing Portfolio approach recognises the need for the reform and refocussing of services, the implications and opportunities and the need to align funding. Given the scale and pace of change required, it was agreed that taking an incremental approach would not deliver the reforms required. A step change was required and this must be taken forward on a “Once for Scotland” basis where appropriate.

              Climate change and workforce sustainability are a fundamental part of the required changes. Conversations would also be welcome on the contribution that could be made through community planning and public health issues, recognising that not all of the answers to the challenges faced are within the remit of health and the NHS. Plans need to be produced for the future that focus on improving services and taking staff and professional bodies along with the change.”
              Action point taken away by :-

              “Action: two day session to be arranged to have an open discussion regarding moving forward (14 and 15 June) – Secretariats.

              Action: Conversation to take place around sustainability and value and how to establish this approach and to include Finance Directors and other contributors – Executive Support Team/Richard McCallum.”
              It’s the draft minutes of thsi meeting we need to see. The March and May meetings are fairly perfunctory.

              • Capella says:

                I know the May and March meetings aren’t the meeting we want. The report in The Independent said that the meeting in question is the September meeting. Minutes for that won’t be available for months. But these minutes do record the Board members, the apologies, and the “in attendance” and give some idea of the scope of discussions. They seem like a professional and responsible lot to me. tbc

      • weegingerdug says:

        I tend to agree. I would also like a vote as soon as possible but the Supreme Court ruled that Holyrood has no legal standing to legislate on independence so I fear the Westminster parties would simply ignore or de-legitimise any pro-independence vote, just as they have done with the 2021 vote delivering a mandate for a referendum.

        In any Holyrood election which aimed to deliver a mandate for independence itself the anti-independence parties would insist that the Supreme Court has ruled it was unlawful and without legal standing, and the Scottish Parliament thus elected had no legal competence to negotiate independence. Additionally there is the risk that the anti-independence parties would simply boycott a Holyrood election called specifically to act as a de facto referendum, denouncing it as an ‘unlawful referendum by other means’ thus making it easier for Westminster to discount the result.

        According to Andrew Tickell in today’s National, the Supreme Court judgement means that Holyrood has no direct and lawful way of asking the people of Scotland whether they wish to be an independent country. As far as the British state is concerned Holyrood has no more legal standing in this matter than a county council. For all these reasons it has to be a Westminster election.

        However I suspect that this Westminster government is on its last legs and will not last a full term.

        • JP58 says:

          To those arguing a general election is about a range of issues I would say it is up to each individual voter how and what they choose to vote on.
          A GE is a very practical way to vote in support of independence as how Scotland votes rarely makes any difference in a Westminster election and this is one of the major drivers for independence in the first place.

        • Colin Alexander says:

          Paul, it’s good you would also like a plebiscite election as soon as possible but, the FM’s decision favouring a UK GE election does not bear scrutiny.

          The purpose of a plebiscite election is to establish a democratic mandate to declare independence. It is widely accepted any national election can be used for that purpose.

          In a Scottish election candidates can have any policy they want and be elected on that policy, even policies that have no legal basis in UK law, such as an indyref or seeking a mandate to declare independence.

          In a genuine plebiscite election the consequence of a win by the Indy candidates is a declaration of independence, so in that case the UKSC and UK Parliament’s view of Holyrood becomes irrelevant to an independent Scotland.

          So, your arguments about Holyrood being a devolution parliament are irrelevant – unless you know there is no real commitment to declaring independence? In that case it’s not a plebiscite election on independence but another opportunity to re-elect SNP MPs and continue SNP administered colonialism at Holyrood.

          There are clear advantages of a Holyrood plebiscite:

          1. The Scot Govt can engineer the date rather than the UK Govt choosing the date of a UK GE.

          2. The Holyrood mandate is the mandate the Scot Govt / Holyrood want for plebiscites. e.g. It includes EU nationals and 16-17 year-olds.

          3. The SNP have always argued that Holyrood is Scotland’s people’s parliament and it should be the centre of the campaign for Scottish independence. So, to suddenly favour a WM plebiscite election makes no sense at all in this regard.

          If the UK can disregard a Holyrood plebiscite win where pro-indy candidates dominate that result, why would the UK state give more respect to a UK GE result where Scots MPs would form a tiny minority of UK Westminster MPs? They wouldn’t. The UK only recognises English Crown in Parliament sovereignty. The sovereignty of the people of Scotland and any mandate for indy would be ignored by WM MPs and the UK Govt.

      • Just a wee reminder that it’s not possible to ‘ignore’ votes. Any dictator will tell you this. You need to stop people voting happening or rig the vote in your favour.

        Otherwise, if it’s free and fair, there’s a decent turnout, and the result is clear, then the people will decide they have collectively voted for something and it’s going to happen. If you try to stop them, they’ll turn on you as the world looks on. Even is a modest % boycott (say hardcore unionists, so lets say 5-10%), all that does is boost Yes, and it’s the %Yes to turnout that matters.

        At the moment, Scots are not collectively sure that their fellow countryfolk want independence. What they are collectively sure of, is that they’ve voted for iref2, so that should happen. No questions. That and it is also a matter for Scots alone. Our first straw in the wind of the backlash to come to the UKSC ruling came in the first poll. Expect this to grow unless England backs off quickly.

        If Scots clearly vote Yes through an election or referendum, and they all look at each other and agree that’s what’s happened, independence it will be unless England wants to put boots on the ground. The world will watch to see if it does.

        I think some high heid yins are extremely naïve to believe that the revolutions that they have watched on other countries, from the fall of the USSR to the Arab Spring, can’t somehow happen in Scotland. That somehow Scots / the peoples of the UK are uniquely different to other peoples.

        Sure you won’t get such a thing in Scotland if we can freely vote for indy, which is why we don’t have protests like you get in Iran, Belarus etc, but once you take away the right of people to vote, they will collectively rise up to try to take that back, and it can mushroom very quickly.

        England has opened a Pandora’s box. They need to shut it quick or the union could be over very rapidly.

      • Not that I’m disputing points made here, nor concerns about what England might do in response, but the power of a Holyrood election plebiscite comes not from the power of the parliament, but from the popular will of the people expressed at the ballot box. It is this power that topples regimes for the reasons I specify, which is why they fear it. Jeez, we could use council elections to vote for indy if it came to it, e.g. because they shut Holyrood. It doesn’t matter what the vote was meant to be for, people can make it for something else. The point is expression of popular will.

        England has tried to shut down one way for Scots to express popular will, but as soon as it’s done that, it’s now realising there are other ways, and it’s probably just really peed of the Scottish electorate. So now it’s panicking about how to shut down the next opportunity. But doing that is just going to make the electorate even more angry, so that will soon mean every voting opportunity needs shut down as these are going to go increasing against it as the backlash grows. Unless it concedes of course

        At the same time, English voters – most of whom are decent people – will be questioning what the hell their government is doing in their name. We are seeing this already. Welsh people are likewise ‘Erm, WTF?’.

      • proudcybernat says:

        If FM resigned and no replacement FM is made within 28 days (SNP/Greens majority blocking it), then the Presiding Officer must call a new Scottish Election. That’s the law.

        Indy Parties standing on a manifesto of ‘Scotland should be an independent country’ is not legislating anything. It’s just one manifesto option (among many) at a perfectly legal Scottish election. If the indy parties win then they are perfectly entitled to say to WM that the people of Scotland have expressed their will in a free and democratic election that Scotland should be an independent country – let’s negotiate. Even Lord Reed in the Supreme Court hearing said this:

        “A lawfully held referendum would have important consequences relating to the Union and the UK Parliament. Its outcome would possess the authority, in [a] constitution[al] and political culture founded upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate. It would either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union and of the UK Parliament’s sovereignty over Scotland, depending on which view prevailed…”

        I cannot see how a de facto referendum held within the context of a perfectly legal Scottish Election can be regarded as being illegal. It’s up to the parties in that Scottish Election what manifestos they present to the people. If a party (or parties) which to stand on a single-issue, that’s up to them. The ability of the ScotParl to hold a referendum on the constitutional question is unlawful – no one has said it is unlawful to raise the same constitutional question in a lawful Scottish Election. And, as Lord Reed has stated:

        “…. Its outcome would possess the authority, in [a] constitution[al] and political culture founded upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.”

  18. yesindyref2 says:

    So, next steps – for us punters, and bloggers.

    1). Keep going with articles and comments, activity

    2). Attend marches and rallies. This needs to increase, a lot. I roughly counted out 50 people last night in a block and then eye-shaded similar blocks. At its peak when it was nearly down to the road, (Bath Street), there were about 12 block including on the steps, so about 600 people. Not bad for a Wednesday, but really should be 10 times that.

    The usual Scotialist Workers presence, well, they do make the effort and help to make it more supported. Yes of course, they kidnap the chants from “What do we want …”, to “Tory Tory Tory out out out”. Like many I don’t shout to that, who cares what the government of a foreign country is? I’d prefer “Westminster Westminster Westminster out out out” but it is a bit long.

    A few SNP roundels, a couple of Alba banners on Dewar, and after one speaker said something, an Alba person shouted “You should ask the SNP that”, but nobody tore down their banners – so it seems we CAN have different views without fighting, The 3 x 2 polis along the side had nothing to do, neither did the 2 big polis vans.

    Personally before this I wouldn’t have gone to an anti-SNP rally, but if all marches and rallies can be made multi-purpose, then it seems we can all go together under one roof – the open sky!

    so – 3). We really do need to talk about existing “All Under One Banner”, and find ways the anti-SNP mob can stand alongside the SNP cultists, and the rest of us who just want Independence for our country, to continually have publoc displays get larger and larger and larger.

    Part 1 of 2

    • Attend marches and rallies.

      Protests now. If needed, we bring the centre of London to a halt with a pro-democracy protest. All nations invited.

    • daveytee19 says:

      Absolutely right. I’m going to “come out” and say that I’m a member of Alba, but that in no way hindered my travelling to the Dundee rally last night with three SNP activists with whom I am and remain on excellent terms. It doesn’t stop me criticising the SNP government when I think it justified, and it doesn’t stop them responding in like manner, but all in an amicable and civilised manner. We all know that we want the same thing. And that’s the way it should be.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        daveytee19 – just saw your reply while eating my tea, and thanks for that, it makes it worthwhile, including the silly snotty comments some make.

        I think some people lose track of what it’s all supposed to be about – Independence.

        • daveytee19 says:

          Quite. Which it’s why it’s important that people like you keep posting here. Every forum is better if there is some debate, some civilised dissent. No political party is or should be immune from criticism, and those with any sense learn from it and the drive to independence strengthened. It’s a bit dull if everyone is singing from the same song sheet

  19. yesindyref2 says:

    So, as well as continually converting NOes to YES, I think what is perhaps far more important for a time at least, is to get far more people involved and active, out and about. Because that in its turn will help convert people to YES.

    Well done to all of us who turned out yesterday but to be blunt, the total attendance was truly pathetic, and I think the Unionists were actually too embarrassed for us to make any rude comments.

  20. Hamish100 says:

    SNP cultists? Anti-snp mob
    Stop using the language of the Anglo brit nats. The latter are celebrating the Courts ruling.

    As for the attendance at the mid week event. I work – couldn’t get away at the short notice. Many will be in similar positions.

    The weather and dark nights are negative but give 2 weeks notice at the weekend and many more will attend.

  21. Douglas says:

    What the Supreme Court ruled on is something very narrow, the Scotland Act and the powers vested by that Act in the Scottish parliament….

    But as far as I know, they didn’t actually look at the much larger and more complex question as to the sovereignty of Scotland and the sovereignty of England since 1707.

    The Articles of Union passed first by the Scottish Parliament and then by the English Parliament in 1707 in theory was to mean that BOTH Scotland and England ceased to exist, but in practise this was impossible because those same Articles contained provisions for Scottish institutions which are specifically protected under the Treaty of 1707….

    So it is a Treaty which doesn’t make much legal sense… Scotland and England cease to exist to make Great Britain, but the Scottish legal system is to carry on as before in matters of private law, as it does today, and the Church of Scotland is also to be protected under the same Union which claims to put an end to Scotland and England….

    In short, the question of Scottish sovereignty per se wasn’t addressed yesterday, all that was addressed was the question of which powers were vested in the Scottish Parliament by the Labour bill which created it…

    It is also worth stressing, that if Scotland is not sovereign according to the Supreme Court, then nor is England….

    The obsession with sovereignty residing in Parliament in real life allows for many exceptions, but according to Scottish constitutional experts, it is an English obsession, not a Scottish one:

    “Some jurists have suggested that the Acts of Union 1707 place limits on parliamentary sovereignty and its application to Scotland. Although no Scottish court has yet openly questioned the validity of an Act of Parliament, certain judges have raised the possibility. Thus, in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, the Lord President (Lord Cooper) stated that “the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law”, and that legislation contrary to the Act of Union would not necessarily be regarded as constitutionally valid.[18][19][20] Also, in Gibson v Lord Advocate, Lord Keith was circumspect about how Scottish courts would deal with an Act, which would substantially alter or negate the essential provisions of the 1707 Act, such as the abolition of the Court of Session or the Church of Scotland or the substitution of English law for Scots law.[21]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom

    • grizebard says:

      The blunt truth is, Douglas, that the Supreme Court masquerades under a false title. (A Blair-created grandiose false title, so little surprise there, then.) It was lately presented with an excellent opportunity as jurists to live up to their title and properly engage with important and relevant issues of the day concerning the constitution of the Union formed between Scotland and England in 1707. Instead it funked it. Hid behind a narrow interpretation of one particular recent law of the Westminster Parliament. If it was anyone’s job to engage better, it was theirs for the taking. Instead the court’s only utility has been to further demonstrate just how completely irredeemable the UK is, and the only solution remaining for us is to escape it as soon as decently possible. The necessary means now is political, not constitutional.

      • Douglas says:

        I agree basically…. the Parliamentary sovereignty question is the obsession of the Brexiters, the intellectual Brexiters. It is the intellectual plank on which English Brexiters have propped up all the other stuff – casual racism, xenophobia etc-…

        Scotland has a completely different constitutional history to England wherein sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland, otherwise said, one of popular Sovereignty.

        In this Scotland is like the USA or France, it is England which is very unusual in having a constitutional history in which Parliamentary sovereignty is so important.

        So, we must go back to our constitutional roots and build a truly popular and broad independence movement to get up to 55% of the vote or so.

        I see no way that goal is compatible with the current machine politics of the SNP and the Sturgeon personality cult…

        You need a much broader, and consequently much messier, movement which deliver a Scottish Republic in the next 5 to 10 years…

        To try to keep the British monarchy is to run completely against the constitutional popular sovereignty identity of Scotland…

        The Court’s decision yesterday was absolutely to be expected….

        • Golfnut says:

          As a complete aside, Louis XVI, titled King of France, during the revolution was given the choice of vacating the throne or agreeing a Constitutional monarchy and a change to popular sovereignty He agreed and was retitled as King of the French, they killed him anyway.

        • grizebard says:

          Oh dear, just when I thought we might be getting somewhere. “Sturgeon personality cult” and “we must go back to our constitutional roots and build a truly popular and broad independence movement”. Throw away everything we’ve achieved so far and start from scratch again? Are you real? What planet are you on?!

          If there’s anything that frustrates me more than the insufferable self-entitlement of the Anglo-Brit parasites, it’s the apparently infinite capacity for supposedly indy-supporting rank amateurs to self-indulge in wild and irrelevant tangents of no relevance whatever to ordinary voters. People who would do more harm to the steady progress we’ve been making than the serried ranks of the Anglo-Brit puppets. (Assuming their motivations are not in fact the same.)

        • The latest poll is 61% Yes.

  22. grizebard says:

    I caught a piece of the newspaper review on Sky last night, and appearing was quasi-resident Labourite Kevin Maguire for the Daily Mirror and some unknown young ms for The Sun. Maguire seems convinced that under the wonderful (in his opinion) Sarwar, Labour is due for a revival in Scotland. Where these people down south get their fatuous notions from I can’t think. I sense a return to premature triumphalism à la Murph. Granted the Tory would-be saviours of the English Empire are a busted flush, so it’s now over to the other cheek of the local Anglo-Brit Cartel. But in the months to come, a cardboard placeman like Sarwar is going to have to take ownership of a situation where Scotland is trapped in a UK-wide mire of problems, and he totally lacks credibility, whatever Maguire may think or hope. An ongoing one-track attempt to deflect via his cringy Mitigation Hell strategy is going to fail, because the real source of the problem lies entirely outwith his control. He’s merely a deferential spectator. So indy supporters need to get busy now to call out these puppets for what they truly are, English Labour.

    As for the callow ms, in agreeing with her fellow contributor and the presenter, her smug English complacency was palpable. She evidently thought that the barbarians have been turned from the gates and the English Empire has been saved. These people have learnt nothing from 2014. If people like her and Macguire think this is all over, I have news for them. It has only just started.

    • rankbain says:

      Yes, the “They think it’s all over; it’s all over now” attitude is reminiscent of post-indy1.
      …four days after the referendum SNP membership had jumped 70%, from 25k to 43k and, in May 2015 General election SNP won 49.97% of the vote and 56 / 59 seats.
      I suspect something similar but better, is about to happen…

    • James says:

      I’ll reserve judgement for now. They have not weighted for past vote or likelyhood to vote think its a touch too high. Will most likely have polls over the weekend and think SNP will be in the 48%-50% mark with greens on top at 2-3%.

      • Of 1006 respondents, 412 or 41% voted SNP in 2021, as per C4 reports. So it’s certainly not SNP heavy. A bit light if anything:

        https://tinyurl.com/2p8umfkh

        Ipsos don’t weight by past vote and neither does the creme de la creme academic SSAS. These both use demographic and regional only, as FoN does. Electoral Calculus have endorsed the pollster concerned, the Telegraph has used them numerous times, and they are BPC registered.

        Weighting by past vote of course doesn’t make a poll more accurate necessarily. All approaches have their pros and cons. 2010 weighting was a total disaster ahead of 2014 for example, so pollsters dumped it half way through, using 2011 instead.

        Also, likelihood to vote normally makes at most a few% difference, and we might expect Yes voters to be the most motivated, while Scots who previously supported the union, but are being denied the right to vote by England, would be less so. They’d be voting not against Scottish indy, but against democracy. They’d be endorsing the denial of democracy to themselves and their country.

        This is now a pro-democracy movement remember. It’s gone beyond Yes and No. Scottish unionists are being denied democracy just like nationalists are. They are now being subject to English rule against their free will too when they though it was their choice. If Brussels had tried to legally block the EU referendum, I’d have been a leaver in an instant! 🙂

        Of course I have said when talking about this poll that its something of a straw in the wind, so we should wait and see if it’s replicated. I’d have thought we will in due course see a few polls and where will stand will start to be clearer.

        • Oops, that was in 2019 rather than 2021, but doesn’t change the conclusion as SNP share was similar in both cases.

        • James says:

          Electoral Calculus have endorsed the pollster concerned, the Telegraph has used them numerous times, and they are BPC registered

          Indeed, i’m not casting any dispursions on the polster (although they do way for past vote when they do the polls for electorial calculus etc), just putting a feeling across. As you say we will have other polls soon enough to get a better view.

          • Sure, I wanted to familiairs myself and other readers with the pollster, as much as respond to you. I was having a closer look and it’s only over 18’s that were sampled, so the actual Yes ‘support’ level should be a tad higher. Although of course 16-17 years can’t vote in UK elections. Or at least not tomorrow. In a year or two they can!

  23. Hamish100 says:

    I would ask every patriotic Scot involved in sports not to participate under the flag of the butchers apron or be forever condemned.
    I understand that some sports attach GB, GB & NI logo and not Scotland.

    For those sports take part under the flag of the United Nations or the Olympic flag and suchlike.
    Do the best for yourself, family and friends.

    Taking part in your chosen sport or activity is important but don’t demean yourself as an Anglo Brit. That is how England views you or worse. Their flag is political.

  24. Dr Jim says:

    Labour voters switch their votes to Tory when they think they might lose a unionist seat, we see it at every election, Jackie Baillie for example is only in Holyrood through Tory votes or she would have lost to the SNP
    So unionist votes party to party are interchangeable and they don’t have the slightest problem with doing that, but here we are once again in Scotland arguing as Alba’s Neale Hanvey has just done on GB news that there’s no way he or anyone in his party will vote for Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP even if it is for Independence, and he demands that a different arrangement or some sort of *alliance* must happen before they’ll do that

    Of course Neale Hanvey knows that if he stands in the next General election the constituents whose votes he stole will vote him out, as will the constituents of Kenny McAskill so for him it makes sense to change the rules of elections so he doesn’t have to lose
    The rules of General elections are the same as they’ve always been and the Scottish government cannot change that, so to grandstand on Tory TV declaring your dislike for the FM and the party whose seat you stole plays right into the imperial Tory Labour playbook of divide and conquer, especially when the other guest is Michelle Ballantyne of the failed Reform Ukip Tory or anybody who’ll have her party

    • Golfnut says:

      Voter suppression is the name of the game.

    • grizebard says:

      I think it’s more a one-way transfer the other way, as your example of Baillie attests. (Not that she is much of a stretch for Tories anyway.) Some Tories in Scotland clearly vote Labour where they’re sure the latter will be the main challenger to the SNP. Likewise some Tories for FibDem for the same reason. Which is how we get Ian “Plastic Tory” Murray as MP and Tailor’s Dummy as MSP in Edinburgh.

      You can see how that happens in Holyrood elections with the vote transfers, which reveal quite a lot if only people would spend time analysing them. So some Tories will vote Lib/Lab, but not all. Some vote Tory and nothing else. I don’t see many Labour voters going Tory, though. Lib/Green tends to be their 2nd prefs. (And some Green voters return the compliment, actually.)

  25. yesindyref2 says:

    But before I do, a last controversial posting, and the little clique can jump on it as much as they like as they have nothing better to do.

    From the National:

    Mhairi Hunter, who is the organiser for the First Minister’s SNP branch in Glasgow, said a victory for pro-Yes parties in the next General Election would not necessarily begin separation negotiations – but could be the basis for a referendum.

    It’s time the First Minister completely disowned that view of Hunter, and made it clear Hunter does not talk for her. If that is the basis for the so-called de-facto referendum – another few years begging Westminster for an Indy Ref – I will not bother with my postal vote. And I won’t be the only one.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23148508.nicola-sturgeon-ally-win-de-facto-vote-likely-lead-indyref/.

    Take care all ye!

    • daveytee19 says:

      I wish I could say I was surprised, but I’m not. As you say, Sturgeon must jump on that at once and disown it and, ideally, disown Hunter as well. It would help, mind you, if we were given some idea as to what would happen if a plebiscite election does indeed bring about a 50%+ indy vote. While I have read what others say, I’m afraid I don’t share their confidence that a vote for independence, even a plebiscite vote, will change the minds of an arrogant government which attaches no importance whatever to democracy.

      • grizebard says:

        In which case, what magical thinking non-solution do you propose, if democracy is as dead as you claim, pray? It seems your anti-democracy is just as strong as those you condemn. A case of projection if ever there was one.

        • daveytee19 says:

          I don’t know whereyou get the idea that I’m anti-democracy. I firmly believe that if a majority of the people of Scotland want independence then they should have it. I wholeheartedly condemn Westminster’s disregard for even basic democratic principles. But on the other hand, a majority the people of Scotland, for reasons I do not understand, have yet to be convinced about the merits of independence. The sad thing is that once they have been I’m not at all sure that Westminster will take any notice. I trust, incidentally, that you don’t agree with Ms Hunters statement?

      • Golfnut says:

        It’s not really about changing the mind of an arrogant government, even assuming it’s the same arrogant government we have now. It’s about imposing our will on that arrogant government with the help of the international community.

        • daveytee19 says:

          I quite agree. Ms Hunter, on the other hand, appears to believe that victory in a plebiscite election would provide nothing more than the basis for another referendum so we’d merely be back to square one. I take it you don’t agree with her?.

  26. jfngw says:

    I see Arlene Foster is to lead the Together UK pressure group to oppose among things Scottish independence. There can be no better person to advocate separatism, I’m pretty sure she supported separatism from the EU. Would she have been the face of Better Together 2 along with Ruth Davidson, would they have gone full Ulster. Expect her to appear on the BBC soon, classed as an Independent Think Tank spokesperson.

    If Arlene Foster is the answer I’m not totally sure what the question was.

  27. Capella says:

    Arlene Foster is a symbol of Ulster and so the ulsterisation of the Scottish independence drive. Remember when the DUP got dark money via a shady “Scottish” money laundering organisation registered in an old abandoned mill in the back of beyond? Up to no good IMO involving up to no good personnel.

  28. The penny is starting to drop just one day later.

    https://archive.ph/NvsuP

    Why this supreme court ruling presents an opportunity for Scottish nationalists

    The judgment says one thing constitutionally – but it’s a backhanded recognition of the power of popular resistance…

    …But it also tells us that, in political terms, they – we – do matter. We matter because of precisely that “political culture founded on democracy” with which the supreme court defended its judgment. The reason that a referendum was “relevant” to the reserved issue of the union was that if the Scots were given a say, and that voice was then ignored, it would create a cultural problem – in other words, a problem of legitimacy – for the continuation of the UK state.

    No matter how unpopular the UK’s government and its institutions become, it is legitimised by consent – by the idea that because we choose our rulers, we are complicit in the things they do to us. The importance of this process of legitimation is visible in the evolving architecture of the state, most clearly in devolution itself…

    We will now start to get more support / attention in England re our cause. This is because it’s gone beyond Scottish independence, to which most English people are largely indifferent, and become about democracy, which affects them too, and how the world sees their country. If Scotland was stopping English people from voting, I’d be appalled and demonstrating outside Holyrood in support of their right to self-determine. We will start to see people in England likewise appalled and speaking out.

    • Skintybroko says:

      Don’t hold your breath, several English colleagues are gloating over the decision, it’s all about English exceptionalism they can’t see past themselves, they own the UK, they are the UK – wouldn’t be surprised if this is the feelings of a large majority of the English electorate after all they foisted BREXIT on us

    • Golfnut says:

      Informative guardian mindside.
      ‘ because people choose their
      rulers ‘
      Politicians are elected to serve, not rule.
      I’m not so sure we’ll see the English manning the barricades over Scottish independence anytime soon, I’m not in Enland very often now and my pool of reference is limited to a very few English brexiteers, none of whom see the irony of supporting brexit but against Scotland leaving the union.
      Having said that, I do see trouble ahead for narnia.

  29. Dr Jim says:

    The anti English narrative is once again in play by the English media in efforts to convince the people of that country to dislike all Scots because we’re not playing the game by the conditions England’s government orders

    This is common practice for the English media to use, they do it every time any other country in the world disagrees with what they laughingly call the UK or Britain
    President Macron refuses to co-operate on something so we’ve all to despise the French, Brussels decides something and we’re told the Europeans are bullying *us*
    and on and on they go, British jobs for British workers, too many *illegals* we must fear them all

    England has an identity problem based on its own insecurity because they can’t bully the world anymore and why they feel the only countries left to bully are Scotland Wales and what won’t be Northern Ireland for very much longer, it’ll be the North of Ireland as it always should have been before the Brits got their hands on it to ruin

    The Brits or whatever they call themselves in England keep increasing the amount of countries they’re telling themselves to despise

    smaller and smaller and smaller in the eyes of the world

  30. yesindyref2 says:

    That’s funny.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation

    while the comments attacking and insulting me remain.

    That’s victimising the victim, well done.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      I should point out that was posts that were already there, not new ones. I guess the little clique is unmoderatable.

      • Och dinnae fash yersel. I’ve been modded plenty of times and sin binned tae when I I’ve gone off on one about something (e.g. aboot NI, when I was reading up on that). You are not being picked on. 🙂

        • yesindyref2 says:

          It’s one-sided moderation is the problem, SS.

          If you look, the comment made which sets out to insult me, is STILL there, whereas my reply was deleted.

          That allows any poster to insult any other poster and removes their right to reply.

          That is not an environment I’ve ever accepted in getting on for 30 years of posting on ‘tinterweb. It’s also sad that nobody else has had the courage or integrity to say: “That was uncalled for”.

          There’s another blog someone attacks me and I defend myself – BOTH comments were removed. That is balance and integrity. On another blog the blogger is, errr, somewhat robust, and I reply just as robustly – but have never had a reply deleted. THAT is balance and integrity.

          And The Truth Shall Set Us Free, SS..

          • Tam the Bam says:

            What on earth are you raving about about now?

          • I missed the wee rammy concerned, but if someone uses personal insults, it’s because they’ve lost the argument. It also reflects badly on them, not you, especially of you resist the temptation to respond in kind, difficult as that might be sometimes!

          • Paul has ‘tempered’ my rage many times, lads; wisely, to save myself from myself, sounding like an idiot.
            He doesn’t need to. he’s busy enough as it is, promoting scotland tirelessly.
            Can we get back on message now?

  31. Alba Laddie says:

    That constitutional matters in the Scotland Act were to remain reserved to Westminster, was Blair’s ten-ton anchor on us uppity Scots. There should be a special place in hell reserved for this man, perhaps in the bed next to his hero, Thatcher. Was there ever a country so gripped by self-loathers like him?

  32. Luigi says:

    Cat out of bag. The SC all but admitted that a consultative Scottish referendum poses an existential threat to the UK. That’s why it will never be allowed.

  33. daveytee19 says:

    I know that some of you here will not like this, but I recommend that you listen to Bernard Ponsonby’s STV interview withAlex Salmond – https://news.stv.tv/politics/alex-salmond-calls-for-snp-greens-and-alba-to-unite-for-independence-at-next-general-election

    It deals largely with the Supreme Court decision and what we can do about it.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Scotland’s voters rejected Alex Salmond and his party and the media know that, so why do you think they want him on the TV now when they didn’t want him before

      Nobody trusts the media, so?

      • Golfnut says:

        Ironic is it not that the man accusing Nicola and thaN SNP of leading people up the garden path of a referendum was the one who lead us onto the path in the first place, now calling for unity of course.

        • daveytee19 says:

          I’m not sure that Salmond thought that the time was right for a referendum, but his party wanted him to commit to one in his manifesto and so he did. I don’t think that he thought for a moment that the SNP would win a majority but they did and, having promised a referendum, he did something rather rare among political leaders and set about fulfilling that promise. He was perhaps fortunate in having a reasonably malleable David Cameron to deal with, but in the end he did at least manage to give us a referendum and at the same time a huge awakening of the independence movement.

          Don’t you want unity?

          • Golfnut says:

            Unity would be great, but I don’t think a party, it’s leadership and supporters taking any and every opportunity to undermine the FM and the SNP could be trusted to practice what they preach.

          • Yes, he went for the Section 30 approach in the first instance of course, and, as you note, life was easy for him as it was granted largely without question. That left Salmond free to focus on the campaign, and not how to get a vote that would be recongised by Scots and the international community; the battle that the SNP/Greens face.

            What’s interesting, is that baseline support for indy just didn’t move under Salmond:

            But under Sturgeon, it’s gone up nearly 20% to now be the majority will even before we exclude the DKs (which typically means don’t vote or split proportionally).

            It’s been a long slog, but these people are lost to the union now. Indy was just the settled will of 33% in 2014, but Yes pulled off 45% when Scots were pushed into a binary choice. Now we are starting from 52%. So that 61% in the most recent poll seems perfectly plausible.

            Of course this is not Sturgeon’s doing, but the result of wider events outwith her control that the SNP/Greens have just done a decent job of steering Scotland through.

            What I like about this blog, is that Paul and BTL commenters understand this. They know independence isn’t about Sturgeon, just like it wan’t about Salmond. Sturgeon’s supposed ‘disciples’ talk very little about her, but a lot about the real reasons we need independence and what’s fueling the movement. It’s unionists that see Sturgeon as some sort of god-like figure, hence all their attempts to take her out. It’s them that constantly go on about her.

            But if she was hit by brexit bus tomorrow, it would not make a blind bit of difference. Yes support would not change at all, and with plenty of competent and respected SNP MSPs available to take the helm, the SNP would just vote in a new leader, while the march of the Scottish nation continued around them.

            I’ve said many times the SNP are not the reason why we are where we are; their rise is a response to much more fundamental long term trends in Scotland which have seen Britain / unionism enter an achingly slow, long term death spiral. Devolution 1979… 1997… Ref1 2014, England’s brexit 2016… etc are all symptoms of this.

            Which is good news for Yes, as we don’t want people making spur of the moment decisions based campaign slogans. We want this to be the settled will, for that is what will deliver us independence, as Scots and the international accept that this is the popular will and so can’t be resisted. With younger generations totally lost to the UK, and unionism only just holding on in the over 65s, we can be confident Scotland will leave an never consider coming back. No brexit regrets for our Independence.

            • Comment of the month, s_s.
              Chapeau.

            • Bob Lamont says:

              👍

            • daveytee19 says:

              Good post. I don’t agree with it all, but a good post none the less.

              Could you please explain the “baseline support” bit. As I see it, back in 2012 polls showed the Yes vote averaging out at something in the low 30% region. This didn’t change much in 2013 – out of 27 polls only one suggested a Yes lead, with the rest still round about the low 30s. In 2014 things began to move – January 28%, but by August it was 40% and highest it reached in September prior to the referendum was 47%. Only two polls among the umpteed held in 2014 showed Yes in the lead. So between April 2011 and September 2014 suport for Yes shifted from 28% to 45%, quite a decent increase.

              Since then there has been little change, notwithstanding Brexit and the numerous shenanigans of the Anglophile Tory government which one might have hoped would have brought about an appreciable gain in the Yes vote. But no. For the most part support was in the low 40s and while Yes did take an appreciable lead during the height of the pandemic, that was I think due to regular and helpful personal appearances by Ms Sturheon when, of course, she talked only about covid, not about independence. By April 2022 No was back in the lead again and notwithstanding the Scotophobic Johnson and Truss premierships largely remained so, with the Yes vote in October 2022 averaging 45.5%, 2.5% less than when Ms Sturgeon took over in 2014. Basically she’s held onto the support garnered before she became leader but hasn’t added to it which is disappointing.

            • WT says:

              I’m sorry Skier but I think you’ll find your figures about Salmond are wrong and I’m sure Paul will recall the actual movement at the time. At the start of the referendum campaign support for Yes lay between 28% and 35% (latter an outlier), in the last week before the vow it reached 52% if you recall, it then sank back to 45% after the vow – which in itself was a breach of purdah. Under Nicola Sturgeon as with Salmond it has gone up and down reaching 58% at one point – however, it is settling presently at circa 49 to 51% – which is a good place to start a campaign from, but what campaign? We actually need to know what we are doing. It’s time to stop campaigning for permission to have a referendum – we used to campaign for independence.

              • I cannot be wrong in ‘my figures’ as I have just plotted every single poll going back to 2011. These are not ‘my figures’. Not a single one is mine.

                People are free to look at all the data and make their own minds up. The whole lot is freely available on wiki and whatscotlandthinks.

                If you have a different interpretation, you can graph this up as I have, and people can make their minds up about this.

                • daveytee19 says:

                  I’m afraid your figures are wrong and your graph is misleading. If you have a look at the Wikipedia page I quoted, and to which I will again give a link at the bottom of this posting, you’ll see that virtually every poll on independence since 2013 is listed, together with the results. The figures there clearly show that notwithstanding the appallingness of the UK government support for independence after growing substantially in 2014 prior to the referendum has flatlined since then and is currently no greater now than it was in 2014. (Basically, it went down between 2015 and October 2017, then recovered to reach a high point during the pandemic, but has gone down again since then). (I’d post the Wikipedia graph but am unable to do so – how do you post images?)
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence

                  • Davey, my graph of all polling data is all the data from the wikipedia page (excluding DK, as standard for headline figures) with a linear trend fitted to it (light blue points and line) to show the long term trend (nearly 11 years). I have also added yearly averages, which show shorter term (yearly, obviously) movements / waves. We can add 2022 to the latter on the 1st of January 2023.

                    Unlike right-wing ‘war on woke’ ((c) Trump etc) English bloggers, I am not trying to mislead anyone, and data analysis is my job. You can call me Dr SS if you like.

                    I note the latest poll shows 61% for indy (via election plebiscite) ex dk:

                    https://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/would-you-vote-snp-at-the-next-general-election-if-your-vote-would-be-used-as-a-mandate-to-negotiate-independence-with-the-uk-government/?removed

                    That’s not in my plot as its not about an indyref. However, the most recent ‘should Scotland become an independent country / leave the UK from Ipsos UK was 54% Yes’.

                    And are you seriously saying the gold standard academic, fully random sample, Scottish Social Attitudes Survey is wrong? What possible incentive would the BBC’s favourite Prof C have in telling us all that when offered a choice between more devo and indy, a majority now consistently favour independence?

                    Even Alba agree with me:

                    https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2022/11/wings-watch-ive-calculated-average.html

                    So lets stick with honesty. Try putting all that wiki data into a graph and add fit a linear trend, then come back to me and show me how you got on! You will get the same. 🙂

          • Oh, and davey, here’s all the Y/N polls for the past 11 years. Every single one of them. Big picture. It’s sad that e.g. right-wing ‘war on woke’ English blogs try to mislead people into saying these have not changed since 2014 by cherry picking. It’s just not true. There are waves on a rising (baseline) tide, but what a world away we are from when Salmond passed on the mantle.

            Anyone saying the polls have been static over the long term either does not know what they are talking about, or is not on the side of Yes.

            • daveytee19 says:

              Wikipedia lists all the polls since 2014 (and those before) and they do not bear out what you suggest. They even provide a graph – now, can I add it?………. Apparently not. Anyway, it looks a lot different from your graph and shows that the Yes vote has indeed been flatlining between 2014 and 2022, which is not surprising as support for Yes now is almost exactly the same as it was when Sturgeon took over and it was mostly in the 40s during the intervening years. I have to say that I don’t undestand how you can say that there was an average Yes vote of 55% in 2021 when the highest rating the polls achieved that year was 52%, and that was recorded only twice out of 54 polls. Have a look at the site and the graph and poll results you’ll see there.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence

  34. Tam the Bam says:

    Its patently obvious that some Alba/WoS/Yours for Scotland/Barrhead Boy subscribers to the political ” fatwah” they wish imposed on Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are attempting to recruit here.
    Keep an eye on them Paul.

    • I tend to ignore the ‘Cos Sturgeon’s’ of the world. The relentless unionist focus on her as some sort of deity that if taken out, saves the UK, is a useful distraction to keep them busy though. Means they ignore the real reasons why Scots are increasingly backing indy, which Paul and regular BTL commenters focus on.

  35. Ken says:

    The Torieswill not last long. The nurses are going to strike. Not long now. Independence support at 60%. Turnout last Indy Ref 85%.

    Support for Independence. 50%. 33% No.

  36. ‘Craig Hoy under pressure to condemn ” Tory booze parties” on Scottish Government premises.”
    See what I did there?

  37. Capella says:

    Richard Walker spells out the significance of the SCUK ruling on the Scottish Parliament’s status.

    UK Supreme Court has done the Scottish independence cause a favour

    AFTER the ruling by the Supreme Court, there is only one question facing the Scottish people … and it does not involve demanding to know the legal and democratic route to Scotland winning its independence. There isn’t one.

    Wednesday’s legal insistence that the Scottish Parliament was not legally competent to hold an independence referendum was hardly a cause for celebrations, but it did at least deliver definitive answers to a lot of questions about our country’s future as part of the United Kingdom.

    We know, for instance, that there is no solution acceptable to the Westminster government to the situation where Scotland is always outvoted by its more populated neighbour and will always be so. That will never change.

    Politicians such as Gordon Brown have tantalisingly dangled the prospect of federalism – translated as a union in which each constituent part has equal power – but we know now that was a chimera, an imaginary construct designed to disguise the true nature of our relationship to the UK.

    https://archive.ph/I0o74

    • Like the aftermath of the 2014 referendum, the Brit Nationals have very quickly in to ‘sore winners’ following the SC Ruling that Scotland is not a colony, not a sovereign nation, not a democracy.
      Independence is within our grasp now. The English SC Brit Nationaist ruling has ensured that.

  38. Capella says:

    Joanna Cherry puts her legal hat on. (The National is getting as bad as the Grauniad for typos.)

    UK Supreme Court indyref2 ruling is a legal none {sic} – not political

    It looks unlikely that there will be a British General Election until 2024 and the next Holyrood election is not due until 2026. In my opinion, the option of which election to use needs careful consideration.

    Utilising a Holyrood election is an option – as one of my colleagues remarked this week, nothing says “I mean business” like collapsing your own Parliament and going for a back-me or sack-me strategy.

    The wisdom of such a course of action and all the various options needs careful thought.

    A Holyrood election would give us the advantage of more control over the timing and a franchise which includes younger voters, EU citizens and refugees I don’t say that for political advantage. Scotland’s Parliament has extended who can vote to include young voters and new Scots. It was the first bill in the Scottish Parliament to require a super-majority.

    It reflects who we are as a country and what we want for people who make Scotland their home.

    In terms of the number of seats won, the SNP has won the last three Westminster General Elections outright. In terms of outright wins at Holyrood, the threshold which some Tories, including John Lamont, have suggested as the only basis for another indyref, we have only managed that feat once in 2011 and the system is designed to prevent it from happening. In terms of outright percentage wins, that is very difficult for any one party in any British election, but the Channel 4 News poll suggests it is achievable.

    But we cannot go forward without ensuring proper input from the wider Yes movement. In response to a question from Ross Greer at Holyrood on Wednesday, Angus Robertson agreed that every vote cast for pro-independence candidates at the 2024 General Election would count towards the mandate for Scotland’s independence.

    If this is to be our plan, then it will mean respectful dialogue and cooperation between the activists of the SNP, Green and Alba parties. The petty bile needs to stop.

    https://archive.ph/Qi2cV

    • We wait another 4 years?
      Don’t think so.
      I’m 75, ironically as impetuous and impatient as a teenage zealot.
      There are many of my generation as impatient.
      What do want?
      Independence.
      When do we want it?
      Now.
      The battered old Indy can has been kicked stupid down Jam Tomorrow Road once too often.
      No more Fabian tactics.
      (I too can come across all Classical in my analogies, Paul)
      We sit on our hands for another 4 years?
      Not.

  39. James Mills says:

    O/T : Satire is not dead .

    Sarwar wins ”Politician of the Year ” award at Holyrood .
    ( Mind you , this was The Herald awarding the prize so it’s a bit like being elected PM by the Tory faithful )

    • Doubtless sponsored by Private Dental Implant companies.
      You too can have a perfect smile for £3000 a tooth..they’re taking out second mortages you know? According to the Cash and Carry King, the Millionaire Dentist ‘Politician of the Year’.
      Now stop laughing in the Ross Hall canteen there!
      There is a Second Tier Health Provider in Scotland already, of course.
      The Rich don’t queue, and Covid 19 delays are for the scruffs and plebs.
      Dross and Sarwar should have been awarded joint first prize in my view.
      They are Siamese twins.
      There is no justice.

      • davetewart says:

        Talking up Scotland has the other nasty spomsor.

        Drax Power, the plant that burns cat litter and coal but gets huge subsidy as a ‘Green’ source.

        Think about sourcing cat litter from Vancouver, Canada, shipping it to the port, shipping it to Hull, englandland, putting it on a train to the Power station, producing huge quantity of CO2 and being judged to be a renewable fuel as trees grow.

        The Drax company own Cruachan to manipulate their output stats.

        Much like chas the turd, the only voter in the herald’s competition was the slab leader I’m thinking.
        Should be split 3 ways, red, yellow and blue tories .

  40. jfngw says:

    The debate regarding which election to use, the judge said regarding a referendum held by the Scottish Parliament would:

    a vote for or against would have democratic legitimacy, and thus could/would affect UK constitution.

    If he conceded a vote in a referendum held by the Scottish Parliament would hold democratic legitimacy, this would infer an election also would hold democratic legitimacy. Are they trying to have their cake and eat it, claiming a referendum would have democratic legitimacy but an election has not, I don’t see what the difference is.

    I don’t believe an general election will be soon, the Tories will hang on as they believe some of the financial numbers will change in their favour, especially inflation. A lot can happen in two years, plus Starmer is pretty hopeless.

    • jfngw says:

      I wanted to add, was there anything more spew inducing than watching the three London controlled party leaders in Scotland celebrating their country being told it is effectively owned and controlled by another country, that it has no democratic right to control its future.

      • grizebard says:

        Yes, I just hope that in the next short while, that conclusion will sink in to many more ordinary people. We have to stop referring to these parasites as “Scottish” this-or-that, but “English”. Because that’s what the toxic combination of the SC judgement and their craven position really amount to.

        (But there is one silver lining. We won’t hear any more “leaders not leavers” from Gordo Brood. Or anything else, if he’s wise, unless he suddenly finds a conscience and starts telling the truth.)

    • A new referendum… a Scottish or UK election plebiscite… even council elections… all hold equal democratic legitimacy as they all offer a free and fair way for Scots to express their wishes at the ballot box, and so would need to be acted upon if that’s for independence.

      Normally, a dictator would, at this point, try to rig the elections, but that’s not possible in Scotland as our dictator is England; the country next door. So what now? Ban all elections in Scotland?

  41. Capella says:

    Lorna Slater confirms that the Scottish Greens are committed to a de facto referendum if that is the only democratic option.

    De facto Scottish independence referendum may be only way to democracy

    I didn’t stand for the Scottish Parliament because I want to diagnose problems. I did it because I want to solve them. Yet, as long as Scotland remains tied to Westminster, the biggest decisions will continue to be made by governments that we didn’t vote for and can’t remove.

    If Westminster continues to block our democracy and our right to take our future into our own hands, then we will have no option other than to use the next General Election as a de facto referendum.

    This is not our first choice. But, if the Tories and Labour will not allow a democratic referendum, then it is what we will have to do.

    The Supreme Court may have made its judgment. But it is time for the people to have their say about Scotland’s future. The campaign for a fairer, greener and independent Scotland is only just getting started.

    https://archive.ph/sZSpg

    • daveytee19 says:

      That’s fine, but only as long as we don’t do what Mhairi Hunter appears to be suggesting and merely use a positive plebiscite result as nothing more than the basis for seeking another referendum. If such a plebiscite result brings no change in Westminster’s position then we have to do something more. I’d withdraw all indy-minded MPs from Westminster – it’s absoloutely pointless they’re being there and a walk-out would hit international headlines. Instead I’d set up a Convention here in Scotland where MPs and MSPs and other representatives could meet to discuss the best means of attaining independence. I’d use every means possible to ensure that we are as awkward as we can be with Westminster’s requirements and employ non-violent civil disobedience where appropriate. Meanwhile, our government must seek as much international support as possible, even encouraging other countries where we and the Scottish diaspora have some influence to limit their co-operation with the UK and emphisise its pariah nature. All this should also make your average English voter really fed up with us which may also result in their demanding that Scotland be “kicked out” of the union. I’d be quite happy to be kicked out!

      Of course, before any of that can happen we’ve got to do a lot more than we’ve done in the last few years to convince the people of Scotland to vote for independence – we need to win that vote!

      • Golfnut says:

        A second house, Convention would need to be set up anyway after the independence vote, MP’s local authorities as elected official plus legal and administrative setvices. The parliament itself couldn’t cope with the amount of legislative work which no doubt will ensue.
        As for Ms Hunter, I have no idea regarding the context of her remark and to be honest irrelevant at this point since decisions on the way forward won’t be made until after the New Year.

      • iusedtobeenglish says:

        ” All this should also make your average English voter really fed up with us which may also result in their demanding that Scotland be “kicked out” of the union. I’d be quite happy to be kicked out!”
        Maybe while they’re still in Westminster the SNP MPs should point keep asking if Scotland is [doing/saying/being whatever sort of objectionable action we’re taking/drain we’re being here], bite the bullet and kick us out!

        ” I’d use every means possible to ensure that we are as awkward as we can be with Westminster’s requirements and employ non-violent civil disobedience where appropriate. “
        Being a generally peaceful, law-abiding soul, I’m wondering what sort of things you have in mind?

        • iusedtobeenglish says:

          That’s “keep making the point that if Scotland…”

        • daveytee19 says:

          Yes iusedtobe, I’d like to see a lot more subversive activity from our MPs at Westminster. Two were thrown out for causing a bit of a stushie, but they were Alba members. Why were they thrown out? Because they demanded that the Government agree to a referendum, were shouted down by Tory MPs, refused to sit down, and were thrown out by the furious speaker. Can’t have these Scots getting uppity. If our MPs are to stay at Westminster that’s the sort of thing I’d like to see them all all doing on a fairly frequent basis, getting right up the noses of the English parliamentarians. The got no support, incidentally, from any other Scottish MPSs.

          As to what civil disobedience I have in mind, I’m sure that appropriate incidents would arise from time to time. Perhaps we could ask Extinction Rebellion for some advice – indeed, maybe we can have an offshoot called Extinction Union?

          • Unchained Unicorn says:

            I agree that it’s time for a less polite approach. I support Extinction Rebellion and meet with a local branch. They are dedicated to non violence and I’m impressed by their discipline and mutual support . I would like to see Tories heckled in meetings across Scotland and I will take that opportunity when I come across my MP Dross at a meeting.

            • daveytee19 says:

              Excellent. See if you can get a few more people to join in the heckling – it’s much less intimidating, and more effective, when there’s more than one of you.

  42. Ross says:

    We’ll need Green, Alba and Labour voters to provide the big numbers.

    A Yes Scotland party

    Or

    SNP – independence
    Green – independence
    Alba – independence
    Labour for Independence – indepenence

    The last vote mustered a great many people precisely because it wasn’t only the SNP.

    Other hand, if it is just SNP and Scots cannot hold their nose and vote accordingly we don’t deserve independence.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Alba’s Neale Hanvey on GB news told them that neither he nor his party would vote for Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP so if that’s true then he’s already cut himself off before we even start

      This preplanned bickering by Alba is meat and drink for the media
      Alex Salmond will get himself on the Telly a lot

      You can see the headlines now

      • jfngw says:

        There the Daily Express go to party now for comments I believe.

        They forever refer to SNP supporters, especially those who post here as a NS cult. Whereas their drooling over Alex Salmond is just healthy worship. They refer to him a the master tactician, conveniently forgetting he lost us a referendum as leader.

        The difference I suspect is if NS leaves the SNP and the independence movement continues, not sure Alba will continue if Salmond disappears.

        • jfngw says:

          ‘They’re’ and ‘as the master’, not sure if it’s a problem with my brain or my fingers that I can’t manage to type a comment without mistakes.

  43. Bob Lamont says:

    Totally OT but an interesting development much as was shifting land-bridge freight onto direct EU sailings as a result of Brexit https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2022/1125/1338174-ireland-france-interconnector/
    Ireland was a little late to realising wind energy potential, but have been coming on in leaps and bounds since.

    • Capella says:

      Interesting – BUT – half of France’s nuclear power plants are offline because of corrosion and repairs. The heat waves seem to be causing the problems. ireland better get these windmills whirring son.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/05/frances-nuclear-heavy-energy-strategy-faces-big-problems-this-winter.html#:~:text=A%20long-standing%20source%20of,problems%2C%20maintenance%20and%20technical%20issues.

      • Capella says:

        son = soon!

      • Bob Lamont says:

        Oh dear, you quite clearly miss the point the possibilities and parallels – It’s not about the French or Nuclear but the principle of sharing energy.
        The notion of interconnects from Scotland DIRECTLY to the EU, London has actively sought to prevent.
        It is the grid which matters not the individual suppliers – Do you now understand the significance, the FIRST interconnect to the EU beyond England – Capeesh ?

        • yesindyref2 says:

          You’re very unpleasant. Is there any need for that?

          Is it a case of one down, next target?

        • Capella says:

          Yes, Bob, I take your point. I was looking at Ireland relying on France for baseload. But I’m not a nuclear physicist so bow to superior knowledge. 🤓

          It’s OK Yesindyref2 – I have fairly thick skin and wouldn’t want you chaps to get into rammy – is it the time of year? Dark nights and so on?

          • yesindyref2 says:

            No worries, I was trying to save his blushes 😎

          • Bob Lamont says:

            Perhaps indeed I should have been clearer…
            Ireland had baseload covered previously, the transition to renewables has posed new problems for EIB wrt load balancing.
            I strongly suspect this move is more to do with distancing EU states from reliance on Brexitalbion, who in turn are reliant on Norway who have some ‘local difficulties”, hence warnings of power cuts in the UK of late.

            If you look at the EU grid for interlinks to the UK and Ireland it all passed via England, or Brexitania as it has become known.

            My point was Scotland faces much the same problem following independence, but being awash with energy will see a queue of contractors form at the doors at the State opening of the new Scotland Parliament.

            Viz – Perfidious Albion has had it’s day, the Tory game is up, and the Irish will commiserate at the wake.

  44. bringiton says:

    Anyone who thinks that the SNP might hold the balance of power after a future Westminster election needs to think again.
    The London based parties will do what they have done in Scottish councils to prevent the SNP from having a say by effectively coming together to form a single administration.
    Let’s call it the Westminster party.
    At least this judgement will force the Westminster party to have to come out and admit that,in their opinion,Scotland is not a country.
    They have been able to hide that behind their devolution credentials so far but no longer.

    • jfngw says:

      I don’t think they will come together but they will work together to thwart the choices of the Scottish voters. Labour will try to use the SNP to pass the legislation the Tories oppose whilst using the Tories and LibDem’s to vote against any moves by the SNP. It will be an English cartel of MP’s to deny democracy in Scotland.

      We can only hope for a large majority of votes for independence parties. I’m still in a quandary about which elections to use, or should we do both. Collapse Holyrood have a vote then follow it up with one at the next GE, but whatever we do the tactics must be clear to the voters, we don’t want them to give up, that’s what Westminster is betting on.

  45. Cannae have they furriner / migrants making any sort of compliment about their adopted country can we!

    The state of England’s national broadcaster. Jeez.

    National story:

    https://archive.ph/xUson

    Devi Sridhar responds to ‘pro-SNP’ bias complaint upheld by BBC

    ‘lovely lochs!’ Touché.

    I note that now we are in the UK by force and not choice, the BBC is a foreign broadcaster being likewise forced upon Scotland.

    • jfngw says:

      I think we know that if this was reversed and someone said something positive about England or the comment had been negative about Scotland the BBC would have rejected any complaint. We’ve seen the complaints the BBC have rejected in the past to confirm this.

      The only time they cede is if the output is such a lie there is no way they can cover their backs, then the person will be given a promotion abroad.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Thank-you for posting the archive of this, I’ve not yet re-signed to the National as I was unsure of it’s direction and remain so inclined, the Herod link has become a tad obvious and bluntly intrusive.

      If I have grasped this correctly, this is about purdah rules which as we know all too well the BBC adheres to without fear or favour (stop laughing at the back).
      Aside the “Scottish Lochs” repost and the timing if the findings, why do I detect the distinct air of “Eau de Latrine – Made in London”.

  46. Ken says:

    Westminster FPTP. Holyrood D’Houdt. Letting 3rd loser in. Councils STV. Different criteria.

  47. Ken says:

    It is illegal for a political representative to advise votingfor another political party. For obvious reasons. Representation of the People’s Act.

  48. Pogmothon says:

    For some reason which eludes me I was unable to post this further up stream where it should have been. Before the bairns started throwing the toys oot o’ the pram. So I enter it here please read it in the position it should have been.

    So with reference to WGD observation on 24-Nov-22 @ 16:04

    I see and agree with all of your observations as usual. (Sss like your a mind reader)

    My counter proposal would be utilise both.

    If the unionist parties choose to boycott a legally held Holyrood election so much the better, cuts the dead wood in one stroke, removes unnecessary expenses and the Green Party become the opposition (for lack of a better description), win win win with the world looking on.
    It is fairly self explanatory that the wastemonster will deny the result and there will be loads of argy-bargy again with the world looking on.
    But how do you complain or argue that you have no say or no MPs in a parliament where you refused to take part in the legal constituted and hopefully over seen by the UN (observers) election for the same.
    I have no doubt that the argy-bargy and intense international observation would continue from 19-Oct-23 right up to the UKGE.

    Let me add this for anyone of a different outlook than this blog/site (never sure what is the correct address), yes the others listening in, we know you are always there.

    NO VOW will make the slightest bit of difference this time.
    Anything you want to use to persuade us to your point of view needs to be up and running before the election, and non-removable. Or yet tea’s oot.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Jacob Rees Mogg’s words “No government can bind the hands of the next government”

      In other words it matters not a jot what any UK government puts in writing, they can at will rewrite it with the election of the next government, or even the next Prime Minister

      It’s why the *British* are known throughout the world as “Perfidious Albion”

      translation: liars who do not keep their word

      • grizebard says:

        Yes, this wonderful “flexible constitution”, the one that has no guardians worth a stuff and is only a one-way “flexible friend”. Works fine for the UKGov of the day but fails for people with inalienable rights. Operates on the principle (if you can call it that) “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    • daveytee19 says:

      I don’t think for a moment that the Unionists would boycott an election, even a plebiscite election. The might boycott a referendum as that might well throw the result in doubt and would have no repercussions, but if they boycotted an election they’d find that they were left with no MPs and that indy-minded MPs held every seat. There’s no way they could risk that.

      • grizebard says:

        Agreed. To walk away without a fight would be political suicide. A boycott can only work with a “poison pill” quota in place, as in 1979.

      • Mind there’s a difference between what parties might ask of voters, and what voters might do.

        I cannot see Scottish unionist voters, having had England take away their choice and attack what they believed in, then dumbly accepting that and actually giving up their vote by boycotting when England / English parties in Scotland demanded it. I mean seriously? Every poll shows Scots overwhelmingly believe that the Scottish government have the right to hold iref2, even individual voters don’t want the vote or would prefer it somewhere off in the future. Scots respect the votes of their fellow country-folk. It’s just some British nationalists and England’s government that does not.

        Nope, most Scots unionists would turn out an vote for the parties standing up for Scotland’s free democratic choice. Some hardcore British nationalist might boycott, but the evidence is that a good few of these don’t bother with Holyrood elections anyway, hence the turnout is a bit lower here typically. Such people not voting would only boost the Yes share.

        I’ll point out once more that Spain called for a boycott of the Catalan referendum after declaring that illegal in its SC. But neither approach was ever going to work, because if there was a reasonable turnout and people voted Yes, the political ramifications would have been huge. The people of Catalonia could have believed they’d voted Yes, and would demand that be recognised if so, even if a voter had personally voted against. So the only option was the dictatorship 101 approach; stop people voting freely and fairly. In that case, it was with boots on the ground, arrests etc as usual.

        • daveytee19 says:

          I do hope you’re right, but you’re a lot more optimistic about unionist attitudes than I am. Over the last few years the Tory government has consistently ignored Scotland’s interests and has passed a series of measures damaging to Scotland. of which Brexit was the greatest. Power grabs have been voted through, a Tory prime minister said she would just ingnore Nicola Sturgeon. Scottish MPs are regularly shouted down by the Tories and their presence in the House of Commons is ineffectual. But in spite of all that the unionist vote has remained fairly solid. Will the unionist leopard change his spots and decide to vote for independence just because the Supreme Court makes a judgment that most indy supporters say makes little difference anyway? I fear not.

          • grizebard says:

            I believe you’re confusing things somewhat here. There is a 25-30% solid Unionist mindset (many but not exclusively Tories), most of whom will never change their minds (at least this side of indy). But they are in a way irrelevant. It’s the remaining 20-25% who are up for play. They’re the ones who matter. They’re Scottish, so take a long time to shift themselves out of their established assumptions. Look how long it took the same mentality over devo, from 1979 till 1997, and that was after much nurturing along the way.

            But it’s not a linear business. It’s “camel’s back” territory. A lot of important stuff can happen without much visible effect, then something apparently fairly trivial can pop up and suddenly opinion can shift, and shift dramatically. This superficially “frozen” situation is particularly fostered by the near-complete media omerta over the opinion of half the population, a condition that is only broken when a democratic event demands it. Which is why in the meantime it’s important to keep plugging away, and Unionism’s own-goals like the current one always help.

            • daveytee19 says:

              Once again, I hope you’re right. But we won’t get at them if we don’t campaign, so now that we know just where we stand I do hope that the SG and the indy parties will at long last get down to some serious campaigning and, hopefully, go at least some way towards burying their diffrences so that a united Yes front can be presented to the electorate. Quite apart from personalities, it may be difficult aligning some policies,e.g. EU or EFTA, pound sterling or Scottish pound immediately on independence, NATO membership, and no doubt various others.

              • grizebard says:

                Sorry, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. There’s not going to be any realignment to suit Alba’s minority fancies. They can join in if they want (though that’s already in doubt with some), but this is not going to be Alex Salmond’s call. He had his try, and he failed.

              • grizebard says:

                Because the blunt truth is that Alba have only managed to capture a tiny fraction of the more-impatient end of the existing pro-indy vote, and have absolutely nothing to offer the convinceable middle-ground vote we now need to win.

                • daveytee19 says:

                  I see, so it’s SNP and their policies or nothing. No compromise, no alignment, no unity. That being the case I’m not sure we deserve independence. And actually Alba offers some pretty sensible policies that I personally find more realistic than those of the SNP (as do some SNP members I know) and I would like to think that there could be some sort of independence convention when a joint policy for a plebiscite independence election could be worked out. Such a convention would not only include politicians, but also people from no party whose priorities will hopefully be what is best for Scotland, not just the SNP. I would like to think that we’ll have a Yes movement, led hopefully by someone who is not aligned to any particular party. The SNP does not own independence. All the independence parties want independence, though such as been the snails pace of progress over the last few years that I have sometimes wondered about the SNP leadership. If you want to put party differences before independence so be it, and we’re probably doomed to umpteen more years of English Tory rule, but I think that’s a sad reflection of your own priorities.

                  • grizebard says:

                    Once again you entirely miss the point. What does Alba bring to the indy party? What has Alba actually achieved? This isn’t a free ride for opportunists. You might feel as passionately as you like about whoever you admire or dislike, and whatever policies you like, but you don’t have any heft outside your hermetic bubble, so you don’t have any influence. It’s that simple.

                    If you don’t like that, then start winning over people who are not already won over. (And bluntly, you likely can’t. Because your leadership isn’t popular and your policies have no traction where it matters, with the public at large.)

                    • daveytee19 says:

                      If any point is being missed it’s by you. I can’t say I much like the SNP in its present guise but that won’t stop me co-operating with them and indeeed voting for them if it furthers the cause of Independence. The SNP does not own independence and your blind hatred of another independence supporting party just plays straight into the hands of the unionists. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

                  • Legerwood says:

                    The SNP and their policies have been endorsed by the voters to an extent that they are, and have been for some time, the party of government. That does not stop other parties such as Alba and any other independence supporting part putting its case to the voters nor does it stop Alba and other parties holding their own conferences to determine how they wish to proceed in this matter.

                    Independence is a multi-faceted entity and as such people would expect distinct voices to be heard during the process to gain independence. What they would not want set before them is a cobbled together alliance which by its very nature silences the many sides of the debate into one anodyne message that convinces no one.

                    • daveytee19 says:

                      The voice of sanity….

                      There is one point with which I would differ to some extent. Normally I’d agree with what you say about a cobbled together alliance. In the present instance, however, we are facing a plebiscite election where the main issue before the public will be whether Scotland should be independent. If, as has been mooted, there should be one independence candidate standing in each constituency, I think it important that in these circumstances there should be a clear message as to what independence will mean and will bring to them – currency, foreign policy, NATO, EU or EFTA,and so on. A confused message is likely to be be counterproductive. If, on the other hand, the election will be run on normal lines with perhaps several indepepndence candidates, then as you say there would be no need for any alliance although I suspect that the end result might not be so much to our liking.

                  • I see, so it’s SNP and their policies or nothing.

                    This is just silly talk. People can vote Alba or Green if they support indy. Or start a new party. Just 5% in a region is all that’s needed to start getting seats. I have voted for other pro-indy parties / candidates myself before, including Margo.

                    I really don’t understand what your point is. We have 3+ pro-indy parties. None of these should somehow have to change their policies to suit the wishes of another. At least not unless they enter into coalition, where compromise is needed. The SNP and greens have agreed some common ground here. Might have happened with Alba if they’d won some seats, but Scots didn’t vote for them as their policy platform only appealed to a couple of %. Alba need to ask themselves why they didn’t win votes; the lack support lying entirely in Alba’s approach / manifesto. Can’t be blamed on anyone else.

                    TBH davey, the reason Alba is getting nowhere is its focus on the SNP and not independence. It almost sounds unionist in its relentless ‘cos Sturgeon’ and ‘cos SNP’ talk. The Greens by contrast have done well by just being themselves, promoting their policies in a positive way and not just saying ‘vote for us because the SNP are doing it all wrong’. Alba should learn from this. I get the impression that Alba seem to think other Yes parties should adopt Alba policies and/or give them some of their votes / MSPs / MPs. It’s ridiculous. SNP voters want the SNP to deliver SNP policies, not Alba ones. If folk want Alba policies, they vote Alba!

                    Alba also copies unionists in forcing its rule on voters. Its two MPs are literally ‘a government Scots didn’t vote for!’. Scots didn’t vote Alba in 2019, but the voters of two constituencies find themselves with Alba MPs who refuse them a ‘Section 30’ in that they won’t stand down and hold by-elections. While it is right that elected politician change party if they feel the can no longer support its approach, they should stand down and seek re-election if they change to another party. If Christine Grahame swapped to Alba, I would, rightly, want my vote back because it was for the SNP as much as for her.

                    • daveytee19 says:

                      I would reply but it’ll just end up off the edge of the page and be virtually unreadable as I suspect this is. The format of this blog does not lend itself to lengthy conversations!

          • Sure, but Scots thought they were choosing recent UK governance freely. Most don’t pay close attention to cat and mouse over iref2, which is what it seemed to be. Because, well it was.

            The idea that most Scots watch PMQs etc is a bit silly. I don’t watch that as it’s someone else’s Parliament, do you?

            You need to get out and talk to people, particularly Scottish unionists. Not the rabid britnats, but the 1/4 or so that back Scotland’s right to choose in polling, but have, so far, still been minded to vote for the union. I am finding these looking at the floor now with shoulders slumped now. These people are not on the internet, they live down the road. They don’t normally discuss politics. You need to carefully guide the conversation that way.

            It’s right to say the decision cannot stop indy. That much is indisputable. Nobody is arguing otherwise. Even the UK papers, after celebrating the ‘win’, are all now realising that it didn’t stop anything, but probably made it worse for the UK.

            I note Alba have been claiming we are not yet independent due to the inaction of the SNP, so going out of their way to reinforce the idea that the union is voluntary right up until now. So why would voters thinks otherwise in the absence of a widely publicised legal decision to the contrary? Only now, with the EBC etc gleefully ramming it down Scots throats, does the average Scot now know the true situation.

  49. yesindyref2 says:

    From observation and correlation v coincidence, it’s barely possible that some of my postings get considered in the ivory tower, directly or indirectly. My postings are indeed completely my own view, nobody tells me what to post. I also only obey my wife (a fair bit), our kids (less than they’d like), and of course our cat completely and utterly.

    They can get me on PeterABell who can be a little, let’s say, insulting but does completely understand the principle of “Right to Reply”, meaning I can trust the blog not to leave me being misrepresented.

    It’ll be a little while there; like many I need to consider where we’re at after this watershed and totally nonsensical UKSC decision. Personally I don’t think the legal route is over, and by the way the UKSC had 11 judges for “important” UK Parliament decisions, and just the derisory 5 judges for unimportant Jockish Scotland, perhaps they too don’t expect it to be all over, though they’d clearly like it to be.

    Meanwhile, Joanna Cherry has it right, and a lesson for many to learn:

    https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23148642.uk-supreme-court-indyref2-ruling-legal-none—not-political/

    If this is to be our plan, then it will mean respectful dialogue and cooperation between the activists of the SNP, Green and Alba parties. The petty bile needs to stop.

    Indeed.

    • grizebard says:

      While I agree that the SC judgement was nonsensical, I can’t agree that a legal route now can offer any prospect of progress, since the “fearty five” have clung to a narrow defence of WM law, not reached for the higher ground. And there is no means of appeal. What has subtly changed, perhaps, though, is that Unionist promoters in the media, if they’re wise (is that possible?), will have to tread very carefully in their pronouncements now, because they might very easily be seen as craven panderers to a foreign occupier’s interests.

      That said, I still look forward to a convincing analysis by impartial constitutional experts of where the so-called Union now stands, but out of personal educational interest, not in the expectation that it can itself achieve any popular political progress towards indy.

      A good article by Joanna, thanks. I particularly liked the quote about the Holyrood option:

      as one of my colleagues remarked this week, nothing says “I mean business” like collapsing your own Parliament and going for a back-me or sack-me strategy

      As I’ve already observed, like her, it needs careful consideration. I like the prospect though (eg.) of completely puncturing the empty pretensions of Anas Sarwar well in advance of the next UKGE.

      Creating political facts on the ground, creating momentum in whatever ways can still be found, is surely essential to avoid another year or more of potentially debilitating stasis.

  50. Erm, aye.

    While I don’t imagine you’d have seen riots in Scotland (except maybe some Rangers fans and/or Orange Order types as per George Square ‘celebrations’), I would have gone from a solid Remain to a solid Leave if the EU had tried to legally trap the UK / prevent a referendum on membership.

    Now sit back and watch the backlash in Scotland to England doing this to our country. Won’t come in the form of riots, but will be just as strong. How could it not be?

    Someone choosing the union is very, very different from that choice being taken away, and it being forced on them and their country-folk.

    https://archive.ph/qP0xW

    Imagine the riots had Brexit been thwarted by a court ruling like this

    HAD the United Kingdom been prevented from holding a referendum on withdrawal from the European Union or been advised that withdrawal could only take place according to rules effectively determined by the other EU member countries, besides vociferous claims of democratic outrage there might well have been rioting in the streets of England.

    • To expand a bit here. I am pro-EU and if not that, then EEA/EFTA. I believe it democratic and a union of equals. I feel European. Most important for me, above economic benefits, is freedom of movement. I am a child of Europe, being Scottish and Irish. My daughter is too; Scottish and French (with maybe an Irish left leg, or at least a very Irish name).

      If I’d seen the EU suddenly turn anti-democratic and try to force a country to stay against its will with legal rulings, I’d have been aghast. I would have felt really let down. That I’d been lied to. That a union I’d argued for turned on me, making me look like a fool in front of everyone I’d lauded it to. I would have turned from Remain to leave overnight. I would not want an indy Scotland to be part of it. No chance. Even if that might make things difficult economically, democracy trumps all.

      So, how are many Scots unionists feeling right now? Aye.

      Don’t mistake the gloating British nationalists for Scottish unionists. The former are not Scots, the latter are, and with what is happening will be very open to persuasion if they have not already switched firmly. After all, many were saying it was time in 2020, but then backed off a little again. This will be the final straw here for a good few.

      • grizebard says:

        Being a “Prout Scot But” isn’t really a plausible option now.

        And what hope for a Labour-induced “better devo”? Supposing they could even be bothered, and given that it could so very easily be unwound again by the other cheek of the Lab-Con Cartel.

  51. Dr Jim says:

    What happens when the TV announces toilet roll shortages? folk rush out and buy every toilet roll in sight
    What happens when the TV announces bread shortages? the same damn thing
    Now here we are with the media reporting that Police Scotland says there’ll be civil unrest due to constitutional uncertainty, (something btw they had no right whatsoever saying publicly) guess what the reaction of the imperialists is and guess what certain of those Triumph Stagg loving imperialists will be encouraging their boneheaded supporters to do with his next Queens 11 twitter bile

    I cannot believe the Polis were either this irresponsible stupid or malicious, I hope this is just Daily Express style imperialist scaremongering, if true, whichever polis opened his mouth on that subject deserves banged up in jail with the folk he put in there

    • I saw that. Police Scotland are right to point out that Scots being denied the right to freely vote by England is going to cause protests. How could it not? When people are denied the right to vote for the government of their choosing, they start to protest in every greater numbers. How many times have we all watched this on the TV in countries across the world? From Hong Kong to Belarus… People are the same the world over.

      Article:

      Police Scotland warn of ‘unrest’ due to ‘constitutional uncertainty’

      They are not meaning riots, but protests. Potentially huge ones such as seen in Hong Kong, Iran right or during the Arab spring.

      Scots were broadly certain they lived in a democracy. They have just been told they apparently don’t, and cannot freely vote for the government of their choosing, but instead must accept forced rule by an aggressive foreign [English] government. England’s national broadcaster is now being forced upon them. England’s disastrous brexit likewise. England is saying it owns their homeland and will continue to plunder its resources even if Scots are strongly opposed to that…. That’s not going to be taken lying down by voters.

      Our movement is now a pro-democracy one, no different to those that have gone before it, where one country forcibly occupied and subjugated the people of another.

      England still has time to stop this madness and immediately move to legislate for Edinburgh, Cardiff and Stormont to be able to hold indyrefs freely at a time of their choosing. It’s the only way to stop the union rapidly disintegrating USSR style. It can only be held together if the peoples of all nations choose that freely. There is no other way.

      Incidentally, the constitution of the USSR actually allowed for free secession, unlike the UK.

        • Dr Jim says:

          The Polis are placing *blame* on the SNP for failures
          I’d sack him out of sight immediately if this is correct, he can have his beef with the government of Scotland but he singles out the political party by name, the nurses teachers and rail unions haven’t done that, they talk about the Scottish government and or ministers

          • Skintybroko says:

            Hi Dr Jim it only appears to be the tories peddling that line, civil unrest is going to hit the whole of the Uk with strikes, tories have lost the plot and lost the support of the majority – our major difference is the constitution and the lack of democracy, the Chief Constable was telling it for what it is and at no point does he appear to blame the SNP

          • Skintybroko says:

            Hi Dr Jim it only appears to be the tories peddling that line, civil unrest is going to hit the whole of the Uk with strikes, tories have lost the plot and lost the support of the majority – our major difference is the constitution and the lack of democracy, the Chief Constable was telling it for what it is and at no point does he appear to blame the SNP

      • Alan D says:

        Despite that article 72 in the USSR’ 1977 constitution, there was no actual mechanism for expressing a desire to secede(which is where Douglas Ross would have us). Only the Communist Party was permitted to stand for any elections. Note also that Article 74 of the same constitution clearly established that if there was disrepancy between all-Union and Union Republic laws, the USSR came out on top – so an union republic could not actually secede without Moscow’s consent. Ultimately, the USSR only disintegrated because Moscow finally decided to secede from it itself(technically, Kazakhstan was the last and only member of the USSR for six days).

        Even so, I wouldn’t focus on the USSR parallels too hard. It just doesn’t ring true, because however hard they’re trying to cosplay the USSR, the Westminster lot know that when we reach the 55-60% range in favour of outright independence, expressed during any parliamentary election, it’s over. They may then rush to offer a referendum or even two(an advisory and then a confirmatory) and we’ll leap over these anyway.

  52. jfngw says:

    Just read the BBC Scotland has been found guilty of pro-SNP bias and anti-Brexit bias, possibly the funniest thing I’ve heard in some time.

    Also Anas Sarwar is chosen as politician of the year, I believe the machine used for the selection was Lancelot.

    Bretix – the process the media dare not speak its name.

    • grizebard says:

      Yes, there’s a campaign underway to boost Sarwar as Scotland’s new Saviour of the Union, now that DRoss is a total bust and Labour might hope to win in England, if only because of the ongoing Tory dogs’ breakfast. But trying to turn a cardboard cutout into a credible player to compete with a genuine one like Nicola is the latest Unionist fools’ errand. If they couldn’t manage it with Murph, what chance with coat-tail discount millionaire?

  53. Dr Jim says:

    It’s half time and all USA USA

    • James says:

      Yea very frustrating game to watch, bit like Wales earlier in the day never really got out of first gear. Still save for Wales beating us by four clear goals, which I cant see happening, we are through which is the main box to tick.

      Tuesday should be a good game, neither have any reason to play for a draw, both will want to show an improvement on todays performance and both have players who can produce a bit of magic.

    • Aye, was a good game. USA should have won as the better team.

      I was supporting the USA partly because of family reasons – my sister in law is from the USA – but also for the same reasons my Iranian colleagues are not supporting Iran. Democracy.

      I can’t support teams whose governments are anti-democratic such as England and Iran.

      The Welsh government are democratic and pro self-determination, backing the people of Scotland’s right to vote for the government of their choice. As the English government oppose this, and wish to impose their rule on Scotland against the will of Scots, I can’t support England.

      My Iranian colleagues wished for a nil-nil draw when England played Iran as both country’s governments oppose democracy and subjugate the peoples they rule.

  54. James Mills says:

    ”The SNP is anti-English , antisemitic , anti-Indian …” says … Arlene Foster !!!

    The best Benny Hill impersonator in the DUP has stated this as she launched a new pro-Union organisation in London ( with more Dark Money ? ) called The Together UK Foundation .
    It has been called a ”Foundation” rather than a Think Tank – well , Arlene is in it so they couldn’t , could they ?

    ”What unites us more than anything is that separatism in any form is not the answer ” says the woman who wants to remain separated from the rest of Ireland and wanted the UK to separate from its 27 partners in the EU .

    Clearly a woman of substance ( – abuse ? ).

    The Pantomime Season has begun early .

    • grizebard says:

      Yes, it’s becoming unaware and increasingly ridiculous self-parody. Except nowadays it just ain’t funny. The only joke’s on anyone foolish enough to be taken in by it.

    • Is Foster ‘pro- or anti-Irish’? Hope it’s the former. We need answers! 😉

      And why is she campaigning when we are not allowed to vote anyway? What’s the point exactly?

      • Golfnut says:

        GE in 2023 maybe, they expect trouble in England so it has happen in Scotland as well, maybe why our Chief Constable warns of civil unrest the day after the SC ruling, just coincidental of course.

        • I can’t see Yessers causing any problematic protests in Scotland because the Scottish government is democratic.

          It is the English government that should be the target as it is who is repressing democracy. Our pro-democracy protests should, if needs be, target London.

          That said, the British community in Scotland does have a very problematic nationalist element known for holding unpleasant pro-union marches that the police need to strictly control, and of course rioting in Glasgow. The police, I suspect, are talking about this problem, and how these types will react to Scottish independence.

      • Capella says:

        It’s part of the ulsterisation of Scotland. We’ve had a lot of colour revolutions but the colour orange has already been taken. So she’s wrapping herself in red,white and blue.

        • Dr Jim says:

          Well if there were any of the green half of Scotland still not convinced to vote YES to independence they will be when they see the alternative

          An advertising agency couldn’t have done a better job for YES

          **Scotland has a champion** and it’s Arlene Foster

          Oh yes, a definite winner there if ever I saw one, quick England, sign her up

        • When you hear talk of British / English parties boycotting elections in Scotland in an attempt to shut down democracy as these are doing in the north of Ireland, it’s hard not to think they would like to go down the ulsterisation route here too now. They don’t mind democracy when it’s them winning, but when they lose, they start trying to overturn or block democracy.

          The problem they face is 3/4+ of Scots are first and foremost Scottish, with only around 20% British if they must choose. In N. Ireland, the British make up over 40% of the population, with only about the same Irish. The rest being N. Irish and caught in the middle, giving their votes to the likes Alliance.

  55. Good to see Mike Russel speaking at a pro-Irish reunification event. The English/British parties are of course blocking democracy in the north of Ireland just as they are now doing to Scotland and Wales.

    https://archive.ph/rJf4J

    Scotland and Northern Ireland live in constitutional Hotel California

    THE ramshackle, largely unwritten and vastly out-of-date constitution of the United Kingdom was broken by Brexit. All we saw on Wednesday was further confirmation that it is no longer fit for any sort of purpose, not for any part of these islands.

    I spent Wednesday night in Belfast, where I managed by the skin of my teeth to get to the historic and impressive Ulster Hall in time to be the keynote speaker at a packed meeting organised by the “Ireland’s Future” organisation…

    …Equally appalling is the attitude of Labour, who, on Wednesday, instead of defending democracy and proposing the one-sentence bill that could cure the wrongs in the Scotland Act, gloatingly rejoiced alongside the Tories.

    Brexit is the antithesis of democracy yet – even though there is now a majority even in England for admitting it has failed – it will go on poisoning the politics of these islands until the United Kingdom is dissolved.

    The plain fact is that there is now no alternative but dissolution. Those who still back Brexit won’t give it up, but it is equally certain that the pressures from those who want to restore democracy in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will not abate either.

    As he says, it is not just about Scottish independence now, but about democracy, and not just for Scots, but for the peoples of Wales and the north of Ireland.

  56. jfngw says:

    What we are witnessing is not British Nationalism but English Nationalism with its supplicant house personnel enablers in the countries it wants to keep control of. The Supreme Court verdict confirms Britain is in fact England and its controlled territories (some even call them that in Westminster).

    I wouldn’t bet on any support from the judiciary in Scotland, the upper echelons there are from a tier of society which mostly will doff their caps to Westminster, after all they had no qualms with a Supreme Court which was in breach of the treaty of Scotland’s independent law. Some of them I suspect you would be more likely to see marching arm in arm with Arlene Foster than Nicola Sturgeon.

  57. Gordon says:

    Arlen Foster has been voted out. Ireland could vote to reunite. The Tories are blocking it. The Tories will be voted out. The vote for the SNP and Independence increases. 60%.

  58. Iranian regime accuses students of ‘risking violence’ by protesting against government crackdown on democracy.

    https://archive.ph/sjXD5

    First minister ‘risks fuelling violence after court ruling’

    Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, has warned Nicola Sturgeon that her emotive language risks stoking up violence after the Supreme Court decision this week.

    The court ruled that the Scottish parliament did not have the legal right to hold a referendum on independence.

    The first minister has called the decision “outright democracy denial” and urged her supporters to “launch a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy”. SNP rallies have been held across the country protesting against a judgment that brings an end to any immediate hope of a second independence vote.

    It was not the SNP that opened this Pandora’s box, and it’s only a section of the British community in Scotland that do political violence.

    Why don’t Labour propose a one line change to the Scotland which would restore democracy?

    • ‘To the Scotland Act’

    • jfngw says:

      That is now one of their attack lines, they already have members of the police onboard, which is a bit strange as they never have any qualms with certain groups of violent marchers.

      I don’t believe he is being authentic, there is nothing more these supplicant English Nationalist supporting politicians would like than some violence, they dream of Ulsterisation. How many condemned the violence perpetrated on a George Square crowd in 2014.

  59. Ken says:

    Scotland has always gone through the Ballot Box. Universal Suffrage 1928. The illegal Partition of Ireland. 1923.

    In Ireland Catholics were denied the vote. In Belfast in the 1960’s.

    The Masonics undemocratic, racist, bigoted misogynistic and secret. Blackballing people and unequal.

    The Police are supposed to be non-political. They need diversity training. Charging people instead of giving a warning for mild misdemeanors. The Courts are backed up. Abused women cannot get legal aid. The UK one of the highest prison numbers in Europe. Half have additional needs without the proper support.

  60. jfngw says:

    Scotland is a colony in all aspect apart from one, and Westminster is always clever in this respect, they do not in general have actual colonisers but recruit supplicant members of the controlled country to do their bidding.

    But it certainly falls under the description of a vassal state, all decisions are under the control of a government elected in another country, all the countries laws can be reversed or blocked by this government. We pay in tribute and military service to them, our degree of independence is completely controlled by them. The tribute is even more than the definition, they take all our money/resources and return what they deem appropriate.

    • noun. : a state with varying degrees of independence in its internal affairs but dominated by another state in its foreign affairs and potentially wholly subject to the dominating state.

      An accurate description.

      • jfngw says:

        That’s true but some definitions include colonisers within that, we have a few like ACH. It depends on whose definition you deem to choose.

        I looked at the UN site to see if they had a definition, lots of words but no actual definition I could find. The unfortunate part I found was to be accepted as a UN member you first need the approval of the permanent members, Westminster is one of these. So although we meet the definition of the right to self-determination the withholders of our rights has an effective veto, it will need international pressure.

        • daveytee19 says:

          The UN is very keen on decolonisation. It has a list of 17 colonies (“non self-governing territories) that would fall within its scheme. Scotand is not one of them. Nor can it be as the UN specifically states that a territory cannot be considered a colony if it is in free association with another state or, more pertinently to Scotland, is integrated with an independent state.

          But while we cannot therefore proceed under the decolonisation programme, it might be possible to go to the UN Court of Justice on the basis that we as a people are being denied self-determination. That would take some time, so I’d like to see the SG instruct a firm of specialist international lawyers, ideally not in the UK, to prepare the necessary papers for submission to the court. The FM should then go to No. 10, slap a draft writ down on the PM’s table, and advise him that unless within, say, 14 days agreement is given for a referendum, the writ will be issued. If it comes to that, then pending conclusion of the case consistent pressure should be put on the international community to shame and, if possible, penalise the UK for its stance.

          That would not, of course, affect any other actions that Scotland might like to take in the meantime.

  61. See when England plays Wales at the world cup, what song will be the national anthem of the former? Just so I know which national anthem isn’t that of the people of Wales.

    It would nice if English players stayed silent in support of Scottish / Welsh / north of Ireland democracy. Iranian players did this in their first match in support of the pro-democracy movement at home, but, I understand caved in to regime pressure for the game against Wales.

    If English players did that, I’d absolutely change my stance and wish both teams well, albeit it I always tend to favour the underdog!

    • Just as the BBC is now officially England’s national broadcaster / is no longer British, so the same applies to GSTK. These can only be considered British if Scots freely consent to being so. Following the UKSC ruling, they are now a foreign broadcaster / foreign anthem forced on Scots.

      GSTK is now to Scots as Patrioticheskaya Pesnya is to Ukrainians. This is what happens when you end democratic consent for governance.

      A one line change to the Scotland Act (and for Wales / NoI) closes this Pandora’s box.

      • According to the English SC Cymru are not a country, so should not be at the World Cup, competing with real nations like France or Brazil.
        Come to think of it, England are there under false pretences. If Scotland is not a colony or sovereign nation, neither is ‘England’. Surely there is only one nation on these isles; United Kingdomland?
        The British Law Lords have decreed that there is no England, Wales, Scotland and ‘the Province’ of Northern Ireland.
        FIFA must be told. Each country on the globe is facing 4 United Kingdomland teams?
        Iran and the USA are taking on two teams from the same country, according to the Brit Nat powdered wigs, surely?
        The Brit commentators even refer to their 4 teams as the ‘home’ nations.
        England is no longer a country.
        Discuss.

        • Capella says:

          Good point. France, Germany, Spain and others could start sending 4 teams to these events as well to even up the score. They must be puzzled when confronted with “Wales” or “England” on the pitch.

        • Golfnut says:

          England isn’t an independent country so said the judge who threw out the submission of the magna Carta in the Keating case.
          ‘ The Magna Carta has no standing in Scots law because it was created at a time when England was independent from Scotland ‘
          exactly the same as parliamentary sovereignty which was created at a time when England was an independent country, neither exist in statute and both belong to English common law.
          Strange how one has no standing but the other used to subvert democracy.

        • jfngw says:

          Just imagine if FIFA decided the 1966 was won under false pretences and be deleted from the records. We would be destined to wall to wall WWII and Henry VIII/Anne Boleyn programmes on the BBC.

          Just like the Supreme Court union judgement, we think it’s all over, it is now.

        • Alex Montrose says:

          I’m sure in the past other countries have complained to FIFA that the UK are allowed to enter 4 teams in competitions, mibbies they’ll have another go.

          • James Mills says:

            …and yet in the Olympics the UK team is entered as UK not England , Scotland , etc…
            Then in the Commonwealth Games we get Scotland , Wales , N.Ireland and one other entered as ”independent ” countries .

            Over to you M’Lords in the Supreme Court !

            • Team GB, or as it’s known Up Here in the Northern isthmus, Scotland, have just won the men’s curling Euro championship again.
              They’ll be dancing in the streets of Ashby de la Zouch tonight.
              Good old English place name that is, isn’t it?

  62. Dr Jim says:

    The so called union of the four countries dominated by England has been warned by the supporters of that union that Scotland and its people must stop pursuing democracy or violence will be visited upon those of us who support that democracy

    Well bring that on Vladimir England union

    Euan McColm is a journalist for the Scotsman newspaper and the long suspected vitriolic anti democracy unionist character Effie Deans, and this morning on the Shereen Nanjiani BBC radio show in yet another vitriolic anti SNP tirade claimed that Scotland is an equal partner in the union and that it can leave the union but just not under the SNP because he, they, the union doesn’t like the SNP

    Well of course he doesn’t like the SNP because they and more than half of Scotland don’t like him or what he stands for which is fascist dictatorship by England, but just don’t actually say the words, don’t mention the Brexit and don’t mention democracy

    When the union starts the violence will they be telling us don’t mention the war, like Basil Fawlty, They shot and killed the Paddies and the Micks in the 70s so is it now the turn of the Jocks to be taught a lesson by those who think they own democracy

    • jfngw says:

      England doesn’t exist, from now on it is merely Englandshire, a region of great Great Britain. There is no England Cricket team, merely the Englandshire Cricket team, regional team with no international standing. Not my ruling but the ruling of the Supreme Court.

  63. STAGE LEFT says:

    Well said, as always, Paul. Here’s my take on it:https://stageleft.blog/2022/11/26/youre-gonna-need-a-bigger-vote/
    Best,
    Paul Bassett

    • Bob Lamont says:

      A minor correction “The Scottish people last chose a UK Tory government in 1955” is a common myth, the “Scottish Unionists” Union was Irish and were of a completely different agenda to the Conservatives even if they fell in lockstep with the Tories in Westminster, a good explanation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_(Scotland).

      It was only in the mid 1960s that the “Scottish Unionist Party” ceased to exist and were swallowed up by the Tory Party of London, so in reality Scots have never chosen a majority of Tory MPs in their history.

      Och no, there’s no ambiguity any more, HMG just peed in it’s chips…

  64. Lovely.

    Maybe if your county actually let Welsh people freely vote you could get what you want?

    https://archive.ph/g6jpW

    The sooner we get rid of that virtue-signalling nitwit Mark Drakeford the better!’ English pundits revel in Wales’ misery

    …English pundits on radio station talkSPORT have revelled in Wales’ loss to Iran in the World Cup, with Simon Jordan even taking a swipe at First Minister Mark Drakeford…

    …”Why would I care more about Wales than I would care about any other side?” Jordan said on talkSPORT.

    “The Welsh sat there and had a little sing-song when we got knocked out by Iceland (in Euro 2016). Everything that goes around comes around. It’s a matter of fact.

    “And the quicker we can get rid of that virtue-signalling nitwit Mark Drakeford back to Wales, the happier I’ll be!”

    Jim White, the presenter, attempted to steer the anti-Welsh sentiment back to a position of neutrality, even suggesting that the comments might stem from “English arrogance”.

    However, Jordan hit back by saying: “We can get into this Celtic nonsense, or we can get into the sentiment being trumped by fact.

    Come on Scots, Welsh etc, why don’t you support England?

    • Dr Jim says:

      It’s to do with the spelling of the word *England*
      The correct spelling is of course *A.r.r.o.g.a.n.c.e* and every country in the world I’ve ever visited spells it the same way, often accompanied by the same facial expression when they say it, they can’t all be wrong, can they?

      Travel to Ireland, they spell it with saliva

    • But we do support the ‘subsidy junkies’, Englandshire with our oil, gas, wave power, wind, hydro, fish, whisky, beef, gin, lamb, forestry, IT products, aerospace, Universities, Finance, world leading workforce, oh, and Lorne sausages.
      Whiskey is the biggest export earner in the food and drink section of Englandshire’s economy.
      ‘Tis why I demand independence now, now in Cherry’s 202 timetable.
      In 4 years Englandshire can loot a helluva lot of our wealth before we drive them from our lands for good.
      England only survives now because they plunder our wealth.

      • ‘Whiskey’ !!! Even autocorrect denies our very existence.

        • davetewart says:

          What gets me is that on a recent trip to Bournemouth the place was falling apart.

          The hospitals with the roofs being supported to stop them falling down,

          Even recent viseo od drowning street they couldn’t get the leaves swept.

          I;m pretty sure that they are not the best people to run the prison we are the perpetual prisoner in, IF left to them.

          They’re living in some dream land, a place where they don’t look at what’s around them.
          They have just decided to reduce water inspections and rely on the water companies to police water quality.

          Roll on the republic of Scotland.

        • Dr Jim says:

          Apparently you can only be American or English on the interweb say the Japanese Chinese and Koreans who build the computering gizmos we all use

    • Welsh_Siôn says:

      It’s a *JOKE*, right? Can’t you Taffies take a joke? It’s all banter, y’know:

      https://nation.cymru/sport/bbc-world-cup-commentator-criticised-over-welsh-pronounciation-joke-during-wales-v-iran-match/

      A BBC commentator has been criticised after making a joke about the perceived difficulty of pronouncing Welsh names.

      Steve Wilson was commenting during the first half of the Wales v Iran game when he made the joke.

      Steve Wilson said: “Speaking to a Welsh colleague this week who was struggling a bit with the Iranian Pronounciations.

      “But I thought – if you can pronounce Welsh names you’re half way there.

      “Iranians are a breeze compared to some of the Welsh place names.”

      […]

      ______________

      So lame. So as per bloody usual.

      • I was saying the other day that the problem is the BBC is England’s national broadcaster (now officially with the UKSC ruling). We Scots, Welsh and Irish in the north of Ireland are paying for another country’s world cup coverage etc.

        I think we can be pretty sure when e.g. Norwegians are watching NRK coverage, commentators / pundits will not be struggling to pronounce the surnames of national team players.

        How can the BBC claim to be the Welsh national broadcaster if it’s pundits can even do that?

  65. jfngw says:

    Is it true? Is the Pavilion replacing their Christmas pantomime with ‘Orangerilla’, the tale of two unelected Empire Dames trying to jealously thwart the wishes of their more constitutionally attractive elected leader.

    Watch out, they’re behind you, although the flute band and heavy footstep may have already alerted you.

  66. grizebard says:

    History repeating itself, as England makes the same mistake all over again (from Wikipedia, my bold):

    [John] Adams, who [was] among the more conservative of the [eventual] Founders, persistently held that while British actions against the colonies had been wrong and misguided, open insurrection was unwarranted and peaceful petition with the ultimate view of remaining part of Great Britain was a better alternative. His ideas began to change around 1772, as the British Crown assumed payment of the salaries of Governor Thomas Hutchinson and his judges instead of the Massachusetts legislature. Adams wrote […] that these measures would destroy judicial independence and place the colonial government in closer subjugation to the Crown. After discontent among members of the legislature, Hutchinson delivered a speech warning that Parliament’s powers over the colonies were absolute and that any resistance was illegal. Subsequently, John Adams [with others] drafted a resolution adopted by the House of Representatives threatening independence as an alternative to tyranny.

    • grizebard says:

      And we all know how that turned out…

    • Dr Jim says:

      Mel Gibson’s American movie *The Patriot*

      Basically William Wallace in America, except those guys won and kicked the Crown of England out of their country

      • Gay Ecossais says:

        Yes with the assistance of the French troops our 1st cousins in Europe who are still backing Scotland. You will know the date chosen for our 2nd indy vote (19.oct.2023) is the date in 1781 when Cornwallis English troops capitulated 242 years earlier. In the New Year we should push ahead as planned. Then see how quickly they collapse when the World puts the English in with the other deniers of democracy: China, England, Iran, Russia, Syria. Now there’s a great headline!

    • Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose! Same old Brengland.

      Nae shortage ae countries oot there looking on and thinking ‘Aye Scotland, the anti-democratic, arrogant imperialist w***ers were the same with us!’

      Joe – ‘BBC? I’m Irish!’ – Biden included.

  67. Dr Jim says:

    At least Scotland’s A&E will go desperately quiet for the LabTors very soon when nobody will be turning up for their burns scalds and cuts to be treated from kitchen mishaps such as boiling water and chopping chips and veg

    They won’t be able to afford the leccy to cook in the first place, the poor celebrities up the jungle are eating better than normal folk in the real world

  68. yesindyref2 says:

    The SNP need to sack him pronto, and get a grip on this:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23151431.snp-section-30-honour-democracy-de-facto-referendum/

    However Toni Giugliano, the SNP’s policy development convener, told The Scotsman that a pro-independence majority could “start negotiations” with the UK Government and result in the granting of a Section 30 order.

    If this is what all the hot air amounts to, I’ll be holding my nose, disinfecting my hands, and voting for the sleepy cuddles party. There’s already “SNP stalwarts” totally hacked off with this.

    And the Irish don’t sympathise with us, they’re laughing at us for having nothing under the kilt, absolutely nothing. Laugh laugh laugh.

    • Erm, aye, we had a defacto vote in favour of an indyref in May last year.

    • grizebard says:

      I see that you’re in one of your vexed-at-the-SNP phases again. {grin} But you do have a point. Gradualism has its place, but it also has its limits.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      If the SNP don’t wake up 2024 will be their 1979 again, or worse.

      And Alba will have a majority government in Holyrood next election.

      • Dr Jim says:

        Alex Salmond knows perfectly well his chances of ever walking through the front door of Holyrood ever again are nil, he’s conning his followers massively to get what he wants, and it’s not about any kind of political position, although some of them haven’t cottoned on to that yet, but they will

    • James says:

      He’s entitled to his opinion like anyone else. If the majority of people agree with him at the confirence next year that will be the offical SNP policy if not it won’t.

      • Did someone say he’s not entitled to his opinion? I can’t see that in the thread?

      • Ginger beard says:

        James, do you think it should be the official SNP policy?

        • James says:

          I think the policy should be what ever is agreeed on at the conference. There are clearly differencies in opnion about what election should be used, policy regarding a referendum etc, the only way to resove this is to let all opinions be heard and then the party make a decsion.

          • If only the English government believed in the same democratic process as the SNP!

          • Ginger beard says:

            Thanks for your reply. I agree all opinions should be heard, are you willing to state what yours is on what Toni proposes? I am happy to say it made me feel a little uneasy as I thought that a plebiscitary election would have the same effect as a successful referendum so I would prefer it not to become the policy, but if it does, it does.

            • James says:

              I think that the statement should be that more than 50% for yes parties is a mandate for negociations for Scottish Independence. But im not a member of the SNP so thats not my choice to make.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Reply to all, really. Actually it’s far more basic and definitive than that. Sturgeon said in Holyrood in June, and I quote:

      If it does transpire that there is no lawful way for this parliament to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence in a referendum – and if the UK government continues to deny a section 30 order – my party will fight the UK general election on this single question –

      ‘Should Scotland be an independent country’.

      That is not the same as Giugliano’s single question:

      “Should we get the begging bowl out and ask please, pretty please, give us a Section 30 order during the next 5 years?”

      So Giugliano is making a liar out of Sturgeon, and either he has to go – or she does. THAT is what he has achieved.

      https://archive.ph/RvElm#selection-2035.0-2039.44

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Sorry. I gave the archive which I made in case the SNP decided quietly to remove the page – I trust nobody. I have other archives.

        https://www.snp.org/nicola-sturgeons-full-statement-announcing-the-2023-independence-referendum/

      • daveytee19 says:

        Indeed. One assumes that when Sturgeon made that statement she and the leadership had actually thought about it first and had decided what form a plebiscite election would take, and what would would happen in the event of a Yes decision. It now seems that they don’t know, which is astonishing. But never mind – let’s put it off yet further and have a conference at some unspecified date next year when we can decide what the membership can discuss and what notice we need take of it.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          Giugliano said: “… “But I think we need to move promptly as unless we do, the vacuum which currently exists around what is a de facto referendum and what isn’t, will be filled by unhelpful voices.

          Ummm, like his.

          Talk about a total lack of self-awareness.

  69. Ginger beard says:

    Paul, What’s your take on what Toni Giugliano is up to?

  70. Welsh_Siôn says:

    ‘Course, you’ll have seen these before.

    But I’m just distributing them here (if that’s the right way of putting it) before THE match. Please feel free to become proud members of y Wal Goch / the Red Wall for (at least) 90 minutes.

    Diolch / Thanks.

  71. Huh? How’s this possible? Someone needs to tell the

  72. Capella says:

    AUOB march through Glasgow today and that is currently the top news item on the BBC news page. Shock!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63768609

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Shock indeed given their track record in ignoring AUOB marches, but it soon becomes apparent why when you read the article https://archive.ph/W1Usx, THEY control the story which then sets the narrative others might then report.
      There is ZERO explanation of WHY they marched specifically on Pacific Quay.

  73. Dr Jim says:

    The British imperialists have begun their campaign of accusation against the FM as she talks about democracy, describing her words as “crossing the line” and “dangerous language”

    Democracy is now redefined as *dangerous language* by the English high command
    They’re working their way towards using the word *terrorism* just as they’ve done many times before to whip up the violent rection that they’re about to use to quell their described *terrorism*

  74. Golfnut says:

    I’m not sure who penned this at Believe in Scotland and even though I disagree on some areas, in general it chimes with my own thoughts

  75. yesindyref2 says:

    From Tickell in the National:

    Perhaps the most curious aspect of last week’s Supreme Court judgment is that Lord Reed felt it was necessary to say anything about self-determination.

    Some constitutional expert said the UKSC should find against the ScotGov, BUT tell the UK Gov off for being undemocratic.

    Perhaps the contradictory reference to self-determination is exactly what Reed, a Scot, was doing here. Drawing attention to it, and pointing out that that is the clear path out of the Union.

    Always look, on the bright side, of life.

    • Golfnut says:

      Good to see you decided to stay.👍

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Maybe occasionally. Having to stand on thin paperbacks to avoid your toes being slimed by rabid stunted rottweilers is a bit wearing, specially when your paperbacks are removed by third parties.

        Anyways, I might go back to my old Grun monicker and take the fight to the Unionist media again there and elsewhere – as long as they don’t want to charge me to post!

    • I fail to understand how we are ‘not repressed’ as a people if we can vote 100% for Scottish independence parties, only to get an English government.

      By contrast, the people of Britain / England are free to choose independence, as we saw with Brexit.

      That is the very definition of the repression of a national minority people. What exactly are the point of elections if ‘we can freely vote for whoever you wish, but you will always get unionism’.

      The UK is not a democracy. The UKSC confirmed this for all to see.

  76. One to bookmark. The BBC love this guy.

    John Curtice: Using election as de facto indyref2 is ‘legitimate’

    • Really don’t know what comb of keys I press to post before finishing when I’m copying and pasting a link!

      https://archive.ph/Iw4y9

      John Curtice: Using election as de facto indyref2 is ‘legitimate’

      FIGHTING the next General Election as a de facto referendum is “perfectly legitimate” and opposition parties can’t prevent independence-supporting parties from doing it, the UK’s leading pollster has said.

      As discussed in posts above, our first poll on this is 61% SNP/Yes.

    • I note that, under UK constitutional law, as the good Prof says:

      “If they [Yes parties] decide to fight an election on one issue, that is their choice,” said Professor John Curtice. “It is not for the opposition to say they can’t do it as it is their legitimate right. People can stand for election on anything they want to within the terms of the law.”

      🙂

  77. Capella says:

    SCUK ruling unravelling as we speak.

    Indyref2 ruling ‘very problematic’, constitution expert says

    Keating said: “International laws is not at all clear on this matter but there is a body of opinion that secession is only permissible in the case of colonies or where there has been manifest oppression of a people. This does not apply in the case of Scotland.

    “In making this argument, the Supreme Court invoked the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada when it was asked by the Government of Canada whether Quebec had the right to secede.

    “As the UK Court notes, the Canadian Court ruled that Quebec did not have that right.”

    However, Keating went on to say that the court did not mention a further aspect of the Canadian judgment – invoking democratic principles – which stated that “if Quebec or any other province did vote for independence by a clear majority on a clear question, the Government of Canada would be bound to negotiate”.

    “The UK Supreme Court, on the contrary, argued that, precisely because a referendum would be an expression of the democratic will of the Scottish people, it would have political consequences and therefore be illegal,” he said.

    Keating said denying a referendum on these grounds comes “close to denying that Scotland has a right to self-determination”, adding that even Margaret Thatcher wrote that Scots “have an undoubted right to national self-determination”.

    https://archive.ph/VtR1B

  78. The English Tories / Times now looking for ways to deal with problematic Scottish politicians.

    This is the charge the Spanish proto-fascist right used to jail democratically elected Catalan politicians for carrying out a manifesto pledge.

    https://archive.ph/4dNs2

    Spending public money building case for independence ‘may be illegal’

    • Eilidh says:

      So an article in the Times an English newspaper says this and are no doubt drummed up by English/Scots Tories to do so. Under what law would this be illegal.That does not seem to be defined in the article This £20 million is another reason why my colleague gloated on the SC result the other day as well as engaging in a severe case of whitabotery including about Scotland having no money so can’t create its own currency system etc. The Times article is particularly galling when the Tories break the law on a regular basis with PPE contracts etc. Do we know how much of the £20 million has actually been spent?

      • I am fully expecting talk of jail from English papers / MPs for pro-indy politicians in due course. We have had the Spanish Franco admiring right supreme court case, and now the first talk of spending any cash on the manifesto promise of a vote on indy being illegal.

  79. Capella says:

    Blair Jenkins, Kevin Pringle, Mary McCabe, Connor Beaton, Josh Mennie and Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, have their say post UKSC decision.

    Where next for Scottish independence? Key Yes voices weigh in

    Here we ask key voices in the independence movement and campaigners what they think of the Supreme Court decision – and what should happen next.

    https://archive.ph/qgYye

    • daveytee19 says:

      Love Kevin Pringle’s recollection of William McIlvanney’s suggested motto for Scotland: “Wait a minute! That’s no’ fair”. Amusing, but unfortunately too often too true.
      And Mary McCabe in particular talks a lot of sense.

  80. Capella says:

    We may be in a “false dichotomy” as we lefties used to say.

    There are those who believe that a Westminster GE would be the best vehicle for our de facto plebiscite. I too thought that, since the SCUK has deemed Holyrood unqualified to rule on constitutional matters and a plebiscite there might be ignored. The advantages, however, would be great since our 16 – 18 year olds and new Scots would be eligible to vote. The SG could resign and force a Holyrood election next October as scheduled.

    However there is no reason why we have to choose either Holyrood OR Westminster. We can do both. Hold our plebiscite in Holyrood next October as promised. Then, if Westminster continues to be intransigent, hold our plebiscite at Westminster in 2024.

  81. “As Valentina Servera Clavell eloquently put it: “If this is a voluntary union, then show us the door so we can leave”.”

    We cannot sacrifice the 16-18 year olds and EU citizens’ votes.

    The Scottish Government should force the issue and resign en masse next September, triggering an early SGE.

    It’s time for ALBA to stand down, and put their efforts behind either the SNP or Green candidates, for the time being.

    An early SGE would be declared as the ‘de facto’ Referendum on Self Determination.
    It would be folly to present the election as a single-issue event, though.

    There should be a detailed manifesto, in anticipation that the new truly Scottish government would be ‘getting on with the day job’, while we split the CDs , who get custody of Fido, and close the joint bank account during the Divorce settlement.

    The ‘What’s In It For Me’ list for the electorate is long, but must be surgical, hitting the targets which the Brit Nats warped to fuel Project Fear.

    Get the message out there, big, blazing, aggressive, and resounding.

    Don’t let them lie about our country and its people any longer.

    For example, Pensions; declare up front that Scotland is wealthy enough to fund state pensions, and pledge to increase the rates considerably, say to the mean EU rates, much higher than England’s, and make sure every pensioner in the land is mad e aware of this.

    Of course, the Brit Nats and the Glenn Campbells of this Brit Empire will continue to lie, terrifying pensioners without conscience.
    So, I vote that Mary McCabe front the Silver Campaign group.

    Similarly, Gordon Macintyre-Kemp CEO Business For Scotland should be unleashed on the ‘Too Wee Too Poor’ Brit liars’ nonsense.

    We are a fabulously rich country, and our assets are being plundered by England.

    It stops now.

    We don’t need to be shown the exit.
    We know what to do.

    End this corrupt union now. We just feckin’ do it.

    It’s that simple.

    Drive them from our land.

    • barpe says:

      Well said, once again Jack.
      I have to say I’m not too impressed by our FM waiting till the New Year (spring??) to have another talkshop on constitutional matters – I think there should be more urgency, while we are all still mad about this SC ruling.
      We are sleepwalking while our opponets get the chance to change the goalposts in the interim.

      • Legerwood says:

        Waiting until the New Year prevents a knee jerk response which, given some of the comments I have seen over the past few days, is likely to be counterproductive.

        • Indeed, it’s 4 weeks until Christmas, Legerwood.
          I dub it the Tiny Tim Christmas, now that we can’t afford to cook even a scraggy chicken leg in our ovens.
          ‘God protect us from the English Government! ( Jeremy Hunt’s classification) ‘ cried Tiny Tim.
          Literally and metaphorically nobody has the stomach for it this side of Yuletide.
          New Year Resolve will reignite the campaign.
          No more Mr and Mrs Nice Guy.

          The North of Ireland citizens brokered a deal with England which guaranteed reunification if the majority of the Six Counties eventually voted for it.

          The English SC seems to have decided that Scotland is forbidden from making the same democratic decision.

          Because we aren’t bombing and shooting our way to Freedom?

          We get there by peaceful means…democracy and the international rule of law.

          They really can’t stop us dissolving their Union, no matter what BBC/STV?/SKY. hacks, and the lazy idiots warming their Brit bums on well paid seats in Holyrood, say.

          I believe it was the generously girthed List electoral failure Johnny Come Lately ex BBC journalist and champion of pot holes Craig Hoy who talked of ‘dangerous talk’, presumably implying that if we Scots keep banging on about Freedom, then we will be put under martial law, ring leaders rounded up, and ‘interned’ in H Block detention centres without trial.
          And Saracens would patrol the streets of Dundee, Glasgow, and Edinburgh.
          The English Empire has form.
          They are defeated, and they know it.

        • Golfnut says:

          Good advice legerwood. I don’t believe for a second that the SG does not already have a next phase strategy, though I doubt they contemplated for a second they would be handed a loaded gun by the SC.
          Its right and proper, indeed SNP constitutional procedure, to have conference approval and I’m delighted the Greens will be involved.

    • daveytee19 says:

      Good stuff, Jack. I agree with everything. Except perhaps “End this corrupt union now. We just feckin’ do it”. We can’t do that until we have a majority of the population backing us. That’s why the SG and the indy-supporting parties must waste no further time in beginning a strong positive campaign of the type you suggest and why our politicians should follow the advice of Mary McCabe rather than sitting meekly on the green benches. And our leaders have got to stop being meek and mild when interviewed by the media – we must get our message through, not the one the media want to portray.

      • Most of us are on the same page, davey.
        There is Christmas to get through first.
        When the ‘least well off families’ (the phrase BBC Jockland regularly use to describe Scotland’s dirt poor starving freezing citizens) are chucking the tongue out of one of Grandpa’s old pit boots into the soup pot to make stock for nettle and dock leaf minestrone, and the ‘squeezed middle’ are forced to cancel their January skiing holiday, then the penny and the bitcoin will finally drop.
        England is intent on destroying Scotland.
        Our riches and resources are theirs, not ours.
        There are more of them than us. To the victor the spoils.
        This time, no more nonsense from broadcasters, Dead Tree Scrolls, and the Red Blue and Yellow Brits holed up in Edinburgh.
        Fire with fire.

  82. Dr Jim says:

    Indeed we’ve moved on from the English argument that Scotland is in a voluntary union of equals to no Scotland isn’t in a voluntary union but an integral part of Englands union and can only be seceded from if one part is oppressing the other

    Sounds like they’re saying now is that Scotland can only leave if England is physically bombing shooting or murdering us, up until that takes place they still own us

    Of course that’s not true either though or the North of Ireland wouldn’t still be part of the glorious union

    I’m still trying to remember when the Chagos Islands joined England’s union of equals

    I have great faith in Nicola Sturgeon’s *efforts* towards achieving Scotland’s democracy, but no faith in England honouring it in any law mandate or instruction from any UN resolution or agreement on the matter

    England knows Scotland will win any vote by the people on independence , that’s why they’ll do anything, anything, to avoid such an event taking place that proves it conclusively

    We may be near the point where there can be no peace between us when England is redefining the words of the FM when she talks of democracy they accuse her of “dangerous language” we can all see their future intentions

    • See my comment above, Dr Jim.
      They will never give up the trillion pound colony. Never.
      It will come to military occupation and martial law if needs be.
      That’s the imperial way.
      Just remember that the next time BBC Jockland speaks to the ‘nation’.

  83. yesindyref2 says:

    From the National:

    Alba said they will convene a special national assembly in Perth on December 10

    compare and contrast with this wishy-washy SNP procrastination:

    Brown was also challenged on why it will take several months for the party’s conference on a de facto referendum to be held.

    “We’ve already said the principles which will apply, but there are more details to be worked out,” he told the BBC.

    Nonsense. THAT is the point of the conference – surely?

    • Capella says:

      Alba said they will convene a special national assembly in Perth on December 10
      Then what?
      I do find the pompous grandstanding silly. Alba are always going to do things IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. They command <2% of the vote and have no seats in Holyrood and only 2 seats in Westminster because of defections.

      • Their ‘What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?’ get together, on Calton Hill, presumably, beneath a tattered old saltire flapping forlornly in the bleak December wind.
        Alex Salmond’s train set.
        When is McAskill going to resign in protest?

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Well, the SNP are going to have a special conference about their problem with procrastination in the new year, but they don’t know which year yet.

        Alba (the sleepy cuddles party) are opening their doors to everyone – including SNP members and voters. The SNP should not be complacent.

        Alba might be less than 2% at the moment, but then a lot of people held their noses in the past and voted SNP, with people like me urging and pleading with them to do so on any forum we could reach. Some might now do the same for Alba instead.

    • Maybe in response to the UKSC judgement, Alba MPs could stand down and trigger immediate by-elections, seeking a mandate from the people?

      🙂

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Same argument for the SNP MPs. Alba have 2 – the SNP have 45 – that would make a far bigger statement.

        • Let’s see if Alba take the lead here to pressure the SNP into doing the same.

          • yesindyref2 says:

            Let’s hope so. With first Hunter who can be ignored, then Giugliano who as policy convener – can’t, and then worse still, Brown, the Depute Leader of the SNP – all kicking the can down the road to sometime well after 2024 like, well, errr, 2029 and another General Election to get a mandate to ask for a mandate to see if they have a mandate to get out the beggin bowl once again, it’s not looking good for the SNP.

            From a party of protest, to the party of opposition, to the party of government – to a party of procrastination, indecision and seat-warming. The rise and fall of the party of hope for Independence minded People of Scotland.

          • I’m not sure how the UKSC court case was ‘procrastinating’. It was doing exactly what the electorate gave a mandate for. Now plan B is being put into place, which will include people saying all sorts of different things to confuse the enemy, while the primary strategy will remain under wraps as usual.

            Our first poll suggest forcing the UK government to be seen to take Scots to court to stop them voting was extremely effective. Possibly a killer blow. However, a bit of wait and seeing is needed now to gauge just how effective it has been, both at home and abroad (England). One 61% poll does not mean we are home and dry.

            Independence is not about short and sweet campaigning, slogans on the sides of busses etc. It’s not an election, but for life. Scots, and the wider world, must be absolutely convinced that Yes is the settled will of the people with no going back if we are to become independent. You want the world to welcome Scotland to the table? You need them to be sure that Scots will fight to the last man for their independence. That makes it the only solution that England must accept.

            The electorate cannot be rushed into this and they may well resist if you try to, such as what happened in the 2017 election. Alba completely fail to understand this.

            We are dealing with something deeply fundamental, not just about the flavour of government, but about people’s deeply held identity too (Scottish vs British). This is why it seems achingly slow times, even if we are so very close to the end now. It’s also why it can be so emotionally charged. I have an English (born) – Danish neighbour who voted no last time, albeit it was very unhappy at the negativity of the No campaign. Now she’s saying ‘I’m not a Scottish nationalist, but…. I feel Scottish and Danish now, and, with everything that’s happened, well… this time it’s different’. She’s going to vote Yes and that’s taken 8+ years. However, it’s not a snap decision for her, but a view she’s come to over a long period of contemplation. No amount of SNP bumph through the door and TV debates would have done this. It is factors largely beyond the SNP’s control that have done it. She isn’t even a fan of Sturgeon, but I think more Labour.

            In the next few weeks we should hopefully get some polls in our favour, with the spring bringing renewed fight into the electorate. The whole English government strategy of denial is only possible if it’s not clear that Scots actually want independence. It falls down when Scots do, and collectively agree that is the case. Then the force becomes unstoppable. The blocked the iref because, as the judges noted, if Scots vote Yes in some way, the political ramifications can only mean the end of the UK.

            We may have just crossed the Rubicon after a decade of progress with indy debate central to our political life (the final stage, after direct rule then devolution). Cool heids are needed right now.

            • yesindyref2 says:

              I didn’t say the UKSC court case was procrastinating, it’s NOW the SNP are procrastinating, or at least, Hunter, Giugliano … and Brown.

              Next few weeks with no progress by what is currently the main party of Independence, will be too late for many I think. Probably including me.

              If those 3 are flying kites, Sturgeon needs to get out the flamethrower and burn those kites to the ground. Pronto.

              • You wanting independence just for Christmas? It’s for life mind. 🙂

                But aye, people can vote Alba next month if they feel there’s not enough progress!

              • Alex Clark says:

                Christmas day is exactly 4 weeks away, what “progress” is it you and the others you allude to expect to see before then? What exactly are you and others expecting from the SNP and First Minister?

                You say it will be “too late for many” in the next few weeks, which is a bit melodramatic is it not? This isn’t a race to see who makes the stupidest mistake first, a sensible leader would be wise to take their time and see what the lie of the land is with regard to support for Independence after the Supreme Court ruling.

                Time too, to organize and consult with the party membership before making definitive announcements and forming a strategy. Doing that does not involve hiring the local village hall when you have 100,000 members so it will take time.

                Legerwood was right earlier, knee-jerk reactions are definitely not the way to go. The same people demanding more action NOW are exactly the same people that have never stopped demanding more action NOW for the last 6 years!

                That we will only get one more go at this in my lifetime is most likely a certainty and if that requires a more patient and measured approach then I’m all for that, the tortoise did beat the hare after all.

                • yesindyref2 says:

                  Alex, I’m a voter not a member of any political party. How a political party works is their problem not mine.

                  And Keith Brown was talking about months not weeks, which takes it till well into next year, not just Christmas or into the new year.

                  Sturgeon has said one thing, Hunter Guigliano and Brown have contradicted her.

                  Who to believe, eh!

    • Capella says:

      I don’t watch BBC but if you’re talking about Keith Brown’s appearance on the Sunday Show then I see nothing in the BBC report that suggests procrastination. Of course, the BBC is no doubt choosing its words carefully to cause maximum divide and rule conditions. But we know that’s what they do. Why fall for it?
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63772256

  84. Dr Jim says:

    I can understand anybody supporting any political party they choose, that’s the essence of democracy, but to compare one parties processes is passively aggressively attacking the other for not being the same as the first party, and an unpleasant amateur journalistic style trick to conflate issues in order to demean the party that person does not support

    It’s pathetic cheap and only worthy of a BBC junior learning how to *get* an interviewee, and the very reason why people like Stuart Campbell and Alba only have the respect of people who don’t understand how they’re being deceived

    Now the facts, the SNP are a democratic party of over 100.000 members with committees MPs and MSPs activists and also the party of government in Scotland, the largest political party ever in the history of Scotland, and the list goes on
    Alba have no elected MPs MSPs and are basically a one man party with all decisions taken by one man, and that’s before even mentioning that Alba are also a smaller party than the Liberal Democrats who could organize a conference with half a dozen phone calls and any handy small vacant room

    Democracy is about supporting whoever you want in politics and most people support that but criticism of others using these cheap transparent attacks only serve to expose the weakness of those who make such attacks

  85. yesindyref2 says:

    Democracy is about supporting whoever you want in politics

    Yes Dr Jim, but the key thing is “What for?”. For the SNP themselves it is about policies and capability in Government, hence why they got an overall majority back in 2011 while 14% didn’t support Independence. People were so pleased with their performance from 2007 to 2011. From that point of view I daresay all their internal procedures make sense.

    But as pundits have pointed out, with that polarisation of YES / NO in politics, increasingly it’s about Indy, and Indy supporters who are unaligned – like me – expect the SNP to prioritise Independence, NOT its internal processes.

    People like me are completely entitled to compare one party with the other in any way we want, including glacially slow and painful internal procedures; we are the voters, not members or supporters.

  86. Skintybroko says:

    SNP can’t drive the YES movement as it has to be a broad church, it has supporters from all sides. As the party of government they have to follow due process, AUOB May be the way forward to align all parties? ALBA can’t they are like marmite

    • It is a broach church. The broadest of the Yes churches, hence the biggest. Much as unionists might like to convince folks, the rise of the Greens + Alba do not indicate a split in the Yes movement, but just the movement getting so big it needs more churches.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Unfortunately AUOB are anti-SNP these days, as can be witnessed by the speakers they invite.

  87. Dr Jim says:

    I’ll just say this then I’m done on this subject
    Without the Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP there is and will be nothing, no independence, no referendum, no negotiation, nothing, because the next biggest party supporting Independence is the Green party, and they unfortunately are too small to be overall winners of anything, the Alba party are not yet, or if they ever will be, become a serious political party, no matter how much they shout and squeal Alex Salmond will never set foot inside Holyrood ever again and Scotland’s electorate will never vote for him in more numbers than the Liberal Democrats poll in Orkney and Shetland, one other thing to note on Alex Salmond is that the Greens will never ever work with him, and that’s as polite as the Greens will be on the matter, privately they’d support nuclear weapons before they’d even talk to him

    The “We hate Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP” parties only exist because of the SNP and for no other individual reason of their own, even the Greens would not be where they are without the SNP, they will never be elected to govern nor will they ever beat the British imperial parties in any election, so once again for those who mistakenly believe it can all be done without the full support and dedication of the most canny and smart politician in these islands Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP is for the big fat birds that cannae fly

    No politician in these islands has ever had the respect of as much of the rest of the world as Nicola Sturgeon has since they mistakenly thought Winston Churchill was a good guy, a fiction created by England for England’s voters that quickly dissolved elsewhere once war was over

    Independence can only be achieved for Scotland with help from outside, so following all this political? pressure from basically nobody that anybody cares about, screaming and threatening for Nicola Sturgeon to declare UDI or don her Joan of Arc suit and brandish her sword smiting the English while persuadingly insisting those who don’t want independence must want it

    Who ya gonna call?

    The only people who want Nicola Sturgeon gone are those who oppose independence

    Listen to those voices at your peril, they are not supporters of independence

  88. yesindyref2 says:

    Exit from me on this subject, cutting to the chase it’s incredibly basic.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23151431.snp-section-30-honour-democracy-de-facto-referendum/

    However Toni Giugliano, the SNP’s policy development convener, told The Scotsman that a pro-independence majority could “start negotiations” with the UK Government and result in the granting of a Section 30 order.

    Which using binary logic means it might NOT result in the granting of a Section 30 order – and that takes us till 2029, where perhaps the SNP will do the same again, taking us to 2034, and so on and so on..

    If on the other hand, from Sturgeon, June 2022:

    https://www.snp.org/nicola-sturgeons-full-statement-announcing-the-2023-independence-referendum/

    “If it does transpire that there is no lawful way for this parliament to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence in a referendum – and if the UK government continues to deny a section 30 order – my party will fight the UK general election on this single question –

    ‘Should Scotland be an independent country’.”

    And elsewhere that this would commence negotiations for Independence.

    Which one is it? Who speaks for the SNP?

    • Dr Jim says:

      The leaders of all political parties speak for those parties, everybody else either speaks their mind, talks rubbish, issues flag flying statements and or some don’t even know what they’re talking about at any given moment in time because they’re human

      It’s politics, and politics is a moving feast of perceptions, not logic
      If a computer could do it they’d have invented one that could obfuscate and lie and then they’d disagree with it, because it was built in China

    • Do you honestly think the SNP make sure that the English government are certain of their strategy before they make any moves?

      Heavens man. You’ll hear all sorts of people saying different approaches are the way forward so nobody outside the strategy room has any idea what the exact plan is. Angus MacNeil is busy talking about Holyrood election as de facto indyref2. Sturgeon is saying a UK parliament vote will be a vote for indy while Toni Giugliano says ‘could’, not ‘would’ in what you quote. He’s also saying exactly what unionists would desire him to say. If I was the SNP, that’s exactly what I’d get him to say to make the enemy relax at bit. Nobody in Westminster should have any idea what the plan is exactly and that will mean you won’t know either.

      Actions are what matters, not words, and also what people vote on. The Scottish government have just done something that surprised everyone and gave a result the English government really didn’t want because of the potential backlash it could cause in Scotland. They wanted the case thrown out or the judges to rule it was too early as the bill was not in final form. I note the Scottish Government did not announce what they planned here well in advance; the did the unexpected and put the English government on the back foot big style politically.

      Personally, if the SNP seem to not be pushing ahead when they should, I will be considering my vote in due course. However, I will also take into consideration how my own MSP is doing here, as the SNP has many voices influencing it. Alba are not open to me as an option as they are not democratic; their two MPs are forcing themselves on voters using British/English constitutional law, which is no different to what the English government is doing IMO.

      Also, it’s not ‘cos SNP’. The decisions here are being taken in coordination with the Greens, who are part of the Scottish government / cabinet. They must be to ensure Green backing in the chamber. The Yes movement is unified. At least all the Yes parties with democratically elected representatives are. I personally don’t think the SNP/Greens should work directly with Alba until the latter actually get the support of the electorate in some way, so earning that. I mean how do you even work with a party that doesn’t have any elected reps anyway? Why should Alba have a right to a say on Scottish government strategy when other Yes parties that failed to win seats don’t? Parties need to earn influence by the electorate giving them that in elections. Alba have yet to do that, so the SNP/Greens are rightly making the decisions.

      • The bald fact is that Alex Salmond’s name and reputation are electoral poison.
        The episodes at Bute House and elsewhere with which he actually concurs would finish any other leader.

        Drunken fumbles with staff in a bedroom of the Official Residence is Boris Johnson level sleaze.
        Nobody is denying that these boozy nights were normal and frequent during Salmond’s tenure.
        To this humble voter, that is totally unacceptable.

        He is a footnote in history, and as such, has no place, or entitlement, to be in the forefront now, as we approach the Final Push to freedom.
        ALBA is his vanity project.
        Their policy is ‘independence’, and nothing more.
        I saw no manifesto covering Education, Health, Law, Finance, and such from the ALBA campaign last time out.
        Yet they constantly attempt to undermine the only democratically elected political body which can challenge our opponent.

        This tired old man is yesterday’s news.
        ALBA followers exist to thwart Self Determination, not advance it.
        I’d argue that many of their number are in fact Unionists…as long as they declare that they hate Nicola Sturgeon and the EssEnnPee, they’re welcomed into the ALBA fold..

  89. Alex Clark says:

    I’ve no idea who Giugliano is, I only know he has a title within the SNP because you have pointed that out to me. My opinion is that the real leadership of the SNP and that’s Nicola sturgeon and the rest of the cabinet need to rein these loose mouths in.

    The likes of Giugliano and Hunter are not decision makers within the hierarchy of the SNP, so this is one instance of where I am in total agreement with you, these people need to learn to keep their opinions to themselves and their big mouths shut.

    The very last thing they should be doing is spouting off to a Unionist mouthpiece like the Scotsman and giving the opponents of Independence all the ammunition they need to target the First Minister and what she has said.

    You know what would happen then though I’m sure, the same mouthpieces for the Unionists would start accusing Nicola Sturgeon of cracking down on “dissent” within the SNP. she’d be accused of hiding her true intentions from the public and accused of not really wanting Independence at all.

    One thing I won’t be doing is joining in on these attacks on the FM or the SNP which work in favour of just one side in this struggle for Independence and it isn’t the side that supports Independence. Divide and conquer, the oldest strategy in the book.

    • Luigi says:

      Fair enough, as long as they haven’t been put up to this by the SNP leadership. To test the waters, see what they can get away with. Its an old technique – get a couple of dopes to sound off and measure the reaction. The SNP intentions will come under close scrutiny in the coming months, and rightly so. Action not words. I remain sceptical for now, but still open to persuasion if and when I see something convincing.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Whilst I agree on your general thrust Alex, we’re making assumptions what was said was not taken out of context and amplified, Scotland’s media has considerable form on that.

      There were a few on here on foot of these stories calling for resignations and demanding others declare where they stand regarding the SNP, as if it matters a fig to the vast majority of Indy supporters who quite simply want a show of hands…
      The torches and pitchforks game in all it’s glory….

    • Eilidh says:

      Totally agree with you Alex. I give far more credence to what NS and her Cabinet members say rather than two officials of the Snp. I have to admit I was reaching for an imaginary block button yesterday as certain posters seem to be repeatedly retreading the same old arguments quoting but Giugliano and Hunter said…. blah blah Who cares what they said and I do wonder whether what was quoted in the press actually accurate anyway It felt like groundhog day here yesterday

  90. Maybe the SNP need to publish their detailed strategies in full on a regular basis as long as possible in advance so everyone knows? Then of course stick to these rigidly, even if e.g. the English government move to outflank them accordingly? Just so people can see the former has stuck to promises?

    Will that keep Alba happy?

    🙂

  91. Pogmothon says:

    So the next attack line is illegally spending money on Indy Ref 2 (really hate that title) is it.

    How about this as a ‘kill it before it gets traction’.

    All of the SNP MSPs and any other MSP who has forgone any increase in salary for the last how every many years claims all their back pay immediately and donates it to the “independence referendum, democracy preservation” costs.

    That’ll put the cat among the incontinent pigeons.
    The diametrically opposite to the towrags.
    Instead of grabbing as much as they can from the public purse, they would be funding it out of their own pockets.

    • Dr Jim says:

      If Nicola Sturgeon found the cure for cancer tomorrow the imperialists would complain she was deliberately putting doctors out of work because she’s a Communist

      “Sturgeon in Communist cancer plot” “Sturgeon hordes cash following cancer cure”

  92. Golfnut says:

    The SG have said that they will fight the next GE as a De Facto referendum and they can only fight that referendum on withdrawing from the Treaty of Union, that brings arbritation slap bang into the realm of international law. No more SC because that’s already been taken care of. They’ll obviously have to put a lot more into the prospectus than just please give us permission to withdraw from the Treaty and they can have a lot fun with that.
    Eg.
    Independence day will be 6 months after the vote, further 18 months of transition.
    Trident gone within 2 yrs.
    Connection charges stopped on independence day.
    Electricity and gas one quarter of current prices, surplus exported at market price.
    Debt and asset sharing.
    Westminster will lose the argument on the sovereignty issue in the international court, thats if they even dare to go there.
    That right now is the only issue, how we fight the GE.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Maybe she’ll tell Scotland that as a devolved government she can no longer protect Scotland from decisions taken by any Westminster parliament as they can and will overrule decisions made here in Scotland on the financial direction of the NHS, Energy, Climate, Employment law, Rail Transport, Social Security, Trade deals with other countries especially the EU, Free movement of people, Immigration, Education tuition fees, and for those reasons Scotland must choose independence or return to the days when the Tories ruled in Westminster and Labour did their bidding in Scotland, or in other words the black closed poverty Scotland endured until the devolution age that the Westminster parliament is returning Scotland to

      Oh and btw people of Scotland, we are still paying £2 billion per every year in interest on Labour party Gordon Browns debt to PFI, plus the UK government takes from Scotland the highest percentage per head of population of defence spending of any country in the world, because Trident nuclear weapons make Scotland a first strike target for the baddies who have the same shit and are the enemies of, well not us is it

      Nicola Sturgeon out…….mike drop

      DRoss or Sarwar, take yer pick Scotland it won’t matter because there’s nae difference

  93. James Mills says:

    Perhaps we should appeal to the core values of those unionists who most oppose Independence for Scotland – Sarwar , DRoss , ACH ( aka Tailor’s Dummy ) , Stephen Kerr , Turdo Fraser , Jackie B et al …
    We know why these solid citizens oppose Indy – it would hit them in the pocket !

    They may be dim so point out to them in words that even the thickest MSP could not fail to understand ( i.e in terms that even Labour’s James Kelly can comprehend without a visual aid ) that come Independence Day there will still be those in Scotland who will want to vote Labour and Tory and even LibDumb – so there is a fairly good chance that these poor MSPs who currently oppose Indy will STILL have a nice wee earner in Holyrood .
    In fact , in a successful Independent Scotland there may be a better remuneration package available for legislators than in the soon to be bankrupt rUK (aka Engerland ) as ALL of Scotland’s many many resources will be available for the benefit of its own people .

    • Dr Jim says:

      I believe the minute Scotland votes YES to independence there’ll be a whole bunch of these so called unionists queuing up to profess that they always secretly did support independence but their London bosses silenced them, and those are the ones that’ll never be voted for again by anybody for betraying their country and the other side, Sarwar will be one of the first on his knees begging forgiveness with Murdo Fraser groveling along behind him pleading ignorance of what Scotland really wanted

      There’ll probably always be a surplus of politicians though, good and bad

  94. Capella says:

    Hearing that Nigel Farage is threatening to make a come back to prevent the Sunak/Hunt coup from taking UK back into the single market. Yes!

    • I’ve been watching the ‘single market / Swiss style deal’ stories with mild curiosity. Would neatly solve the N. Ireland protocol on one fell swoop. It’s also something EU countries might accept as it would not mean spoilt brat, arrogant, xenophobic moaning England was able to continuously demand special treatment. EEA means no seat at the table nor MEPs; you just have to follow the agreed rules.

      Would also trash the old ‘Border posts at Gretna’ canard.

      Problem is, you need free movement with all EEA members for it; no way around that. Yet like his fellow brexiter Tories, Starmer continues to make clear he doesn’t want my mother in law, wider french family, or any of ‘their sort’ freely coming to live and work in England’s new Jerusalem.

      https://archive.ph/Jm5dX

      Keir Starmer rules out return of free movement between Britain and EU

      Labour leader says it will be a ‘red line’ if party takes power, despite backing the policy three years ago

      Also backs stopping them coming to Scotland by blocking iref2, even though Scots support free movement. England wants Scotland to be kept against its will as English lebensraum it seems.

      And, well, I think we can be confident that keeping the house of lords and no further devo for Scotland will be ‘red lines’ for Labour the moment they might get into power given what happened to Keir ‘I will bring back free movement’ Starmer’ the moment he won the leadership contest.

      • Capella says:

        Farage has written an article in The Telergaph in which he vows to prevent the current Tory leadership from reversing his 25 year mission to break free of the EU and all its works.
        I don’t subscribe to the Telegraph so can’t post quotes.

  95. Bob Lamont says:

    No surprise on having seen this headline as both the Scotland and Scotland/Politics promo https://archive.ph/cX3Ml dwelling more on the political game than reality.

    Having watched the Martin Guissler interview, an example Martin cited of opposition claims “like the crumbling NHS for an example” as the purpose of an election instead of a de-facto referendum, struck me as particularly comical.
    For all the elections I can recall, no matter who or from which party has been elected MP or MSP in Scotland, not once has it made the slightest difference to the relentless defunding of the NHS or pretty much anything else from successive London Governments.
    Yet according to opponents of Indy, that’s democracy.

    Using such an election as a de-facto referendum on independence offers an end to that democratic impotence, and ends the decimation of the NHS, etc..
    That will not be lost on the 40%+ of Labour now supporting Indy, and Lord knows how many Tories and Lib-Dems, little wonder a de-facto referendum so terrifies the political establishment…

    • Geissler’s wee Sunday Brunch must be of some solace to the couple of thousand Brit Jocks who tune in to this blatant Scotia Nostra dog whistling.
      I don’t bother seeing what he’s up to these days.
      I’m sure the leaked draft letter got about twenty minutes, while the Brit Jocks refused to turn up to justify the SC debacle.
      They know that the game’s up, and that we are taking our country back.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s