The authoritarian abhorronation and SNP opportunities

The abhorronation has finally finished, barring the usual interminable post match analyses from a British media determined to keep Chas’s special day going on for as long as possible, as it congratulates itself with the assertion that no other country could have put on an event like Saturday’s. That same media, in all its hours of broadcasts, still can’t find space for anyone to point out that the real reason no other country could have put on an event like the coronation is that they all have far too much self-respect for an exercise in feudal toadying in fancy dress. Charles, didn’t actually need a coronation ceremony, he became king automatically the moment his mother died. He refused a pared back event which would have displayed some sensitivity to the fact that hundreds of thousands of his subjects depend on food banks and struggle to heat homes that they don’t know how they’re going to pay for.

But having insisted on full fat flummery and the entire panoply of ludicrous pseudo-mediaeval ritual at an estimated cost to the public purse of over £100 million, and put thousands of people to quite considerable and unnecessary bother, all so he could be the centre of attention, the Kingzilla spent the entire day with a face that looked as though he was suffering from a severe case of impacted haemorrhoids and he was enduring an event that was an outrageous imposition on him. That is what entitlement and privilege look like. He puts considerable demands upon everyone else, but it’s far too much of a bother for him to even crack a smile. This is not a gracious king.

To compound the offence against democratic decency, the Met police arrested anti-monarchy protestors assembling on Trafalgar Square and confiscated their Not My King placards even before their protest had begun. Graham Smith, the chief executive of the anti-monarchy campaigning group Republic, who was among those arrested, tweeted: “Make no mistake. There is no longer a right to peaceful protest in the UK. I have been told many times the monarch is there to defend our freedoms. Now our freedoms are under attack in his name.”

Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, Sacha Deshmukh, joined in the criticism and said: “Being in possession of a megaphone or carrying placards should never be grounds for a police arrest and Human Rights Watch said reports of arrests of peaceful protesters were incredibly alarming and something you would expect to see in Moscow, not London.”

The police were making use of new powers to clamp down on protests and demonstrations which were rushed in by the Conservative Government. The Tory response to protest is not to address the grievances that led to the protests, but to attack all our civil liberties and freedoms. On Sunday senior Labour MP David Lammy told a caller to his LBC radio show that Labour will not repeal the Conservatives’ Public Order Act if it forms the government after the next election. The new law includes a 12-month prison sentence for protesters in England and Wales who block roads, a six-month jail term or unlimited fine for anyone who locks on to others, a building, or an object, and gives police powers to stop and search protesters even without suspicion that they intend to cause disruption.

Naturally the Conservatives defended the arrests, with Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson demanding that if anyone wanted to protest against the monarch they should leave the UK. We’re trying Lee, we’re trying.

The Tories must have been particularly grateful for the coronation, not just because it gives them an opportunity for the flag-shagging that they love so much, but more importantly because it provided a welcome distraction from their catastrophic performance in the English local elections on Thursday. Prior to the elections, the Tories had engaged in an expectation management exercise and were briefing the press that they could lose as many as one thousand council seats. They did this so that if they ended up losing several hundred councillors, a poor performance on any reckoning, Conservative politicians could spin the results as being far less bad than they had expected and claim that they were managing to turn around their recent spate of bad polling results.

However in the event the Conservatives ended up losing over a thousand council seats, 1058 according to the BBC, and lost control of 45 councils. There’s karma for you. The Conservatives’ 26% projected national vote share was one of its worst performances since the 1995 local elections when it won just 25% of the English vote. These elections were followed two years later by Blair’s landslide. However in that election Labour won 47% of the vote, as compared to just 35% on Thursday. The main difference is the split now of the anti-Tory vote between Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Greens.

Labour gained 536 council seats, making them the largest party in English local government, a position which Labour has not enjoyed for over a decade. Worryingly for the Tories the Lib Dems also made substantial gains, winning an additional 405 council seats. The Greens also had a good night, winning an additional 241 council seats, and taking control of a council for the first time, winning Mid Suffolk council from the Conservatives, taking 24 of the 34 council seats, and also becoming the largest party in the erstwhile Tory stronghold of East Hertfordshire. The Greens took 19 seats with the Tories on just 16 in a local authority where the Conservatives had won all 50 council seats in 2015. The Conservatives now face the nightmare situation of being squeezed between Labour in the midlands and north of England and the Greens and the Lib Dems in the south, victims of a tacit anti-Conservative alliance. Tactical voting may be a factor in the next General Election on a scale not seen for decades.

However in terms of vote share Labour is only 9% ahead of the Conservatives, and this in an election where voters know that they can give the governing party a kicking without it leading to a change in government. Although it’s unquestionably a good result for Labour, the party is still some way from the figures it needs in order to be certain that it can form a majority government following the next General Election. This gives the SNP, still likely to be the third largest party with some leverage to use to secure another independence referendum from a Labour party which is as keen to deny Scottish democracy as the Tories are.

The outcome of this election means that Starmer is likely to double down on the pro-Brexit and right wing direction in which he has pushed his party as he seeks votes in Brexit supporting English constituencies where voters are disenchanted with the Conservatives. This provides the SNP with another potential advantage in Scotland, allowing it to make a pitch to voters who are opposed to Brexit and who feel that their more left wing sensibilities are being ignored by an increasingly right wing and English nationalist Labour party which won’t repeal the authoritarian laws of the Tories.


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

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

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

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

Donate Button

192 comments on “The authoritarian abhorronation and SNP opportunities

  1. Dr Jim says:

    Monarchy is Kingship Sovereignty Autocracy Monocracy Absolutism, all definitions of what the English state stands for
    Self Government Autonomy Republic Independence, all definitions of Democracy

    The English British state claims they uphold both of these things simultaneously even though they are definitively and diametrically opposite and opposed to one another
    Monarchy is dictatorship, when the English parliament took control of the powers of Monarchy it took control of its dictatorship also by pretending ordinary people elected by the public would form the opinions of the people into laws to govern the people
    This does not happen, there are no former plumbers taxi drivers stair cleaners or car park attendants ever going to be, or even given a nono second’s thought to being, the Prime Minister or Cabinet Minister or Secretary of State of England’s UK

    England’s political system of government is an authoritarian collection of English public schoolboys and girls chosen by themselves from within themselves to rule in exactly the same way as the unelected Monarchy orginally did

    The rest of the world has largely rejected this form of governance for very good reason and as a consequence England has an Empire no more

    England is a fraud perpetrated on us all, England will not and cannot rid itself of one without collapsing the other, so it will remain and *endure*, if Scotland Wales and the North of Ireland do nothing to achieve democracy we must then endure England’s decision to do nothing

    We have no say, we are not equal

    • Welsh_Siôn says:

      You might like this as reading material:

      As the subtitle to this impactful book tells us, namely “The Explosive Start to King Charles III’s Royal Career,” this is a chronicle of an agitated phase in modern Welsh history. It aims to give readers ‘an idea of what it was like to be part of a Welsh revolt against the English Crown melding oral history with a narrative of the events leading up to the future King of England’s Investiture at Caernarfon Castle in July 1969.


  2. Welsh_Siôn says:

    Trivia point number 4206a:

    Did you know that ‘flummery’ comes from the Welsh word ‘llymru’ meaning a dish of oatmeal and husks?

    • deelsdugs says:

      Or even flumgummery – foolishness, frivolity, fanciful ornamentation or trimmings – in Scots, based on (eng.) flummery – nonsense
      Certainly the Welsh variation may well have been the root cause of the pernickety face on the privileged anus…

  3. James Mills says:

    After being elected on his 10 ” Pledges” to the Labour faithful , Starmer has systematically binned them as he reveals , daily , his Tory credentials .

    And he is not alone . He has surrounded himself with like minded chameleons – people who , like Starmer , supported Corbyn and his ”socialist manifesto ” in 2019 only to do a volte-face when the opportunity presented itself .
    He has purged the Labour ( ? ) Party in his short time in charge and this is reflected in the Scottish Branch Office where the millionaire Ambulance-chaser , Sarwar , is only too happy to jump when commanded to by his boss .

    However with his surrogate Labour Party and its lack of principles Starmer is increasingly making life difficult for his minion in Scotland .
    What policies can Sarwar present to the Scottish electorate ?

    Brexit – yes , we now accept that this is what the people ( English ) want , so vote for us !
    Democracy – yes , we now accept the Starmer doctrine that no matter how many Scots want a second referendum we will not allow it , so vote for us !

    More Devolution – yes , we will implement Gordon Brown’s ideas on Federalism just as soon as we can as long as it does not reduce the power of Westminster i.e. Mine – so vote for us !

    Taxation – yes , we believe that we need to allow the rich to get richer or they will not donate to our Party , so vote for us !

    Abolish the House of Lords – yes , this has been party policy for over 100 years and will continue to be for the next 100 years , so vote for us !

    Voting reform – yes , we believe in the system that has delivered strong Tory Governments for Scotland for donkey’s years , so vote for us !

    Vote Scottish Labour for the system that has kept Scotland too Wee , too Poor and …well , you know the rest .

  4. yesindyref2 says:

    So basically speaking, if the police do nothing you get the republicans and the royalists suddenly deciding to fight each other, charging around and trampling and killing kids and babies, and everyone says to the police:

    “Why didn’t you stop this happening”, and someone points out that since 1986 they had the powers to do it anyway, and probably before.

    Some of this is perspective, if you’re a green at heart you think extinction rebellion have the right to bring traffic to a standstill including ambulances on the M25 or the M8, but if you’re a YES voter on a march through Glasgow with 100,000 like-minded people you think it’s right that mankie jaiket and his motley crew are kettled on the corner up from the coonting house where they can wave their UJs and shout at us al walking by, with a few police stopping either side from charging at and fighting each other. The polis doing their duty to public order in other words.

    Perspective – the polis can only do their duty if it’s MY SIDE they protect.

    ho hum

    • John says:

      You do realise that Graeme Smith of Republic said they had been liasing with Police for several weeks prior to Coronation to enable them to make their protest against monarchy and coronation in a peaceful manner. This included giving police advance notice of where they intended to be and when and police had at no point indicated they had A problem with this process. The police then used this information to arrest and detain without charge for 16 hours the very people they had been talking too in advance. This behaviour reminded me of ‘The Trial’ by Kafka. If you think this is an acceptable way for police to behave you do not understand the concept of policing by consent. A concept which successive governments have tried to undermine and this government appears to be trying to destroy.
      As Mr Smith said afterwards the only lesson that can be taken from this sorry affair is not to give the police any information about potential protests in future.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Thanks John, you very neatly proved my point about perspective.

        • John says:


          • Bob Lamont says:

            Never try to nail custard…

            • John says:

              You are correct – it is pointless debating with someone who ignores what you write and somehow twists it to say it supports their point without actually engaging with any of the points you have made!

              • yesindyref2 says:

                John, your comment in reply to me that started: “You do realise that Graeme Smith of Republic …” totally ignored the perspective of the monarchists who were there for a peaceful event planned long in advance, totally ignored the perspective of the potential danger to children and babies if the republicans were allowed to mingle at a danger to public order, whoever started any trouble, totally ignored perspective of the extinction rebellion blocking the M25 including an ambulance, totally ignored the perspective of the Unionists being caged in to stop them mixing with us YES voters on the march to Glasgow green (or similar at the National and Sturgeon rally where they were actually CAGED at the far end of Freedom Square), and totally ignored perspective of the police trying to keep public order and avoid danger.

                In fact your whole posting wasn’t even about the perspective of republicans in general, or Republic as a specific, it was all about what one single person said about one single event, one single person saw there, and one single person thought about it – a very singular perspective indeed.

                Hence my concise and totally accurate reply to you:

                Thanks John, you very neatly proved my point about perspective.

                Stet + QED.

                • John says:

                  You really have either willfully or ignorantly completely missed the primary point of this column and my comments.
                  Please actually watch video Bob Lamont has helpfully displayed below and listen and reflect on implications of this type of law enforcement.
                  If you cannot see the very basic points that are being made about civil liberties in modern day UK by WGD, myself and other columnists I despair. Your posts have missed the point of column so spectacularly you have left me speechless (not unlike the members of Republic on Saturday!)

                • keaton says:

                  I’m not sure you fully explained your assertion that the alternative to the arrest and detainment without charge of protesters, who had been cooperating with police, was the mass murder of children

                  • John says:

                    Keaton – in my experience trying to have a rational, facts based discussion with ‘Indyref 2’ around subject of protests and monarchy is a pointless exercise as the thread amply demonstrates.

      • Bob Lamont says:

        I’d quite forgotten about this interview

  5. Hamish100 says:

    I see labour “will wait” to see if the English met -police acted lawfully arresting people standing in the street. Standing on the sidelines is the labour way these days.

    The Met stated Protest is lawfully until it becomes potentially disruptive.

    It’s all in the mind of a PC or their bosses what’s disruptive. Anything that the tories decide with the toady king is disruptive is disruptive it seems.
    The police are now as political as during the miners strike in the 80’s.

    Not in our name.🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇪🇺

  6. yesindyref2 says:

    So basically speaking anyone into the kinky stuff and walking about with handcuffs in their pocket can now be charged with the offence of “going equipped to lock on”.

    That’s going to hurt at the House of Lords …

  7. Dr Jim says:

    We’re all being *asked* to volunteer in the big Kingly *help out*
    There’s been no war, we’re not in the Pandemic anymore, there hasn’t been a natural disaster rendering the people helpless homeless and penniless

    So what happened that we all need to “roll our sleeves up to help out” to save ourselves from destitution

    They really must believe we’re all stupid foisting this chin up we’re all in it together British shit
    They did this, they Brexited, they effed it up, they caused every single bit of this shit, spent over £100 million quid on their Kings party then smiled at us and asked us to volunteer to fix the mess they’ve made
    Foodbanks, clothing banks, phone up emergency finance *advice* advice? I’ll give them advice!
    England is suffering the closures of Pharmacies in their droves, why? people can’t afford the price of prescriptions so they don’t collect their medicine
    England is storing up a future health emergency, and how will they get themselves out of it? privatisation, that’s how

    Thinking of voting Labour are you? Won’t help, Starmer is reversing nothing, instead he supports it, and if he wins a general election will attempt to impose it on Scotland

    Now ask what the SNP have ever done for us, how much do you pay for your services?
    Isn’t it about time we did something for the SNP, like make damn sure no English political parties get their claws into Scotland

    • deelsdugs says:

      Too right Dr Jim

    • barpe says:

      Unfortunately, Dr Jim, these English Tory Bstards have already got their claws into us and are ever-strengthening their hold. At 80+years it is not likely to make much difference to me, but I’m sickened on behalf of my kids and grandkids.
      Sadly the Scottish population don’t seem to get too upset, generally (I cannot understand how there are still Tory voters up here??).
      I just hope that we get political leaders who can convince more people that independence is necessary (and urgent), before those Westminster wreckers finish Scotland off for good.

      • Dr Jim says:

        It’s the idiots who think voting Labour will make it better that pi**es me right off

      • Bob Lamont says:

        I very much doubt “these English Tory Bstards” have got as much grip as is portrayed – They are losing England in their quest for little England, or as I prefer to refer to it the “Grand duchy of Fenwick”.

  8. scottish_skier says:

    Bit of a beamer this for the Royals.

    Proud of my country here.

  9. Hamish100 says:

    Wheres the North and the rest of the south?

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Those are somewhat obviously England as it’s pivot is London…
      “YouGov – Exploring what the world thinks, every day”, even to the farthest extremes of those high in Wickham and itching in Crawley…

  10. Dr Jim says:

    When you come to think of it they must know Scotland’s dumping their union or they wouldnae have downgraded the Chooky Embra job and landed it ontae the unknown Wessex boy tae take the blame

  11. Stuart Baxter says:

    It is an absolute disgrace that £100m was spent on the proceedings.

    On the other hand a lot cheaper than the overspend on ferries!

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Or non-existent ferries or Ajax, Type 45s, Aircraft carriers, Crossrail, Hinkley…… etc….

    • Dr Jim says:

      Prescriptions, University, bus travel etc, none of which is free at the point of use in the land of hope and glory

    • James Mills says:

      …but the ferries will be have a long and useful life , paying for themselves over many decades , whereas Chic’s Big Hat moment served nothing but his own ego !

  12. scottish_skier says:

    The Daily Mail’s take on things. I read too that the SoS can actually order the English/British NCA in to ‘assist’ in cases, albeit their ‘powers to operate in Scotland are conditional on authorisation from the Lord Advocate’.*

    SoS can also have people arrested, as discussed here previously. These are things I didn’t know, and it’s pretty concerning given SoS’s are unelected. It’s not like Scots voted Jack in as someone to have such powers is it?

    Scottish cops asked ‘Britain’s FBI’ to help with their probe into the missing SNP finances before arresting Nicola Sturgeon’s husband.

    National Crime Agency (NCA) officers are the frontline on serious and organised crime, but they were reportedly called in by Scottish Police to help with the SNP investigation.

    They were drafted in several months before Nicola Sturgeon’s husband Peter Murrell was arrested.

    Specialist officers were asked to bring fresh ideas to the table once they had seen the evidence…

    …The Sunday Mail reported that the party has received a million in this way since 2021, with a source saying: ‘Large sums left to the party in wills are being looked at as part of the investigation.

    ‘Huge amounts have been left over the years, including donations declared to the Electoral Commission in recent months.

    This is happening to the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems too right?

    All donations being investigated with a fine toothcomb etc? It’s healthy for democracy if parties are closely monitored for such things. However, if only one is, it’s potentially not healthy at all.

    The UK is becoming a scarier place a little more each day. But then that’s how these things happen. Slowly… Bit by bit… Freedom by freedom… Until they come for you and you wish you’d spoken out before.

    The NCA itself can also be directed by the Secretary of State to give directed assistance to a police force or other law enforcement agency.

    • Golfnut says:

      Sorry, but is the NCA actually involved with this investigation or are we we dealing with media manipulation. Personally I think the SOS is earning lordship and is deeply involved in this issue and the NCA are being used to cover his back.

      • Bob Lamont says:

        PS have full operational control, the NCA bunkum story circulated to the media is seeking to distort a peer review of prior operations.
        – My hunch is the Tory spin-meisters got wind the inquiry is drawing to a close without a head on a plate, so they are trying to muddy the waters before it all fizzles out.

      • scottish_skier says:

        It would be interesting to know. An FoI – when the time comes – could be very interesting.

        Certainly, the English / British press, from the BBC to the Daily Mail, seem keen push the idea that the blue tent and dawn raids was England’s idea.

        It’s amusing that some are calling Scots conspiracy theorists here, when this theory has collectively come from England / its press, not ours. We’ve just been linking to it.

  13. scottish_skier says:

    Aye Paul, so much for a Labour landslide coming to the union’s rescue. By the time Starmer has finished with his bonfire of the small number of slightly left-leaning policies he conned party members into making him leader on the back of, the Tories will be looking good for yet another term.

    Labour majority on knife edge, says polling guru as Sunak faces no confidence vote

    John Curtice says results in group of key marginals would hand Starmer slim majority if replicated at election

    The local elections were terrible for Labour, as noted in previous posts. Even Ed Milliband did better in terms of council seats.

    • Legerwood says:

      The LibDem and Greens combined haul of seats was greater than Labour’s seats gained. This is not good news for Labour when it comes to the GE. The LibDems have also been a home for the ‘protest’ vote when the two main parties are messing up so their showing is not too much of a surprise. The Greens, however, are a deliberate choice by the voters and may indicate that people are coming round to giving them serious consideration. Come the GE this may have hardened such that the Green’s performance in the GE may upset many calculations about the outcome.

      • Bob Lamont says:

        Agreed on the ‘protest’ vote for the LibDems, and the Greens being a different beast entirely – The Greens have the advantage of being untarnished by prior involvement in WM’s chicanery.

        I keep hoping England’s electorate waken up and throw a spanner in the hamster wheel of London’s hegemonic politics in the same way SNP did in Scotland – To date the only ‘challenge’ to the duopoly in England has been Farage etc rebrands faking Tory opposition, but largely going nowhere.

        It would be nice to think the Greens can be the vehicle to upset the duopoly applecart in England, the next GE could prove interesting…

  14. “.. the flag-shagging that they love so much”
    What a wonderfully vivid metaphor!

    But I am curious: does it only apply to Tories and the union flag, or to others and their preferred standard? For example, MAGA types and the Stars and Stripes? Or, dare I ask, the marchers parading with Saltires to Glasgow Green last Saturday?

    • scottish_skier says:

      Depends if you are imposing your flag – and the values you personally claim it symbolises – on others against their will. Flags are friendly, colourful things that bring people together otherwise.

      • Try telling that to the YOONs who disagree on your imposition point.

        Do you seriously argue that a mass display, however colourful, of Saltires on parade makes such people feel more “together” with us independence advocates?

        I’m with John@12.19 am below.

        • scottish_skier says:

          Why would Scottish people be offended by their own flag?

          The unionist parties have on many occasions made the point that the saltire belongs to them too, and that is totally correct. It does. It is not the flag of independence, but of Scotland, whatever unions it might be partaking in. Hence both sides wave it happily, such as at Hampden or Murrayfield.

          The British flag is different – it is not the flag of Scotland and so is limited in who it belongs to. To many across the globe, it is very offensive due to imperial connotations. It is a flag of domination, not of just one country standing alongside others as equals. I do feel sympathy to those who don’t see it that way, but are decent folk that believe in the UK. However, history is what it is, and imperial Britain has not changed. If it had, we’d be free to hold our iref.

    • John says:

      I am personally a bit wary of flag waving and more a bit of cloth on a stick person.
      However I disagree with the ‘all forms of nationalism are bad’ take from opponents of independence especially from Labour supporters. The best overview I have read on nationalism is from Nelson Mandela – Long Walk to Freedom pp111-112 where he debunks this attitude as a form of imperialism.

  15. yesindyref2 says:

    It depends on your perspective.

    Meanwhile, perhaps it’ll stop being Republic v Monarchy for the small minority that actually care a too wit tu woo, stop being a certain MP trying to make slaves of unwilling staff at an Edinburgh venue so she can talk about – well, freedom of different opinions apparently. Which the staff are not allowed to have.

    And maybe we’ll all get back to that topic most of us have as the only thing in common – In, errr, Inxs, no, that’s not it, anyone remember what on earth we’re supposed to be wanting for Scotland? It’s been so long!

  16. Dr Jim says:

    There’s absolutely nothing wrong in any country being nationalistic and having pride in itself, there is however something very wrong when a country imposes its nationalism on another country

    England is guilty on every count of that

  17. scottish_skier says:

    Absurd to have him as unelected head of state for Scotland too, foisted on the Scottish people against their will (as they can’t freely vote for indy / a republic if they want due to subjugation by the 10x larger, ‘British FBI’ wielding, nuclear armed England).

    Prime minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines says King Charles as head of state is ‘absurd’

    Still, every cloud has a gold, ermine and diamond encrusted lining as they say. Of course but one of many stories of how the coronation is speeding up moves toward removing the British monarch as head of state in former colonies, from the Caribbean to New Zealand.

    All of this helping our cause indirectly as what remains of the empire continues to be consigned to history by means of popular democracy.

    • Welsh_Siôn says:

      Domino effect imminent?

      PM of St Kitts and Nevis says it’s ‘not totally free’ under Charles

      The Prime Minister of St Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean says his country is ‘not totally free’ under King Charles.

      Dr Terrance Drew said a public consultation would begin during his leadership to decide whether the two-island nation should become a republic.

      In an interview with the BBC, he also said he would welcome an apology from the monarchy for its historic links to the slave trade.

      Buckingham Palace told the broadcaster the King takes slavery ‘profoundly seriously’.


  18. Hamish100 says:

    Oops say the Police in London, England

    We shouldn’t have arrested you as there was no evidence. You were quite lawful in what you were doing. To peacefully protest is a democratic right. Please don’t take us to court as you can ask us any questions about our activities over you arrest.
    Ok- you know we did target your leadership to disrupt king Charlie’s and his bidey in’s wee day. We know it was deliberate actions but now it’s all over let’s kiss and make up (in a metaphoric sense) and let’s all forget about our illegal actions.
    Yours with sincerity
    The Met Police

    Ps dear King 111 – happy for any award coming. Pps- dear Sunak – it worked!!

  19. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    Are you actually CANCELLED if the pro Unionist TORY state media aka the renowned Anti independence broadcaster aka the BBC is providing you with a platform to promote what YOU say….not BTW to give you actual carte blanch to have your freedom of speech on ANY or ALL POSITIVE things connected to independence…but , at the moment, to be platformed to promote what is yet again another round of #SNPBAD ……via the UNION loving broadcaster that infests your country…..

    IF Joanna Cherry is indeed truly cancelled why then do I, and others, know so much about her grievances… this a new form of being cancelled….where you and your opinions are promoted on a PUBLIC platform…though only SELECTIVE ones as in SELECTIVE opinions….that they , the BBC and others, hope result in #SNPBAD and ultimately hope to result in the uber ultimate goal of voters then concluding #IndependenceBad.

    While doing this they, the BBC, are choosing to ignore, suppress or CANCEL former Lib Dem Emma Walker’s SAME right to HER freedom of speech on their channel on what she currently has to say …as in some #LibDemBad news…..that could ultimately, for ONE Pro Unionist party, equate to #NonUnionBad…..

    Check out her Twitter a/c which is Emma Walker (@EmmaWalkerCEO) Twitter….she was NOT a minor player in the Scottish Lib Dems but is NOW, via both them and the BBC, very much to be seen by them as a person they see as of NO interest in what SHE has to say…. as in her whistleblowing on the party that is the Lib Dems….and too their leader Alex ‘F*** You Maree’ Cole-Hamilton……now she is TRULY being CANCELLED……#WatchThisSpace (to see if this develops as a story or is , in being ignored, truly another story lost in the lack of publicity awarded by the BBC in their never ending quest to promote #SNPBAD linked stories while cancelling ALL #UnionistPartiesBad linked stories)…..

    • Capella says:

      Yes – you can be cancelled by a venue even if you do broadcast in other ways. It is the venue that has done the cancelling, not society in general. Joanna Cherry actually sets out the legal situation in a national article:

      And it is astonishing how many people fall back on the argument that because I get to air my views elsewhere – such as in the pages of this newspaper or on the radio or in a podcast – it’s OK for The Stand to no-platform me.
      I wonder if the same people would say to a Catholic who was refused a pint in a pub on account of their faith, “oh cheer up, I am sure another pub will serve you?”. It is really very, very silly.
      Last year, when the committee I chair at Westminster was looking at the issue of human rights reform and recommending resisting Tory attempts to roll back human rights protections, we also recommended that there should be better civic education on human rights law to ensure people understood that human rights are universal.

      • Not-My-Real-Name says:

        Hope you are well Capella…..tis lovely and sunny here in Edinburgh…for now……LOL

        I take your point Capella BUT…LOL…

        But my point is that BBC is politicising this against the SNP indeed today BBC GMS gave a platform to Labour MP Ian Murray to diss Tommy Shepherd and this venue and to make this into a linked ‘political’ smear against the SNP…

        Murray said he was “confused” because this venue was “owned” by her colleague Tommy Shepherd the “SNP MP” and that , according to him they should both “get together” and make sure ” we protect free speech in this country” and “not trying to cancel people” and he concluded this then involves ” having the SNP back in court again….. doesn’t seem to be the best place for that party to be at the moment” …..aaah he managed to get in a #SNPBAD again which let’s be honest was really the WHOLE point of this BBC interview with HIM the NON impartial politician in opposition to the SNP in Scotland….a bit rich this kind of talk coming from a Red Tory who is constantly enabled to promote, via HIS open door access via the MSM, to have many opportunities to free speech….HIM being one on THE side of the seemingly ‘many’ who promote the (non) #UnionGood ……. yet again another privileged position as in PUBLIC platform, as the ONE LABOUR MP elected in Scotland (via a Tory ticket), in him having an unfair advantage in getting an excessive platform to vent against the SNP via the MSM whilst simultanously active, like the BBC, in trying to repress and suppress the same opportunity and excessive promotion for free speech from those who support independence ……

        AFTER the interview the presenter went onto say ” Let’s get the latest news”…guess what the TOP story was….yep…the same story she discussed with Ian Murray ……Joanna Cherry

        Strange that the BBC in this should seek opinion from the ONE and ONLY Labour MP in Scotland who did NOT restrict his comment solely to Joanna Cherry’s position on being ‘cancelled’ via this venue but he managed to drag in yet another #SNPBAD.

        Labour…Ian Murray…BBC….the pots calling the Kettle black…..freedom of speech ALLOWED for SOME discussed subjects while OTHER subjects not given the same time, effort, significance or mention or rather the same courtesy…..why as far Ian Murray, Labour and the BBC are concerned the case for independence is a subject very much worth being cancelled and too the freedom of speech to promote it largely suppressed , fought or ignored……

        If this story was ONLY about the supposed cancellation of Joanna Cherry via her opinion and others who agree with her position then one could either decide Yea or Nay…but in the hands of the BBC and opposition parties it grows Unionist arms and legs and morphs into yet another #SNPBAD….Ian, like the BBC , wants us all to forget the GRR bill was passed via some MSP’s from ALL parties, including his, in the SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT and NOT as some, like Ian and the BBC, tout solely a Scottish government passed bill……..

        Have a nice day Capella


        • Capella says:

          Yes I agree that the BBC and almost all the MSM will use every opportunity to say SNP BAAAAAD. They control the “narrative” totally, except for a few online spaces still able to discuss these issues objectively.

          The management of The Stand could have apologised to Joanna Cherry and reinstated her booking. If they had understood the law they could have either reminded the staff of their contractual obligations, hired other staff willing to work, or not offered JC the invitation in the first place. But here we are again.

          • Not-My-Real-Name says:

            Hi Capella I take onboard what you say re the staff, management etc…..but alas the real argument will , like all other arguments, get lost in what will become yet another #SNPBAD frenzied vendetta…..with the usual suspects jumping on this, like ANY, bandwagon that promotes their (non) Union in a more positive light and too the political parties who support it whilst the opposite being presented for independence and those parties who support it.

            There is no fair, balanced or reasoned debate to ever be had in Scotland via the MSM because you are not allowed to simply have a position or indeed a strong opinion other than when tis one that is worth being promoted by the MSM and opposition parties that somehow always always manages to LINK in a #SNPBAD connection…..

            Ian Murray calling for and promoting Free speech in his interview with the BBC GMS today when at the weekend Labour MP David Lammy confirmed “Labour would NOT seek to repeal the the Tories anti-protest legislation if they form a government after the next General Election”……and BBC Scotland GMS in their interview with Murray FAILED to mention THAT to him…as in a contradiction in him promoting FREE SPEECH while HIS party supporting the continuation of a Tory bill generated to SUPPRESS the English public’s ability to express their FREE SPPEECH via protests… in via the ability to protest against actions they OPPOSE via the government and other relevant issues/establishments that impact them and others in a negative way…..way to go Murray and the BBC….par for the course….(BTW Labour’s Lisa ‘I prefer Spanish retribution for Scots’ Nandy also FAILED to confirm on ITV GMB that Labour would repeal that same TORY bill when asked DIRECTLY…Nandy deliberately avoids saying yes when asked instead , like most politicians , she CHOSE to waffle in order to AVOID answering …….we can see a pattern here with the Labour party in adopting Tory policies…..MORE Tory than the Tories….or wannabee(s)….

            What a B***** (rhymes with MUDDY) so called but NOT country and media….


          • Alec Lomax says:

            Hired other staff willing to work.

            Straight out of the Norman Tebbit cookbook.

        • Dr Jim says:

          Joanna Cherry is gaming and manipulating the media just as they are using her
          If you’re standing on a street corner airing your views the law cannot compel anyone to stand still and listen to you, and if they walk away they never *cancelled* anything or anybody, they just didn’t want to hear you for whatever reason they decide
          That’s the problem with this silly argument, free speech also means free not to listen to it
          Joanna Cherry knows how it works, it’s just her ego that won’t let it go
          The venue cannot open if there is no staff to operate it, and the law cannot compel them to work without threat of terminating their employment, and the venue operator isn’t going to do that over one dispute or he/she would be in trouble with the law for sacking them

          If for example the venue owner couldn’t sell any tickets or encourage patrons to see and hear Cherry he would have been forced to cancel on those grounds, would Cherry have still threatened court action over that?

          It doesn’t really matter whether right or wrong is involved here, the fact remains people power does decide whether they want something or not, and in the end if you believe in total democracy then it’s the people that ultimately decide the law for good or for bad

          Joanna is misunderstanding the basic principle of law and she’s doing it by very poorly disguising her own ego as the driver

          You can’t use the law to make people like you no matter what you have to say
          You might win a court judgement, but you lose the point of the argument by threatening the very people you hope to convince of your position

          • Capella says:

            Nobody is suggesting that people should be compelled to go to a Stand session featuring Joanna Charry. That would be absurd. She presented a similar session last year and that was sold out so there are plenty members of the public who would buy tickets to hear her. The Stand is in her Edinburgh constituency.

            Do you seriously believe that Joanna Cherry KC, former Human Rights lawyer and Chair of the Westminster Human Rights committee doesn’t understand human rights law?

            • Dr Jim says:

              She’s manipulating the system with an eye towards future employment following her deselection as a SNP MP and possible selection as an Alba candidate
              Joanna Cherry is using absolutism as an argument for applying the law, it’s dangerous and stupid and that’s her flawed interpretation of democracy driven by ego
              The law is not a machine, nor are the people it’s supposed to represent
              If you posit the argument that any and all law is absolute then you argue for totalitarianism, but she manipulates that argument towards the question that her interpretation of all law is more relevant than the democratic behaviour of the people that create the law, a trick all lawyers engage in when making their cases, and why lawyers right at this moment are arguing against judge led jurorless trials on charges of sexual assault

              In her eagerness to secure her future employment and income opportunities Joanna Cherry is engaging in publicity and notoriety to win her argument
              Her problem with this method is she has no clue about the behaviour inside the entertainment and media industry with which she ‘s now flirting
              The press will support her while she’s useful to them then destroy her utterly when she’s not

              Even if she wins, she loses, no side will thank her, so yes, she does not understand what she’s doing, she’s ego driven
              The law has absolutely nothing to do with any of this
              When dealing with public opinion if you’ve got no jokes or you sing out of tune, it’s a no from them

            • Eilidh says:

              She understands human rights law certainly but she does not understand employment law. A lot of people who work in venues like the Stand will be on zero hours contracts so cannot be compelled to work that night as on zero hours you donnot have to take every shift you are offered that us how zero hours contracts work. Those on contracted hour contracts could be disciplined for refusing to work that night but likelihood is they would have to be suspended from their jobs or on the night they would phone in sick so venue could not safely operate anyway. Good luck to Joanna with proving staff are refusing to work because of her views rather than worry for safety of themselves or customers due to nutters on both sides of GRR debate.Maybe Joanna could inform The Stand where they could find alternative qualified staff to work at that venue on the night she was due to appear.

              • Capella says:

                Its the management’s job to hire, train and supervise staff. If they don’t have sufficient staff to provide cover for people who “go off sick” then the venue is not fit to operate anyway. Anyone who has managed a large complex, like I have, open to the public from 8.00 am – 11.00 pm with multiple facilities which require staffing ensures that there are enough qualified staff to cover every eventuality.

                However, staff who threaten to break their contract unless certain performers/customers are banned should be reminded of their legal and contractual obligations. If people don’t like the policy of the organisation they work for they should find an organisation whose policies they can live with.

        • Capella says:

          Oh – and it’s a lovely day here – bright sunshine, birdies twittering, washing fluttering in the breeze – heaven! 🙂

  20. yesindyref2 says:

    The problem with the Joanna Cherry event is apparently that staff don’t want to work there while she’s giving her speech.

    So you have to ask this question:

    Does Joanna Cherry think that people – the staff – should be forced to work there against their wills like slaves because her right to free speech is more important than their rights to their own opinions and indeed, personal welfare?

    I think she’s out of control. But I hope she doesn’t threaten to sue me for daring to express my opinion.

    I used to respect her but I have no time for bullies.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      From the solicitor:

      He said his client did not wish to litigate, but would ”not hesitate to do so to vindicate not only her own rights, but the vital rights of individuals to hold and express legitimate philosophical views and not to be discriminated against for so doing”.

      but not on my property (for instance). Don’t I have rights to enjoy the use of my property?

      Using the law to bully people IS NOT ON.

    • Capella says:

      So if venue staff don’t like black people or Jews then it’s fine if they cancel them and refuse them service? Is that what you’re arguing? If the black person or the Jew complains about discrimination then they are the bullies.

      How about Catholics? Muslims? Republicans?

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Don’t try yo put words in my mouth Capella, it should be beneath you.

        • Capella says:

          Don’t try to misrepresent what I said. If you are arguing that anyone should be free to discriminate against someone whose views they disagree with then it must follow that other protected characteristics can also be discriminated against.

          • yesindyref2 says:

            Read – your – own – posting.

            And don’t talk to me about misrepresentation. i did not say ONE SINGLE THING YOU PUT IN YOUR POSTING.

            Here’s your reply in case you forgot what you wrote:

            So if venue staff don’t like black people or Jews then it’s fine if they cancel them and refuse them service? Is that what you’re arguing? If the black person or the Jew complains about discrimination then they are the bullies.

            How about Catholics? Muslims? Republicans?

            Absolutely NONE of that was in my posting you replied to. None of them, none at all. They are your opinions, not mine.

            • Capella says:

              I didn’t say you said that. I was illustrating the logical conclusion of what you did say:

              “The problem with the Joanna Cherry event is apparently that staff don’t want to work there while she’s giving her speech.”

              Her views happen to be gender critical. But what if she was of a religious faith that the staff don’t like. What if the staff are monarchists and a republican is booked to speak. Do they have the right to cancel anyone they don’t like?

              • stewartb says:

                I have no legal training but intuitively the example of the so-called “gay cake” discrimination case in NI from a few years ago – which ended up going all the way to the UK Supreme Court – shows that the law around discrimination is complex to judge.

                I can’t offer a justification of an exact parallel to the Strand/Cherry dispute but it seems of interest to recall this:

                ‘Customer Gareth Lee requested a cake featuring the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie, iced with the message: “Support Gay Marriage.”

                ‘His order was initially accepted at a branch of Ashers in Belfast city centre, but two days later the baking firm’s head office contacted Mr Lee to say the firm would not make the cake.’

                The family-run baking company described the same-sex marriage slogan as “inconsistent” with its religious beliefs. The company argued that’s its refusal of service was based on the issue it had with the slogan – i.e. with the content of a message whose communication it had previously agreed to facilitate by accepting the order – and not Mr Lee, claiming it would have refused the same order from a heterosexual client.

                When upholding the company’s appeal (case reference [2018] UKSC 49), president of the Supreme Court Lady Hale ruled that the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the order because of his sexual orientation.’ Adding: ‘Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee.” And refusing service based on an objection to the ‘message’ was permissible in law.


                Any legal experts here to dismiss a parallel – or not?

                • Capella says:

                  It may be that this is “compelled speech” i.e. you can’t force someone else to say something they don’t believe. But I’m not a lawyer either. I would think “misgendering” could come onto this category.

                • Capella says:

                  Obviously, nobody was compelling any of the staff of The Stand to say things they didn’t believe. So not a parallel.

  21. Alec Lomax says:

    Joanna Cherry, currently the unionists’ favourite Scottish nationalist

  22. Martin Edmunds says:

    What all of this tells me is that we could do worse than put a written constitution front and centre in what we want for an independent Scotland. Put it at the heart of the sort of Scotland we are campaigning for.

    The very fact that the UK does not have such a thing enables a right wing set of nut jobs with a majority at Westminster to enact pieces of crap like the public order act 2023 which is clearly nothing less than a tool to enable the police to act, not as protectors of the public, but as an instrument of a state that wants to neuter free speech and the right to peacefully protest.

    An act by the way which Labour have already stated they will not seek to repeal or adjust should they gain power.

    What do you want … To live in a future UK police state, or an independent Scotland with a written constitution specifically constructed to prevent such an event ever happening?

  23. Dr Jim says:

    When Moses went up to receive the laws of God he was gone a long time, when he returned with the over 200 commandments of the Lord the people rejected them and they were smashed
    Moses later received an amended version of those laws that God later restored unto him, they were very much shorter and simpler to the now more popular version of the 10 commandments, all 10 of which people break every single day

    Democracy and the law always has been a moving feast

  24. yesindyref2 says:

    I’m sure Joanna Cherry would defend my right to express my opinion, and let me make it clear this is my personal opinion, expressed as a “fair comment” as the law put it in the case of Dugdale v Campbell or vice versa, and that opinion is that Cherry is bringing the Law in Scotland into disrepute, abusing her position and influence as a KC, and wealth; and abusing notions of discrimination while ignoring the normal rights of any business owner to refuse to do business, and of staff to refuse to be slaves, and of a property owner or leaser not to have someone on their property they don’t want on their property. Pub owners should beware lest this sets a precedent!

    *Fair Comment*

  25. Hamish100 says:

    Hasn’t Joanna Cherry been rather rude about some SNP colleagues on U.K. tv or is it GB tv recently ?

    Have they the right to say I am not going to speak to that person or be in the same room ? Will they be sued if they did?

    I think this is about someone daring to be be fired so they can move to another place with a clear conscience- from their viewpoint.

    I still think the police arresting innocents down south are a bigger story. You would have thought this we would be the hot topic for lawyers. Lol🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇪🇺

    • Dr Jim says:

      Money and how to use the law to get more of it is the hot topic for lawyers
      My brother was a lawyer, and ambulance chasing defender of all things that could make him more money, one of those *have you had an anythything that I can make money prosecuting threatening to prosecute or sending a legal letter demanding reparations* lawyer
      Other than that a lovely guy and member of all things private secret golfing lunching city chambersing in the know big hoose loadsa dosh nicey nice people

    • Golfnut says:

      If you watched the videos of the speakers at Glasgow Green, you would see that none failed to criticise the SNP, both regarding their current travails and lack of action regards progressing indy. Definitely a case of kicking a dog while it was down, particularly Salmond though he was one of the better speakers. All called for unity though, so that’s all right then, the hypocrisy sickened even me.

      • Alec Lomax says:

        Glasgow Green. It is noticeable that a number of speakers in the past few years tend to criticize the SNP more than they criticize the Tories.

      • stewartb says:

        ‘All called for unity though ..’

        I listened to the speeches courtesy of Independence Live. I noticed the ‘digs’ directed at the SNP leadership, recent and present, but also noted an overall call for unity -which was welcome. And then, over the subsequent couple of days, I checked out twitter.

        Clearly the message for unity – for the ‘movement’ to come together – had failed to reach some prominent pro-indy, anti-SNP, anti-former FM, anti-present FM, anti-Scottish Greens keyboard warriors! Still churning out negatives, still engaging in disparagement – i.e. aiming to undervalue or lower the estimation or character of a person or thing – to a degree that a Unionist politician or activist could only read and admire.

        • Golfnut says:

          It’s not as if the unionists need much encouragement, we just shouldn’t be providing them with ammo. However the SNP did themselves no favours by their very notable absence.

          • Alex Clark says:

            The SNP were there, not all of them of course but not a “very notable absence” either,

            • Golfnut says:

              Sorry Alex, you mean well but how many MPs and MSPs do the SNP have?

              • Alex Clark says:

                They have 64 MSP’s and 44 MP’s for a total of 108. So all I know for sure is that at least 5 of them were at the march in Glasgow, so roughly 5%.

                Assuming there were as many as 10,000 at the march, then the SNP elected representatives present were 25 times greater than that of the general population as a whole and for all I know there may have been a few others there as well who were not in that tweet.

                Heaving 5% of elected members at least publicly marching is hardly a “very notable absence” and FWIW I doubt I’ll be attending a AOUB march anytime soon if they continue to attack the SNP. So those elected members that did attend might have had to hold their noses to do so but it didn’t stop them from attending.

                • Golfnut says:

                  The March figures according to the Police were 25K although a figure of 20K was announced before the speeches began.
                  The SNP are under attack from all sides Alex and every speaker bar none criticised the SNP and the leadership past and present on a lack of 1) leadership and 2) activity.
                  Now is not the time to lie low, keep their head down and wait for everything to settle down. A hundred MPs and MSPs at that March no matter how big or small would have been a much needed statement of intent not only to the union establishment but to the Yes movement.

  26. Hamish100 says:

    If it quacks..🦆🦆🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

  27. yesindyref2 says:

    The solution for Cherry and the Strand is very easy of course, and I offer my services as an arbitrator with this solution:

    Sheppard should apologise profusely to Cherry and provide her with the platform, but not whip the slaves into co-operation, and hence not allow any audience – as the public liability insurance would be very unlikely to cover an unstaffed indoor event.

    Cherry can then talk to her heart’s content to an empty room, perhaps with CCTV to check on safety.

    Just send my usual fee for this service to the Prince’s Trust, which does great work for young people.

    • Capella says:

      Not providing the service – no front of house staff etc so no – not a solution.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Of course it is – it’s given her her platform and her demanded freedom of speech. Though to my mind she could set up a bucket on the Meadows.

        She should indemnify the Strand for up to £1 million.

  28. Eilidh says:

    This is in reply to Capella at 3.42 as thread now too long to post there.
    You may have managed a building open to the public for many a hours a day Capella so have I.
    Have you actually managed a building where most of the staff are on zero hours contracts because that is how entertainment and hospitality work these days. I have been to the Edinburgh fringe quite a few times and been in The Stand more than once. Getting staff for the numerous events at the fringe has always been a challenge. These days there is a massive shortage of staff in many industries hospitality and entertainment being some of the worst affected. I am sure the management would love to have all these additional staff you think they should have but they cannot magic them up out of thin air. I went up to Inverness at the weekend to avoid seeing that man getting a sparkly hat. Numerous places we were in there had adverts on the walls looking for staff. Organisation I work for now recently recruited for a post. Salary was not great we only received applications from 5 people.
    I was subject to threats and attempts of violence against me whilst working for a local authority so I am very mindful of how hard it is for staff to deal with some customers who try to enforce their views on others. I feel the prospect of violence at the event from idiots for whatever reason will be a factor some staff do not want to work at that event. For that reason alone I would not want to work at it either.

    • Capella says:

      No, I have never managed staff on zero hours contracts. I would never consider it. All staff were on permanent or fixed term contracts and good rates of pay. You find if you treat people with respect they tend to reward you with good service. Not everyone, of course, but refusal to carry out agreed duties is a sackable offence. Never do that is my advice, it can’t be defended – and join a union.

    • Capella says:

      Oh – and I would never tolerate violence or intimidation of staff. I called the police on the one occasion that was necessary, or the parents if the perpetrator was a child. Most awkward customers will leave if you insist.

  29. Alex Clark says:

    Joanna Cherry cares more about GRA reform than any other topic. That includes the party she represents on behalf of her constituents who voted for the SNP. The fact that she disagrees with the party’s stance on this matter does not give her the right to undermine their position by talking very publicly about her opposition to it.

    If she was a principled person she should follow her conscience and resign from the SNP and she will then be free to criticise and attack SNP policies as much as she likes. Right now all she is doing is putting her own views above that of the party and damaging them in the process. She must know that by providing ammunition to the enemies of Independence she does that cause no favours, yet still she persists.

    You’ve got to ask why?

    Anyway, as much as I would like it, and despite being a big admirer of her early career as an SNP MP. I very much doubt that she would ever leave of her own free will and much rather wait until she is thrown out, maybe that’s even what she wants. Staying in the SNP while continuing to undermine their policies is quite simply bizarre.

    • “If she was a principled person she should follow her conscience and resign from the SNP”
      Do you seriously believe that support for Scottish independence entails support for GRA-especially self ID?

      If this is the view across the independence movement then let me tell where we are headed: 300 more years

      • Alex Clark says:

        I said nothing of the kind.

        Just to be clear, I have said that to have elected representatives of the SNP use the public platform afforded to them by their status as an MP to act as outspoken critics of SNP policy on any topic is not helpful to support for Independence.

        It shows disunity and splits within the party and causes nothing but trouble inside the party and out. When you agree to represent a party as an elected member your number one priority is to go with the majority view within the party. That doesn’t mean not lobbying against the majority view and fighting to have it overturned but that should never be done in public.

        If you can’t stomach any policy to which the majority of that party are agreed then your and the party’s objectives are no longer aligned and you should leave or keep your mouth shut. An elected MP or MSP represents the party and the people that voted for that party’s policies and your own personal opinions take a poor second place.

        • “the people that voted for that party’s policies”
          What party had voters voting for self ID?

          What party had self ID in its election manifesto?

          • Legerwood says:

            By the 2021 Holyrood election the SG had already held one consultation on the issue & published a draft Bill further consultations ensued and a re-drafting of the bill was underway and may have been completed by the election. Therefore people knew exactly what was being proposed by the time of the election.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      As entitled as Cherry is to her opinions, observations on SNP manifesto pledges or self-ID or venues are straight out of the Empire Handbook, distract and divide.
      – All UK parties had reform of the GRA on their agenda, part of international efforts to address the flaws in original legislation
      – These reforms were put into law in Ireland IIRC 8 years ago, and nobody batted an eyelid.
      – With HMG having shelved their reforms, only SG progressed the issue, undoubtedly one of the most extensively scrutinised and debated bills in Holyrood history, and which ultimately was passed cross-party by the Scottish Parliament.

      Whether Cherry or anyone else has reservations over the Bill as passed by SG is moot, it’s passing into legislation was halted by HMG, and it is that we are being deliberately distracted from by this propaganda campaign.

  30. jfngw says:

    RuPaul brings his Drag Race to Scotland, he has been disappointed by entries I believe.

  31. Dr Jim says:

    Licenced premises have a duty of care not only to staff but customers also
    I had five female staff in my restaurant and bar, I deliberately only employed women because it helps cut down on aggression in men when they’ve had too much
    Each of my staff had my complete faith and permission to refuse to serve and or bar anyone on the spot that became abusive to anyone, I still on occasion had to physically remove awkward people

    One such awkward customer returned and shot me, he could’ve hit any one of my staff or customers because he was 20 feet away when he did it
    When a licenced premises is busy you make the decision always to err on the side of caution as to who’s in it and or who’s standing outside of it, even to watching who’s just got a mean face on

    My premises was 90% English pensioners, the rest Spanish regulars and tourists from everywhere
    The guy who shot me was a 26 year old barman from a neighbouring pub who was jealous of how busy my premises was by comparison to his own

    In todays climate I wouldn’t let Joanna Cherry within fifty yards of my premises, If she walked in off the street I’d walk her right back out, I don’t care whether she’s right or wrong, she’s trouble, she knows it and she doesn’t care who gets caught in her ego driven collateral damage

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Seeing how she’s suing someone with a top KC 52 page opinion and a firm of solicitors for not wanting to do business with her, if I get an order from her it will be quietly binned.

      I wouldn’t even want to issue a refusal in case she uses her qualifications, power and money to try to sue and bankrupt my micro business.

  32. Iain Crichton says:

    I was at the march. I was one of the big flag bearers.i was also at the rally.every speech was emotive especially the afghan refugee.the only time I heard a member of the snp being being criticised was human who decided to go the cap doffin rigmarole down south he should not have been to joanna cherry she made it perfectly clear her job was to clear house in the to this carry on with the comedy club the best punishment for it is too boycott it. Also the camaraderie was lovely and the music was brilliant especially the folk rock band from Aberdeen who did a fantastic cover of the cranberries zombie 🧟‍♀️.

  33. Iain Crichton says:

    Sorry human.the second he gets his jotters is the second I rejoin the snp.

  34. Hamish100 says:

    Sorry who is human?

  35. Handandshrimp says:

    I am not sure what the best course for Cherry is. I think litigation seems over the top but I understand the frustration regarding the cancel culture thing. One might think that it would simpler to find a venue willing to host the event. However would it? Might the same people trying to shut her down at the first venue simply up and picket the second? Edinburgh University has twice tried to show a film debating these issues and twice it has had to cancel because the event was picketed.

    Last year, Jerry Sadowitz was cancelled because staff thought his act offensive (who did the venue think they were hiring?). They would probably cancel Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks too. Is this the future? A sanitised “truth”. I don’t think this road leads anywhere good. The GRR debate has thrown up some examples recently but trying to silence those one disagrees with is as old as the hills. Socrates had to drink hemlock for refusing to be silent on his views regarding religion. In a democracy we debate ideas we do not close down debate and only have an orthodoxy. That is theocracy by another name.

    • Alex Clark says:

      I think Joanna Cherry has every right to express her opinion as an individual but not as an elected representative of the SNP or of the people that voted for the SNP in her constituency on SNP policies that were in their manifesto.

      If she wants to continue her attacks on SNP policy over this subject then in my view she should resign from the party, as clearly she no longer supports the policies she was elected on and is actively undermining the party she is a member of while she continues to do so.

      No one wants to close down debate but don’t be hypocritical about it and claim to represent the SNP when you can’t support them and openly criticise them.

      • Capella says:

        Self ID wasn’t in the manifesto.

        • Legerwood says:

          Of course it wasn’t because the parties had to research the options then put the proposals out for consultation which is what the SG did and what the other parties would have done had they won the 2016 election.

          Also worth remembering that the HoC committee that held an inquiry into the working of the GRA 2004 recommended self-id as a possible reform.

          Furthermore the HoC committee’s report on this issue was published in early 2016 if I remember correctly. Hardly enough time for any of the parties to prepare a fully worked up proposal to include in their manifesto. Indeed when parties include policies in their manifesto such as this then they frequently are short of detail because the issue needs research & consultation before a draft bill is drawn up.

          Saying self-id was not in the manifesto is no sort of argument

          • Capella says:

            Self ID is the issue which Joanna Cherry objects to – the removal of all safeguarding. It is not right to say that she is arguing against the manifesto. It wasn’t in the manifesto.

            • Legerwood says:

              There is more safeguarding in the GRR Bill than was in the original act eg Gillian Martin’s amendment.

              Also the statutory declaration which was in the GRA 2004 is also in the GRR Bill

      • Handandshrimp says:

        Collective responsibility for policy is something that applies to Cabinet. Backbench MPs have always had a variety of opinions on policy. Not every Tory MP supports Brexit. Not every Labour MP supports renationalisation of, say, water in England (Starmer probably). Every party has some thorns in its side over policy decisions. This is good and healthy. Countries like China have every single parliament member agreeing with the party line. This is less healthy.

        With regards self ID, I voted in 2019 for an SNP MP, this topic never crossed my mind when I cast my vote. Quite how a party that soared to power on the back of a pro independence campaign has impaled itself on this issue baffles me as much as the issue itself. There is a lot of noise and smoke over the topic but not much light and both sides of the discussion are at fault. It is easy meat for campaigners like Stu Campbell, who clearly is a bit anti, when pro Trans activists say disturbing and threatening things about Feminists… regardless whether that individual represents a Twitter following of only 3 people. That is why open discussion and debate is important.

        With regards closing down discussion, I saw the other day that the right wing TPUK are also using this tactic and closed down a drag act storytelling event in a pub in London (I think). This also seems to me to be utterly ridiculous. I’m pretty sure TPUK won’t limit their activity to drag acts.

        One wonders where this road leads and how many branches will fork out from it. Who will be closed down next?

    • yesindyref2 says:

      I don’t think it’s the business of private concerns to further freedom of speech at the potential expense of safety and welfare at work of the workers. As you say Edinburgh twice cancelled a debate on those grounds.

      Ultimately if freedom of speech IS being denied by circumstances beyond easy and safe proportionate control, it should be the duty of the state to provide for it, for instance by paying for and organising a protective police presence, provide willing and protected and trained staff or volunteers as necessary, and perhaps by offering Holyrood or some other state controlled venue, as an alternative.

      Perhaps indeed that could be an upturned pail and PC Murdoch, with a security fence, somewhere on the Meadows.

      It is the business of businesses to go about our business within the law (and as the Yanks would have it, despite state interference). Not to expose any workers we have including ourselves, to danger.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        “danger.” –> “danger, stress or abuse.”

        Check out such notices all over the place including government offices.

      • scottish_skier says:

        Could not agree more. Venues have the absolute legal right to control what is said ‘publicly’ on their premises, particularly when it comes to people they are seen to be ‘giving a platform to / promoting’ as a means to generate revenue.

        Jings, if I was having dinner in a venue and started waxing lyrical about things the owners didn’t like, and to the extent I could be overheard by other punters etc, they could ask me to wheesht or leave. My protected characteristics (I have the same number of these as Cherry – everyone basically does) do not provide a get out clause! 🙂

        A venue could not kick Cherry out / ban her for the simple reason she claims she’s a lesbian / a natal woman / someone who has deep philosophical views on GRR etc. But they can require her not to talk about any subject ‘publicly’ (other punters forced to hear) they want while in their venue. And they can absolutely decide if they want to give her a platform to talk about such stuff on their bloody stage FHS!

        Certainly, I think we can be quite confident that if the Comedy Club folded under pressure, was seen to give Cherry a platform and then punters boycotted it as a result, she would not be compensating them for their loss of revenue / staff the loss of income. Ergo, they can say no to to putting her on stage for business / staff welfare reasons.

        If she turns up to an event armed with tickets, then in she’ll be happily let in because they are not anti-women, nor anti-lesbian, nor anti-people who don’t support GRR (but don’t go around shouting this from the rooftops); or at least I’ve not see a single shred of evidence to suggest what are extremely serious accusations. If you are going to call people anti-women and homophobic as Cherry is (staff of the comedy club), you’d better have good evidence. They might take you to court for defamation!

  36. Golfnut says:

    This is further to my response to Alex Clark at 7:41 am.
    The SNP need to do three things now.
    Sack their strategists if they have them because they’re useless.
    Sack their legal advisors.
    Organise a membership( 72K) march/ rally,
    Let’s start fighting back.

    • AlbaLaddie says:

      Agree wholeheartedly with this.

      The SNP executive are becoming far too beige New Labour for my liking.

      The increase in membership on the back of Tentgate should also have been shouted from the rooftops across every media channel, with a call for Labour and Tory membership numbers in Scotland to be published as well.

      What are the NEC feared of, exactly?

  37. Welsh_Siôn says:


    Adam Price to quit as Plaid Cymru leader

    10 May 2023 3 minute read

    Adam Price has agreed to step down as the leader of Plaid Cymru, we have been told.

    It is understood that he wants to leave the post at once, but that others are wanting a more organised handover.

    Mr Price’s departure follows the publication last week of a report that said the party had failed to deal with a toxic internal culture where sexual harassment had been tolerated.


    • Capella says:

      What an amazing coincidence.

    • Welsh_Siôn says:


      At a meeting of tonight’s National Executive Committee (Wednesday May 10th) Adam Price MS announced his decision to step down as Leader of Plaid Cymru next week once interim arrangements have been put in place.

      The NEC agreed to ask the Plaid Cymru Senedd Group for nominations for an Acting Leader at its meeting tomorrow morning (Thursday 11th May), for confirmation by the Party’s National Council which will meet on Saturday.

      The NEC also agreed that the process of choosing a permanent Leader will now be brought forward. A new Leader will be in place in the summer. Further details outlining the timetable will be shared in due course.

    • Not-My-Real-Name says:

      SKY News did a report on this last night…they approached Labour FM Mark Drakeford asking him if Adam Price should step down….Mark Drakeford refused to respond he stated he was on his way to an important event…it was also the TOP story on BBC Wales politics page last night….today top story on there is who the new Plaid leader is and the next two top stories relate to Adam price….

      The accusations on this report included Misogyny, harassment and bullying in the party.

      These above allegations are SAME ONES that Emma Walker , former Lib Dem, has against her party in Scotland….yet NOTHING is being reported via BBC Scotland….OR…SKY News….

      So how come ?????

      How come indeed…..

      • Welsh_Siôn says:

        Or indeed … the feature “Who is Adam Price?” whereas for the past four years both he and Plaid Cymru rarely feature.

        It’s almost as if they want us to remain ignorant and in our boxes – until some (confected) scandal appears.

        Not that I’m a conspiracy theorist, of course …

  38. Capella says:

    A refreshing column from Kate Forbes making the case for lifelong learning and apprenticeships in a detailed analysis of the post Covid landscape.

    To learn and earn: We must offer students universal apprenticeships

    A narrow poll of speaking to school leavers this week threw up some surprises for me. All of them were completely at a loss as to what to do next. Perhaps it was always thus. But they were, to a person, determined not to go to university or college.

    In my year, young people without clarity about the future would have chosen the path of least resistance, namely, further or higher education. Based on my small sample, that’s clearly no longer the case.

    I was curious as to why, as the reasons should be a wake-up call for politicians, learning institutions and employers.

  39. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    In Scotland Labour are promoting that under a new (new) Labour UK government there will be “Fresh change for Scotland” thus they are asking Scots to vote for their HQ party as the next UK government in the next GE.

    Problem is that HQ Labour, may now NOT get the majority that they need at the next GE, based on the results from the recent English Council election, and as was recently shown via past recent polls plus they could still LOSE the next GE…..and we all know what happened with Theresa May post 2017 GE and her then reduced majority…..she could not get her Brexit Agreement deal through in the HOC and needed to financially bribe the DUP to try and shore up votes for it from them…..still did not work as they, the DUP, did not play ball….and she then had to eventually resign as PM…cue Boris Johnson.

    Now we have Labour HQ MP David Lammy (shadow Foreign Secretary) stating in a recent interview that Labour ” Can’t come into office picking through all the Conservative legislation and repealing it. It would take too much time”…..

    SO if many. or ALL, of the Tory legislation stays in place via a Labour government how then is that a “Fresh change for Scotland”…surely that means we here in Scotland (and elsewhere if honest) are in the same position we were in with the Tory HQ UK government….not forgetting that Lammy is using a weak excuse here (as in a LIE)….reality is that via Starmer and some of his shadow ministers they are actually endorsing some of the current Tory policies and plan to adopt pretty much the same future vision as the Tories did if they, Labour, DO take power as the next UK Government….with Tory BREXIT still at the helm for a new Labour government….same Tory Brexit that Scotland rejected, via a majority of 62%, in 2016.

    Plus the very relevant fact that he, Lammy, DOES NOT (fails to ) mention ….that IF…Labour do NOT have THE numbers….as in a MAJORITY….they would then find that they ALWAYS need OTHER parties to support them to pass any of their NEW legislation…but while seeking the support of other parties they expect these other parties to be okay with them, Labour, still NOT repealing much of the former Tory government’s legislation that they as opposing parties did NOT support at the time via the Tories and still will NOT support with Labour at the helm…..Labour can spin it any way they want (and they will as currently they are already stating that the SNP should support them if they, Labour, are the next government as if they, the SNP, do not then they are then supporting the Tories….which is of course S**** rhymes with FIGHT)…..but TRUTH is that if you KEEP Tory policies as a Labour government then you cannot expect other parties, like the SNP, to support you.

    So far Starmer HAS proven to be as dishonest as ANY Tory PM and Tory government minister as the pledges he made when he was campaigning to be the NEW Labour leader he has now went BACK on… what we here in Scotland are actually being offered is NO CHANGE FOR SCOTLAND under a New New Labour government as opposed to the LIE via branch office that it will be, under a Labour HQ government, a “Fresh change” for us…..more STALE and STAGNANT than FRESH…..

    Plus THE most important fact is that Labour like the Tories REFUSE to accept that Scotland has the right , via HUGE changed UK circumstances since 2014, to hold another Independence Referendum……which, in Labour also opposing it, it is then yet ANOTHER policy that unites them, Labour, with the Tories.

    So where is and how is a Labour UK government a “Fresh change for Scotland”……answer… is NOT….NEW bosses same as the OLD bosses….pass on THAT message to OTHERS who currently may be being deceived and deluded by both the branch office and HQ Labour party …….

    Vote Labour and you then GET the same, and also some new versions, of existing Tory policies…..Vote Labour GET Tory…..

    • Capella says:

      This is what happened in 1997. I remember the euphoria that followed a massive Labour majority (c140) which meant they could do anything and the opposition couldn’t stop them. So did they renationalise British Rail? No. British Telecom? No. British Gas? No. BNOC? No. Water? No. Local bus services? No. Did they repeal the restrictive Trade Union legislation? No.

      Waste of time and energy.

      • Not-My-Real-Name says:

        @ Capella @ 12.46pm

        Spot on Capella….Labour still playing the ‘Scots are thick’ card…..

        Hope you have a great day


  40. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    Sorry for another comment after previous one…

    But a while back I highlighted on here some of the complaints made by Emma Walker , formerly of the Lib Dems, that she made against both the Lib Dems and Alex ‘F*** You Maree’ Cole Hamilton….and they were SHOCKING !

    Over the past few days she has been active on Twitter, post what has been a very traumatic episode Health wise for her, in trying to get journalists to take up her very politically relevant story about the Lib Dems….today she tweeted this :

    “THIS IS WILD. I’m hearing from journalists who have been warned off contacting me by their boss. These are good people who want to use their role in society in a positive way. This is not something I can share here, but I want to show this to an independent investigator #AskAlex”

    ” hearing from journalists who have been warned off contacting me by their boss”…..I suspect these SAME bosses are the ones who go into overdrive when ANY #SNPBAD story emerges…..which includes many a story sourced via an opposing political party FOI request on the Scottish government which is then SPUN to such an extent, by both the media and opposing political parties, that it ultimately becomes what they NEED and WANT it to be as in WHY they requested a particular FOI request….that is ….#SNPBAD.

    Meanwhile they are REFUSING to follow up or give a platform to someone with a story who was a member of a Pro UK party…..

    This is but ONE instance as an example of how corrupt and complicit OUR (but not REALLY OUR) media is with those OTHER parties who support the status quo….as in the (non) Union… in Scotland….(and elsewhere)…..

    I , for one, support Emma’s right for HER story to be told to the public as opposed to it being limited nay restricted to just being told on social media….currently tis only via social media that her story is being told and discussed…..what she has to say IS of public interest but somehow it is, as a story, deemed as one that is NOT to be touched…..we should all be asking WHY.

    #AskAlex…..perhaps the next time he is on BBC Debate Night would be a good time if you are in the audience……watch him squirm and adopt evasive action while simultanously demonising the SNP as if HE and HIS party have the moral high ground against the SNP… if.

  41. yesindyref2 says:

    From the Herald:

    MINISTERS have a plan to privatise the shipyard firm at the centre of Scotland’s ferry fiasco, it has emerged.

    but also from the “indy-supporting” National:

    THE nationalised shipyard at the centre of an ongoing fiasco around the late and overbudget delivery of two new ferries is to be returned to the private sector “as quickly as possible”, a Scottish Cabinet Secretary has said.

    This is bullsh1t innuendo reporting. Reporting the plan as though it’s some brand new plan because of the current problems, when it always was the plan to reprivatise after its fortunes were turned around (which hasn’t happened yet).

    It was actually nationalised from administrators.

    It’s time “fake news” reporting in Scotland was ceased.

  42. Bob Lamont says:

    Would it be unreasonable to point out that over 10% of all posts on this article have nothing whatever to do with the subject, but centre on what Joanna Cherry thinks of the GRR – Just less than 10% have been assiduously defended by Capella alone.

    Believe it or not I’m not having a go at Capella or Cherry, but highlighting just how clever the manipulators are in diverting from the matter raised “The authoritarian abhorronation and SNP opportunities”.

    If we cannot recognise that we are being diverted from our task, they win.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      There used to be a website called “Wings Over Scotland” which took anti-Indy media headlines and reports and ruthlessly ripped them to shreds. Unfortunately it renamed itself “Balls Over Bath” with its total focus on the then forthcoming GRR, and I got banned for simply posting “Wake me up when we get back to Indy”.

      Cherry’s threat to sue the Strand, with fellow SNP MP still being a director of the group though not direct management, is legitimate news, but of course the so-called Scottish MSM will dine out on it for weeks to come.

      The hope would be that feedback from below the line postings here might make Cherry realise that this is not doing the cause of Independence any good, and that a very substantial part of any vote for her to be an SNP MP, was because number 2 in the SNP Constitution is “Independence” (no 1 being the aprty name SNP), and not “GRR” (and not “Bottle-washing” or “HPMA Jacobite Clearances” either).

      A lesson nearly all others in the SNP candidature might wish to study, or the way things are going, learn to their cost next year.

      But yes, “we are being diverted from our task” – and perhaps “they win” – or it’s part of our job to make sure they DON’T win.

      • Bob Lamont says:

        Thank you perfectly illustrating my point – This has bugger all to do with WoS, Cherry, Strand or the media line of ” fellow SNP MP still being a director “, and to be perfectly candid, the “hope would be that feedback from below the line postings here might make Cherry realise..” is desperate bullshit….

  43. Dr Jim says:

    There are laws that suit some people and laws that don’t, the failure is not to recognise that all law is not the will of all of the people but only the will of some of the people, any law only stands when most of the people demonstrate acceptance of the will of most of the people

  44. scottish_skier says:

    Effect of #ladiestoiletriesgate is to increase support for indy. Or at least have naff all effect.

    Latest Survation:
    44(+2)% Yes
    47(nc)% No
    =48.4(+1.2)% Yes

    Average rises to about 49.5% Yes for a plan-free, snap referendum held out of the blue tomorrow by the SNP/Greens. Seems currency, EU, economy etc are just not factoring into baseline vote.

    Maybe Charles gave things a wee positive nudge after all! 🙂

    • scottish_skier says:

      Exactly the shy voter effect I was talking about.

      More voters say they are less likely to vote for indy due to the finances whatsit (21% more likely vs 32% less) – because that’s what you are supposed to say in polite company while it’s all over the papers – but on the indy question, support for Yes rises, reflecting people’s real stance.


    • scottish_skier says:

      Targeted unweighted base:
      2021 = 48(nc)% SNP, check
      2019 = 44(-1)% SNP, check
      2014 = 56% Yes. Huh? Like WTF? Ok, downweight yes big style!

      This is getting silly. It was 9 f’n years ago. What kind of idiot weights to a vote 9 years ago? No pollster does this outside of Scotland.

      The union’s fecked when they decide to stop this silliness.

  45. yesindyref2 says:

    Meanwhile to intense interest from the MSM:

    Nicola Sturgeon submits first Holyrood motion since resignation

    To the intense disappointment of the MSM it’s this@

    The motion says that the parliament “recognises what it sees as the vital work that Govanhill Baths carries out in supporting the community, and congratulates them on all on their hard work and dedication over the years to helping the people of Govanhill and across all of Glasgow Southside”.

    And to soul-wracking disappointment for the MSM:

    The motion is backed by SNP MSP Clare Adamson and Labour MSP Paul Sweeney.

    Nice one!

  46. yesindyref2 says:

    This is a wee gem I just discovered from this:

    and click on Crick’s twotter link tomorrowsmps

  47. yesindyref2 says:

    That’s this Republic which wants a BRITISH REPUBLIC” for the BRITISHnation.

    Genuine Scottish Indy Republicans are being rope-a-doped by an ingress of “Republic” posters that have not the slightest interest in Scottish Independence.

    “What kind of republic will BRITAIN become?”

    • yesindyref2 says:

      mmm, from another page of their website:

      A very British parliamentary republic

      Tally-ho chaps, release the fox.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      This page is just a starter, there are a surprisingly large amount of websites online with info:

      I think it was a misquote from Burns. It should have been:

      Such a parcel of fools in a nation!

      Yes, yes we are. The most gullible out of 196 nations.

      • Golfnut says:

        No mate that would be the Americans, leaders of the free world paying $50 for an inhaler and 500,000 thousand bankruptcies per annum through healthcare bills, but the stupidest as opposed to be just gullible is the one aspiring to be just like them.

    • Golfnut says:

      British Republic, I warned that this crap was coming just a couple of weeks ago.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        I just noticed earlier that the National has started a Wednesday newsletter titled “Not my King”.

        WTF? What happened to supporting Independence?

        • Eilidh says:

          I am surprised you hadn’t already figured out that The National’s reason d’etre is clickbait rather than Scottish Independence. You seem to like the Royals, a fair amount of folk in Scotland and here don’t support the monarchy and that includes me. To avoid the Royalist propaganda tv broadcasts last weekend,we went to the Highlands for the weekend. When King Chucky and his missus were getting their sparkly hats we were visiting the Culloden battlefield and visitor centre. If ever a place highlights the folly of those who would be king it is there. Despite all the stories I have found nothing bonnie or romantic about Charles Edward Stuart for many years and don’t get me started on the rest of the house of Stuart complete bunch of chancers the lot of them. Are the Windsors any better nope they just haven’t got as many highlanders killed yet. However they and their Unionist governments are intent on destroying Scotland one way or another. The only way I will ever have any respect for the Royals is if they give all the land in Scotland they own to it’s rightful owners- the people.

          • yesindyref2 says:

            Eilidh, I support Independence, and all of the following are acceptable to me:

            1). Indy Scotland with a monarch like Canada
            2). Indy Scotland with our own monarch like some hidden descendant of Mary QOS
            3). Indy Scotland with an elected President
            4). Indy Scotland with a new president every year
            5). Indy Scotland with Frankie Boyle as our president
            6). Indy Scotland with a Grand Old Duke of whisky
            7). Indy Scotland with a Captain of Curling
            8). Indy Scotland with the highest collector of funds for charity as President every year (my fave)
            9). Indy Scotland with the president selected by lottery
            10). Indy Scotland with a cow with a sheep going baa
            11). …

            … well, you get the picture.

          • Gay Sandy says:

            I don’t agree with some of what you have written Eilidh in the past but I always read what you write unlike YIR2 who you have commented about! I scan past everything he writes now as he is not for whats good for Scotland going ahead and I agree fully 100% with all of the above. I dumped my TV & Licence in 2014 after we lost and I only watch European Channels like all the one’s Putin kicked out and they have a completely different and honest speak about Scotland and its people.

          • Golfnut says:

            I don’t suppose theres much point telling you that in Scotland the crown and monarchy are completely seperate entities constitutionally. Until the dust settles, the inks dry and the huge amount of reparation which is due is paid by the Kingdom of England to the Kingdom of Scotland you need to keep big ears in place. When we vote for Independence the first thing you will hear from westminster as a condition of them agreeing to independence is that Scotland will be a new state with a new King of we want. However that condition wrecks territorial integrity and will see Scotland surrendering her oil and Gas as the property of the English crown, Faslane and Coulport will be annexed and we may even lose Orkney and Shetland, Dumfries and Ayrshire and Arran. Gallagher and Boyle responding to questions from the HOL told you they could do this. So when hear anyone, media or politician pushing this, be very suspicious.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        From a new article in the National:

        Britain is broken. It needs an entire reinvention of its foundation, purpose and political structure and it’s hard to see how another unelected head of state, wrapped in centuries of royal protocol and whose sole purpose is to uphold inequality and hierarchy, could ever possibly be the answer.

        Who the feck wants to repair Britain? I want out.

        O U T spells fecking out.

  48. Golfnut says:

    You’ve got to wonder what on earth is going on with the likes of Hosie and co. There are no deals to be made with westminster, liblab or tory.

  49. Capella says:

    Angus B MacNeil hits the nail on the head. The next election will be an independence election. The SNP is the only vehicle for delivering a majority in a GE. So they must get their house in order and get their VI numbers back to 50% +1. The Tories already know this.

  50. Ken says:

    If Scotland votes for Independent policies. Appeals to the UN policy. Support for Independence and self government when people vote for it. Made Westminster Gov unfeasible by holding up legislation by more confrontation. Westminster legality in question for breaking International Kaw again. Westmibster will be sanction by the UN/EU principles of peopke’s right to self government and Independence when a majority of people vote for it,

    Every Independence supporter needs to get out and vote every election. A higher turnout.

    Local/council elections, 49%. Hokyrood elections 50%. GE 60% turnout, Referendum 85% turnout. Needs a bigger turnout of Independence supporters, To swing the vote. Get one other out to vote as well. Every election, Totally doable.

  51. Ken says:

    @Local/council elections 40%

  52. yesindyref2 says:

    For Golfnut after his comment above at

    I’m pretty sure you or I linked before to this article:

    and the reply from Sturgeon to their legal argument for the rUK to be treated as the continuing UK was quickly replied to by Sturgeon branding it as incredibly arrogant, which indeed it was.

    I found a reference in this from the UK Parliament:

    As so much flows from this it is incumbent on those who question whether the UK would be the continuator state to set out their analysis of what the alternative position would be.

    but the UK Gov publishing the Crawford & Boyle advice was described as quite stupid on SCFF. I’ll find the link.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      should have been … at 3.45 pm!

      Mmm, took a bit of refinding.

      Dauvit Broun: By Publishing the Legal Opinion in Support of Their Position, Has the UK Government Created a Threat to rUK’s Position as a Continuing State?

      My worry is that Sturgeon was legally clued up, but is no longer FM.

      • Golfnut says:

        Interesting, very interesting. I’m never sure whether sometimes analysts ever really examine evidence properly. The international court will certainly view aspects of Crawford and Boyle’s opinion as highly suspect. The non existent treaty with 42 Maori chiefs and certainly the comparison with what used to be the Czechoslovak Republic, which was a federal state with both Czech and Slovak constitutionally equal partners. The various changes to the make up of the state through both world wars and indeed the cold war makes its use highly suspect, but then….isn’t the whole document.
        I agree Nicola was on top of this, which is why she had to go. Personally I think Sunak will go for an early GE.
        Thanks for sharing, I haven’t seen this before.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          I agree with you by the way – wise to leave the monarchy in place until the dust settles AFTER a YES vote and AFTER Independence itself.

          Otherwise we could be stuck permanently in a UK Republic, with no chance of Independence.

  53. Ken says:

    Devolution came about because Scotland as a member of the UK had less democracy and rights than the emerging Eastern European States. Glasnost and Perestroika. The emerging Independent states from the USSR. These States were achieving self governance and self determination. Backed up by EU and UN principles. Thev right to self determination and self governance if a majority want it, Scotland one of the oldest nations in the world had less democracy and rights in the UK than emerging States. A majority voted in Scotland for Devolution. Held back by the Tories for twenty years. If Devolution has not been achieved the UK would have been sanctioned and throw out of the EU. Blair sought to avoid that plight. Limited Devolution was achieved. People supported that and now a majority want Independence. The UN could sanction the Westminster Gov for not supporting UN principles. That is the predicament. Being throw out of the UN for breaking International Law again.

    The arguments used for Devolution follow on for Independence. The convention/assembly campaigned originally, for that.

  54. Ken says:

    The Monarchy is contiuingly losing popularity. Especially in Scotland. The Royals constantly trying to reinvent themselves. To try to be relevant. Either modernise, stop interfering or they will lose even more support.

    They pay 10% tax on £20Million. £2Million. No corporation, capital gains or inheritance tax. £Billionaires. Lecturing other people about over consumption. People can not afford to eat or heat. The wealthy get tax breaks.

  55. Ken says:

    Emerging States from USSR had more democracy and rights than Scotland in a Union. Scotland outvoted 10 to 1. Argument for Devolution. A majority voted for it, The Tories held it up for twenty years. Glasnost and Perestoika.

    The EU/UN principles of self governance and self determination. The UK Gov would have been sanctioned by the EU. No implementing EU/UN rules. Breaking International Law. Now the majority support Independence. The same argument. UN Law supports self governance and self determination when people vote for it. UK Gov have to implement it. Or get thrown out of the UN for breaking the rules and International Law. The same argument as before. For Devolution (limited). The Convention/assembly fought for it and achieved (limited) Devolution. Or the UK Gov would have been sanctioned by the EU. The ECHR supported it. Judgement. Devolution is enshired in EU principles. The Tories want to destroy it but will not have time. The majority now want back in the EU. Brexit another Tory catastrophe, not voted for in Scotland. 60/40. A majority to stay in.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s