Saturday, January 26, 2019

Looking for a "mature" way forward? Start with a pragmatic acceptance that a big increase in Yes support is only possible AFTER a referendum is actually called

In the wake of Joyce McMillan's clarion call for inaction and passivity last week, Kevin Williamson of Bella fame posted the following risible tweet -

"Plenty of vitriol directed at @joycemcm and @AndrewWilson for suggesting not rushing into #indyref2.  @NicolaSturgeon will get same - called a Unionist/Britnat/traitor from the Wings/Kelly/Murray/Bell/fundamentalist wing of Yes - if she doesn't call #indyref2 in the next six weeks."

It isn't the main point of this blogpost, but it is just worth pausing for a moment and marvelling at the sheer comical absurdity of Kevin's attempt to lump together as "fundamentalists" four people who hold such wildly different views.  Just for starters, Craig Murray will not be remotely bothered if Nicola Sturgeon doesn't call a referendum within the next six weeks, because as I understand it he doesn't even want a referendum - he favours an alternative method of attaining independence.  Indeed, I'd have thought one of the basic requirements for anyone to qualify as a "fundamentalist" would be support for UDI, and only two of the four names mentioned (Craig and Peter Bell) have gone down that road.  For my part, I don't think Westminster can ever hold a veto on Scottish self-determination, so I suppose it's true that if absolutely every other option was exhausted (ie. if there was a clear mandate for independence that was completely ignored), I might eventually start thinking the unthinkable, but we're a long, long way from that point yet.

At least three of the four of us have an impeccable track record of supporting Nicola Sturgeon when she announced a delay in the indyref timetable in the summer of 2017, whereas Kevin can't even boast a track record of backing Nicola Sturgeon in the 2016 Holyrood list vote.  So it's something of a mystery as to where Kevin is getting the idea that we're going to start behaving totally out of character by branding her a "traitor" if she doesn't take a certain course of action within a six-week timetable that I'm not aware any of us have even mentioned.  And to the best of my knowledge none of us are in the habit of throwing around nasty insults like "traitor" anyway - I'm certainly not, and I know that Stuart Campbell has a setting on the comments section of Wings that automatically intercepts any attempt to use the word "traitor" and changes it to "tractor".

(Not that I'd want to embarrass Kevin, but if you want to know the rather amusing real reason why he's so eager to smear me as a "fundamentalist", just click HERE and HERE.)

Anyway, my initial response to Kevin's tweet was to point out to him that he appears not to have caught up with the growing and impressive ideological diversity of the "fundamentalist wing of Yes", because it seemed that his fellow traveller Robin McAlpine was considerably more impatient for a referendum than the likes of me.  I now realise that I did Robin a disservice, though, because his latest CommonSpace article makes clear that the action he is impatient for is a renewed independence campaign, and that he partly agrees with Joyce McMillan that it would be "immature" to call for a referendum until that campaign has succeeded in growing support for independence to the point where the London government cannot possibly deny a request for a referendum.

I don't doubt Robin's sincerity, but I have to say what he's suggesting is strategically naive, and is frankly a recipe for Scotland never holding a referendum and never becoming independent.  There are two questions to consider - a) would the Tories magically drop their opposition to a Section 30 order if Yes were on 55% rather than 47%, and b) is there any possibility whatsoever that a campaign without the focus of a referendum or election date could gain enough traction to get Yes to that level of support?  The answer to both questions is self-evidently "no".  The reason the Tories don't want to grant a Section 30 order is because they don't want Scotland to become an independent country - an increased Yes vote in the polls would just make them even more intransigent.  (Look at the current situation with Brexit: has majority support for Remain in the polls led to the Tory leadership dropping its opposition to a second EU referendum?  Er, no.  Of course it hasn't.)  And as for the limitations of any non-referendum campaign for independence, you only have to look at the relatively minor effect of the emotional shock of the surprise referendum outcome in June 2016.  There were a couple of polls in the aftermath of the Brexit decision that had Yes in the low 50s, and then normal service was quickly resumed.  If Robin thinks that any random, unfocused independence campaign, one that the mainstream media can easily and happily ignore, can somehow surpass the impact of Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will, all I can say is that's wildly optimistic.

There is, however, one hard-headed, mature and realistic way of potentially bringing about a big and fast change to public opinion, and that is to actually call a referendum (or an election that doubles as a referendum).  We've seen it time and again now - voters are open to changing their views in the heat of a referendum/election campaign, when their minds are focused on a real and impending choice.  They are considerably less open to changing their views at any other time, when they may rather resent even being asked to think about the subject in any depth.

*  *  *

Scot Goes Pop fundraiser: If you'd like to help this blog continue during what could be an epic few months ahead, just a reminder that last year's fundraiser is still very much open for donations, and hasn't reached the target figure yet.

93 comments:

  1. I am actually not against a referendum, James. My view is that we should immediately tell London we are having a referendum, and when they try to block it or boycott it, call a National Assembly and declare UDI. But if they agree to the referendum we should have it. They won't agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Going to be hard to continue using all the 'Mother of parliaments' guff if England refuses a Section 30 (and it would be England, as one half of the Scotland-England union has ok'd it). Even the Scottish Tories would be looking at their feet. The only people in Scotland who would not be aghast at such a move by England would be the nutter hardcore <10% who'd see Holyrood shut.

      Refusal of a section 30 would see support for indy soar. Up into the 70+%'s would be possible, aka 1997.

      While polling has shown a reluctance of Scots to rush into iref2 (although this has weakened), there's been total consistency in the electorate saying it's absolutely, ultimately up to them / the Scottish parliament to decide if and when there's to be a new iref.

      I'd have voted leave if the EU had 'refused a Section 30'. The UK won last time because people felt they were choosing freely.

      Delete
  2. I have read somewhere that UDI is not appropriate since we are in a union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go try to dig up your source on that, because they were either talking guff, or were being overly technical to the point of being misleading.

      Delete
  3. I agree, James.

    Further, I tend to think people forget the first indyref came about because of an unexpected majority for the SNP in 2011. Or, rather, they don't seem to understand the lessons of it.

    I recall plenty talk that the SNP actually felt that it was a 'bit too soon' and that was, at least in part, one of the reasons they pushed it towards the end of that particular parliamentary term.

    But they did go for it, as they should have since it was an explicit manifesto pledge (things which are broken by the other parties far too often, and explain the disintegration in public trust).

    Despite there probably being this feeling that it was 'too soon', and the fact that the result might suggest that it WAS, I don't think anyone (on the Yes side at least) thinks it was a bad idea to hold indyref 1 because i) they kept their promise to their core vote, ii) support for independence, while falling short of the magic 50%,shot up drastically and became something which many more people than before desired and would remain determined to see, including many who were Nos before the campaign started.

    So, if we take as a starting point that there probably were some within the SNP who thought it was a bit 'too soon' in the 2011 Parliament, then we see that the situation now probably isn't that different. Some people are STILL worried it is too soon and, in truth, will probably ALWAYS worry about that.

    So the SNP should really keep it simple again and fulfil the manifesto pledge to stop Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will .

    It didn't do them any harm following that tactic last time, after all.

    Although there's always the chance we might lose again (but that will also ALWAYS be possible), I don't think anyone really believes that the SNP (which was founded for a certain purpose) packs up and goes home at that point....and it will have gained more Yes converts for whom the idea of independence has become normalised and desirable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scotland is not being dragged out of anything. A UK legal vote was held and over one million voted to leave. You Nat sis who want to sell out Scotland to the EU Mafia corrupt beaurocrats lost. You should have boycotted the referendum but took part and must accept the result.

      Delete
    2. 2014 was a bit "too soon" IMO, and it's remarkable that we achieved 45% YES back then. However, the SG was right to go for it given the massive mandate from the electorate in 2011 (no choice, really). It had to be tested and we came really close. If the first indyref had not been held in 2014, heck the MSM would still be highlighting polls showing 30% support for independence (or less). Even with their manipulations (sorry - weighting), even they cannot try that one - not since 2014.

      Delete
    3. Wee Aggie far the BrigdetonJanuary 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM

      I think you're keyboard got a doze of diarrea.

      Delete
    4. Another lunchtime of booze from the Tories' pet troll, then.
      It doesn't like reading.

      Delete
  4. "voters are open to changing their views in the heat of a referendum / election campaign, when their minds are focused on a real and impending choice"

    Absolutely correct James. Makes all the difference when you ring a stranger's doorbell if there is an actual decision on hand.

    Those who think otherwise maybe spend more time online than on doorsteps.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anna Soubry Tory RemainerJanuary 26, 2019 at 9:49 PM

    Breaking News. Glasgow Buchanan Bus Station will be moved to the EU on 30 March 2019. You read it here first. Buses will run from Govan Cross to Zeebrugge via Hull Ferry Terminal. The Scottish Bus Pass will be accepted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Colonel Wilfred Brooke-WhimsyJanuary 27, 2019 at 11:01 AM

      That is absolutely hilarious and extremely witty. Oh, how I laughed as I was rushed to hospital with split sides.

      Delete
  6. Apologies for the whataboutery but what about if Yvette Cooper's amendment carries forward and gets a "meaningful vote' involving a postponement of Brexit until January 2020, and in the interim there is an election to the European Parliament in which the UK participates in May this year. My guess would be a general and enthusiastic coalescing around independence supporting parties all somehow including a call for an early referendum within their manifestos - and, the same burying of the hatchets will happen if Nicola Sturgeon's imminent announcement sets out a pathway seeking a referendum within a the foreseeable future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what exactly is "gusset whimsy" might I ask?

      Delete
  7. Bell has stated that as Scotland is not a colony - his position is Dissolve the Union...

    Hence, in that lens, UDI is not applicable because Scotland is not a possession/colony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UDI is UDI however it's dressed up. The "dissolve the union" thing is a legal fiction, because the Scottish party to the Treaty of Union no longer exists (ironically it was dissolved) and therefore cannot withdraw from the treaty. The current Scottish Parliament derives its legal authority entirely from an Act of the UK Parliament, not from pre-union Scotland.

      Delete
    2. James

      Wasn't the Scottish parliament actually suspended not dissolved?

      If that is the case, then the current Scottish parliament is a reconstituted body....not a new sub body. Hence, Winnie Ewing’s comments:
      ...“The Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened.”

      Just because the English parliament dissolved itself...does not mean the Scottish parliament did the same. (there are 2 separate Acts of Union, a Scottish one and a separate one for England). The technicalities of this are important.

      Happy to be proven wrong if someone has a reference to a Scottish Parliament act that shows it was actually dissolved and not suspended.

      Delete
    3. The Scottish Parliament was indeed adjourned on 25th March 1707. It then ceased to exist, along with the rest of the Scottish state, on 1st May 1707. The current Scottish Parliament is not the same body - it's a creation of the UK Parliament.

      Delete
    4. James

      That is a very interesting interpretation of "State".

      The state has several branches and since:
      - Scots law continues, as does
      - Scottish version of sovereignty; and the
      - Scottish relationship to the crown (as a distinct and different relationship to that the English have with the English crown)
      It is hard to see that the Scottish "state" ceased to exist...particularly with Scotland still defined (and defines itself) as a country.

      I would be far more circumspect than you in referring to the Scottish parliament in terms like " it's a creation of the UK Parliament". It may be intended for Westminster to have it be seen that way and they may have actually wanted it to be just that. However, there are a number of elements that make it read as a reconstituting of the body.

      I would also note that in practice, the UK constructed the principle that it was not a sub branch....Particularly shown in division of legislative competence between the parliaments. Until the current Brexit legislation was passed, the way legislative competence was assigned - the default (natural) home of all responsibilities were with the Scottish parliament and Westminster had to specifically reserve matters. That parallels the rights split with other unions where the individual state/country retains sovereignty and only shared interests are ceded (aligned) to the shared union.

      Delete
    5. Goodness me. Scots law continues, as does the established Scottish church, because it was specifically preserved by the Treaty of Union and by the subsequent Acts of Union. Other aspects of Scottish statehood, including the Scottish Parliament, were not preserved in the same way and thus ceased to exist on 1st May 1707.

      The present-day Scottish Parliament's legal authority derives solely from an Act of the UK Parliament, and not as any sort of extension of the pre-1707 Scottish state. That's simply a fact, it's not a point of any controversy.

      Delete
    6. James

      You will know way more than me on this. However, would you mind a short discussion on a couple of points?

      I know this seams like the typical sad hail Mary....but I am trying to understand the extent to which the Scottish state ceased...and where my misunderstanding comes from. Legally, do you see the The Articles of Union as nullifying what most understand as Scottish sovereignty? Or does it continue on as a layer either within or underneath the Union?

      Delete
    7. A trivial point, perhaps, but I really hate the term UDI,because it carries such negative connotations, and I wish we could use another expression. Those of us of a certain vintage will remember that UDI was the mechanism used by Ian Smith to impose a white supremacist government on the predominantly black population of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

      Can't we just use DTU (Dissolution of the Treaty of Union instead?

      Delete
    8. Poor Cordelia wishes it was still 1957.
      Its misogyny is as strong and rancid as its cringe.

      Delete
  8. "...but we're a long, long way from that point yet..."

    I think you are mis-reading how much will change if a No-Deal occurs. Its not how long it is...its how much changes. If no-deal is the outcome then 9 weeks Scotland's world will be turned on its head.

    If you think No-Deal is unlikely....I'll just leave you with this

    Q: What would the Brexit process have look like if May always wanted No-Deal but not take the blame for it (and also wanted to keep Scotland and NI)?...

    A: It would look exactly like the brexit process that has played out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure how you manage to interpret "we're a long way from needing to declare UDI" as meaning "a no deal Brexit is unlikely". I've always thought that No Deal is a very real possibility.

      Delete
    2. No deal is a break from this EU monster mafia criminal organisation which has no intention of reforming. How any genuine internationalist could wish to be involved with this lot is up tae them.

      Delete
    3. James.

      If there is a No-Deal, Scotland's institutions able to hold a referendum are no longer guaranteed. That is the tipping point for Indi.

      The noises from Westminster about "emergency powers"...heck, there is now a Sunday Times story about "martial law". No-Deal would pull the rug out from under YES in an instant.

      A simple risk assessment identifies the risks and severity. Once Brexit legislation comes into full force (Henry VIII powers and Emergency powers), the risk to Scotland are catastrophic.

      Delete
    4. This is the sort of thing people say and it doesn't mean a thing. The UK could theoretically abolish the Scottish Parliament under No Deal Brexit, just as it could under the May deal and under no Brexit at all.

      Delete
    5. James

      You are correct. Westminster could do all those things now. However, don't you think it would require primary legislation. That process does make it slightly more difficult and does give a degree of warning for counter measures. That may not be the case post Brexit.

      I also agree the risks for Scotland are in the Brexit legislation regardless of deal or no-deal. However, in the event of no-deal, the disruption may be so great that things become very difficult to predict.

      Delete
  9. Obergruppenfuhrer op dem ScotlandJanuary 26, 2019 at 11:42 PM

    The Port of Leith will be moved to Hamburg come 30 March 2019 unless you Jocks overthrow Engerland. Ve Germans love you jockos and forgive you for helping defeat the Wermach and exposing the death camps.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can any of you Nat sis give examples of the Scottish working classes having their conditions being enhanced over any other working classes over the World since the Scottish Nat sis obtained power?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Young James, the EU give Ultimatum to VENEZUELA! WHAT for Scotland and any other decent country.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't think this strategy of waiting for favourable polls is an issue any longer. The fact that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU (clearly against its will) means that another indyref must be held asap (whatever the polls now say). As in 2014, circumstances and mandate now dictate that it must again be tested.

    The big issue of timing relates to the Brexit process. An indyref cannot be held until the Brexit dust settles. There is even talk of extending Article 50 by 9 months. Sorry, folks but we have to wait and see. People in Scotland do want another indyref IMO, but they donlt want it in the middle of this Brexit chaos. To go prematurely would be incredibly foolhardy. We will get another crack soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see Cordelia had yet another late and boozy night of rambling to itself about Nazis.
    Poor broken creature needs professional help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She seems to long for an Obergruppenf├╝hrer to take charge of her. Strange lady.

      Delete
    2. I would speculate that its dreams contain various scenarios involving Yaxley-Lennon.

      Delete
  14. Coming back to a Section 30. The option of refusal is not a simple one, because, as I've said before...

    The refusal of a section 30 request passed with majority support of a PR-elected Scottish parliament would bring an end to UK democracy, and mark the beginning of English fascism.

    No UK government have ever disputed the sovereign right of Scots to freely end the UK. 2014’s referendum was the ultimate acknowledgement of that. The UK said to world that Scots are free to choose and Scots chose freely; that is what only just saved the union. Even recently, the British parliament voted to say it acknowledged Scottish sovereignty.

    Therefore, to refuse a Section 30 would be a very dark hour, with UK democracy coming to an end.

    It would not be the UK refusing, but England. Our union has two partners only; only two countries signed the treaty and passed the acts of union (Wales is part of the Kingdom of England and N. Ireland is in union with Great Britain, not Scotland). Only Scotland + England together can speak as Great Britain on this matter.

    So, overnight Scotland goes from being a free democracy to a colony of a greater English Reich. It would be fascism as opposed to simply totalitarianism, as England is still allowed to hold referendums and have these respected. Scotland is not. Therefore, there is clear racism/persecution of an ethnic/national/cultural minority. This group is denied democracy, while the ‘master race’ is given it. We can imagine that the refusal of a Section 30 would apply to N. Ireland and Wales, ergo these two are now subjugated colonies of the English master race also. England is now an aggressive foreign occupier.

    The end of democracy would be clear in that elections in Scotland would be meaningless. If you cannot freely vote for what you desire, you do not live in a democracy. This is where immediately we see the need for England to ‘follow through’ on this cancelling of democracy.

    Because of course, the reaction to becoming prisoners is for Scots support of indy to soar. With this, support for parties backing indy rockets, while support for parties taking the English government’s position collapses. Holyrood unites almost unanimously in defence against tyranny (stage 1 of this has already occurred with devo).

    So what then? Well, you need to look at banning the SNP, Greens etc as political parties. These are now starting to utterly wipe out their unionist rivals. How can you let them continue to campaign? They are disrupting Westminster at every single opportunity. They are on the TV talking about England’s crackdown on Scotland and how it has ended democracy… The Scottish people are seeing that even withdrawing Scottish MPs from Westminster has been ignored, meaning Scotland is now ruled by England simply by ‘direct rule’ fascism.

    Mass peaceful protests begin. The Scottish parliament does not stop these, but voices support for and encourages them. Civil disobedience directed at the English government begins to occur; the Scottish government instructs police Scotland not to arrest people for this.

    So, now England must cancel elections in Scotland and/or ban pro-indy parties from standing in these. Even completely shut Holyrood and arrest Nicola Sturgeon under English law as the Scots courts won't do it. It has to follow through in refusing a Section 30.

    This of course raises the prospect of very serious civil disobedience towards the English government; something Police Scotland are not stopping, as noted, because they are Catalans, sorry, Scots. So you now need to shut down police Scotland and send in English police to start to beat up Scots and shoot at them.

    The union is now utterly dead. The SRA is born.

    Good luck refusing a Section 30, for the above is the path you step onto.

    Remember what happened with Ireland and the other colonies when you too that path.

    Which is why I am of the opinion we shall have our Section 30, however grudgingly. The most likely attempted bodyswerve to it would be May stepping down or seeking a new GE as per 2017.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jacob Ress-SalmondoJanuary 27, 2019 at 11:07 AM

      Is their a medical term for your level of self-obsessed boringness?

      Delete
    2. Cordelia-itis is a potential description of utter self-obession...

      Delete
    3. Anon, you invented Cordelia in your narrow minded Nat si head. More tae be pitied than scolded.

      Delete
    4. GWC is right. Cordelia is indeed more to be pitied than scolded.

      Delete
    5. Cordelia thinks I invented it.Poor Cordelia.

      Delete
    6. Yes. That's an odd one. She was probably plastered when she showed that little thought the light of day.

      Delete
    7. Nothing new about that.

      Delete
  15. 1. The Treaty of Union of 1707 remains extant, and the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN was created by this treaty.

    2. In matters constitutional and Scottish the people of Scotland are sovereign.

    3. Upon a Yes vote in a referendum to dissolve our union with England, the Scottish Parliament will no longer derive its authority from Westminster but for the People. The union will cease to be.

    4. We would therefore negotiate the consequence of the dissolution not with the UK but with England (incorporating Wales).


    4. Regardless of what you may read in Wikipedia, the *United Kingdom of Great Britain* is a legal and political entity formed in 1707 by the Union of two and only two countries – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). It was created by a bilateral internationally recognised treaty.

    5. It is the case that upon dissolution of the Treaty of Union, its associated enabling acts of parliaments, AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONTINGENT INTRA-STATE TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS DERIVED THEREFROM, the United Kingdom of Great Britain will cease to be.

    6. There can be no continuing state of an extinguished voluntary union of two nations and therefore can be no secession, for there is nothing to secede from. It is on its face a daft proposition.

    Consider the tautology: When the Union is dissolved, the Union ceases to be.

    7. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was merely a derivative construct *wholly predicated* on the Treaty of Union. That is to say, the provenance bestowing legitimacy upon it is the the aforementioned treaty and acts of parliaments of 1707.

    Read articles I thru XXIV, where you will find twenty five (25) specific reference to the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” (something those who have edited wikipedia seems to have studiously avoided).

    Here are some examples from the Articles of Union of 1707:

    Article II – ‘That the Succession to the Monarchy of the united Kingdom of Great-Britain, and of the Dominions …’

    III. ‘That the united Kingdom of Great-Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great-Britain.’

    IV. ‘That all the Subjects of the united Kingdom of Great-Britain shall, from and after the Union …’

    IV. ‘any Port or Place within the said united Kingdom, and the Dominions …’

    VI. ‘That all Parts of the united Kingdom, for ever, from and after the Union …’

    VI ‘take place throughout the whole united Kingdom:’ Excepting …’

    VII. ‘That all Parts of the united Kingdom be for ever, from, and after the Union …’

    VII. ‘… take place throughout the whole United Kingdom.’

    IX. ‘the Parliament of Great-Britain, to be raised in that Part of the united Kingdom, now called England …’

    And on and on.

    Here is a link to the actual document.
    https://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big Maggie far the FalkirkJanuary 28, 2019 at 8:28 AM

      I bet your a big hit at the local Bores Club.

      Delete
    2. Poor Cordelia doesn't like to read.
      Too much like hard work.

      Delete
  16. Does anybody else find it strange that the revolting fake Doctor Jones and her tame beards are ranting about the lack of response from the NUJ when they are both perfectly happy to see NUJ member S Campbell harassed by the police and arrested on false charges? The same NUJ member who is attacked on a daily basis by the pigs of the press in Scotland. The same NUJ member who n cameron directly threatened.

    The real question is why does some mental conspiracy theorist with a doctorate in pish promoted and protected by the english media in Scotland?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Also, if martial law is introduced in the event of a hard brexit, it can only be introduced in England. If introduced in Scotland without the permission of the Scottish people / parliament, then this would be ending democracy / instigation of aggressive English government fascism.

    Policing / public order in Scotland is a devolved matter and Scottish law is Scottish law. While defense may be a reserved matter, the only country which currently poses a threat to Scotland is England, specifically by it intentionally cutting off food/medical supplies, destroying the economy and even ending free democracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are the one who wants to end democracy. Scottish Referendum boo hoo tears in the eye and a re run required. EU referendum boo hoo tears in the eye I want the EU to run Scotland. More referendums until fascists win.

      Delete
    2. Democracy is allowing people vote in referendums. Not allowing them to vote is ending democracy. Democracy is a neverendum.

      And anyway, iref#1 was half a decade ago. There are huge swaths of the electorate who have never had the chance to vote on Scotland's independence. Many were still in primary school at the time it was so long ago. It's not as if #iref1 was recent or something; the UK has had 2 different governments since then.

      You seem to be living too much in the past.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, but huge swaths of the electorate have never had the opportunity to vote on independence. To deny them that right while having enjoyed it yourself is fascism; you persecute a minority and subvert democracy.

      The decision made in 2014 was made by a different people of Scotland to those who live here today. Some have moved here, some have left. Many have passed away, while many others have come of age. The changes have been huge - half a decade has passed after all - and no past electorate can bind the hands of the present; that's a basic pillar of democracy.

      Delete
    4. You're not the brightest. Every year large swaths of new voters reach voting age. These have never had the chance to vote on Scottish indy. You would deny them that it seems, like a good little fascist. Once you get the result you want, you want to end democracy so others can't have say in the matter.

      If the UK government doesn't agree to a Section 30, this reason alone would make it fascist. The 2014 vote was the opinion of a different electorate. It is not the will of today's people, who cannot be bound by the votes of those in the past.

      Delete
    5. The Plough is very clear in the sky tonight. Look up and clear your Nat si mind. You will not be around much longer than a blink of the eye in real terms. So during that blink you could prevent political opportunists conning the people.

      Delete
    6. I am part of the electorate and not different. When I die I will not be voting afterwards.

      Delete
    7. Poor Cordelia and its screams of impotent rage.

      Delete
    8. What's wrong with marital law? It'll keep the mentals under control. We won't get the Nat si gusset gang going on about there stupid referendums.

      Delete
    9. Why is Cordelia gibbering about marital law?
      Re-writing the marriage laws probably won't help...

      Delete
  18. It is a forward move to leave the EU Empire. Large political bodies like the Spanish, French, Belgium and Portuguese Colonies ended in tragedy. The British had the sense to wind down unlike the aforementioned. The sooner the EU implodes the better for the people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor Cordelia and its nonsensical, deluded grasp of imperial history.

      Delete
  19. I see Bozo is demanding May breach the GFA.

    The backstop of course is the international community's agreed solution to brexit breaching the GFA (by creating the legal need for some sort of hard border).

    No matter much brexiters want to delude themselves, it is the international community who decide whether the UN peace treaty GFA is being broken, who is breaking it, and what the solutions are.

    Right now that's 'It's going to be due to brexit', 'England', and 'The backstop' respectively.

    Only in the drunken racist fantasy land of brexit does crashing out with no deal, breaking the GFA by immediately creating a legal disparity on the border (which is what the problem is, not the infrastructure, which is a symptom), meaning the Irish are the evil ones.

    Sorry, but it is everyone but England/Britain who casts blame here, and the blame would all be/is on England.

    But hey, who needs the rest of the world eh! Screw the international community. We can just trade with the empire!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anyway, I'm sure martial law will be attractive to international business investment, will have global talent flooding in, and of course will give the tourist industry a huge boost.

    I mean it's not as if the UK won't end up on 'Avoid all but essential travel to' travel advisory lists in countries across the world.

    ReplyDelete
  21. skier, you know a hard border is a wett hewwing but you continue to raise the subject. The British, have clearly, stated there will not be a hard border under any circumstances. However Paddy Vlad is threatening to send troops and peelers to the border. I wonder what NATO would do in this case. A belligerent nation on the border of a member!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is Britain to stop migrants flooding in their hundreds of thousands into the new Jerusalem across this open border?

      Delete
    2. Migrants from the Calais jungle can just take the ferry to Ireland then head north to the open border. Literally just walk into Britain.

      Delete
    3. skier, you are student of Goebells. The Irish do not let anyone in and moreso since 9/11. I have had my passport checked three times at Drogheda when on the Enterprise train to Dublin.

      Delete
    4. But if the Brits don't agree to the backstop, the Irish can just let the migrants flood across the border. Why would the Irish do the brits a favour and prevet this, as they do currently, if the UK is screwing them over the backstop?

      Delete
    5. The backstop is not required and the Irish have never done the UK any favours. They did harbour murderers and refused extradition. Your scenario that migrants can cross into NI is not true because it is not happening now.

      Delete
    6. Cordelia's gammony rages are getting worse...

      Delete
  22. James
    Is it not the EU that currently provides the umbrella protection to Scottish Parliament?

    And what will replace that protection on 30March, if there is no deal?

    I'm frankly very anxious that we are collectively letting time run out.

    I'm with you/Craig M - let's get going

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the EU doesn't have much to say about regional parliaments and doesn't protect Holyrood.

      This meme seems to be scaremongering by yessers trying (many perhaps unconsciously) to create a ticking clock that means we have to "act now".

      Delete
    2. Aye, Holyrood is completely unprotected within the UK union, inside the EU or out. It's only with independence it's protected.

      We've all seen this recently where England has taken control of Scottish devolved powers / resources so it can get a better brexit deal for itself. It was obviously 'England' as Scottish MPs and MSPs all overwhelmingly objected, as did the Scottish people, so it wasn't 'Britain' doing it; there was no mutual consent from both union partners.

      Delete
    3. Surely Catalonia has put paid to the idea that the EU will protect devolution in its member states. They'd actually be (marginally) more likely to make a fuss after Brexit, since then they'd want to punish the UK rather than look out for it.

      Delete
  23. BetterTogether#2 now really ramping things up. Seems they have more than the possible personal actions of ex-politicians in their armoury.

    How can Yes possibly counter this union divided?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028748

    No-deal Brexit 'to leave shelves empty' warn retailers

    But 'Alec Salmon!' I hear you say. It's only him that matters!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Quelle surprise!

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland/labours-corbyns-brexit-stance-loses-support-with-young-scots-opinium-idUKKCN1PM1IA

    Labour's Corbyn's Brexit stance loses support with young, Scots - Opinium

    EDINBURGH (Reuters) - The Brexit stance taken by the opposition Labour Party is losing it support among young people while only 12 percent of people in its former electoral heartland of Scotland back its handling of the issue, according to a poll on Monday.

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/young-losing-faith-corbyn-brexit/

    Only 12% of people in Scotland approve of the way the Corbyn is handling Brexit, with 57% disapproving – the highest of anywhere in UK, while also being one of regions most in favour of remaining in the EU.

    Explains why the Times is revealing members are leaving Scottish labour in their droves.

    'But Alec Salmon!' I hear you say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. members are leaving Scottish labour in their droves.

      Do they have even a single drove left at this point?

      Delete
  25. So, I see the English government is debating the best way to limit the number of EU workers in the UK even though these are emigrating en masse. If they looked out the window they could see the queues of 30k+ talent heading for the Eurostar with their suitcases.

    Soon we shall need a hard border in N. Ireland to stop people leaving.

    Britain's utterly fucked. Totally delusional. Completely lost it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least they are leaving voluntarily. And the British would assist the Republicans to leave NI for the bum boy state.

      Delete
    2. Cordelia there, sharing way too much of its inner fantasy life again.

      Delete
  26. Top tips skier. Get two for one vitamin supplies for three years as the average, war lasts this long. If you have a garden then buy a shovel and dig. Buy plenty of veg seeds. Order online a few kalashikovs and ammo. Buy a bread maker. As a last resort put the Mrs on the game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State of this drunken, gibbering, misogynist mess.
      The only thing I'd trust it to do with a Kalashnikov is what it does every day - shoot itself in the foot.

      Delete
  27. Which bit of 'You are not putting English gestapo on the border to stop Irish people and their EU friends going back and forth about their daily business' does England not understand?

    This is not about trade. It's about people.

    There are Irish (not British) families who have lived in the North 'forever'. Their great gran remembered when the black and tans proudy carrying the butcher's arpon raped her mother, killed her dad and burnt down their house.

    And now the English gestapo want their EU friends to be forced to 'show their papers' if they come for dinner one evening? That their EU wife/husband has to apply to the English gestpo to remain in the home they've lived in for decades?


    That is the most important reason the border must remain fully open. Free movement of people. All people. Nobody can be stopped by jackboot in black with red and white flags on their arms. Not Irish people, not anyone.

    It's revolting that I have to apply to English racists for permission for my wife to stay in her home in Scotland, but for Irish people it is beyond the pale. For them it is foreign nazi occupiers who raped, killed and persecuted them. Who partitioned and still claim part of their country; something that the international community only just tolerates due to the GFA.

    The UK will never have a deal with any of its 31 neighbours unless the backstop is agreed to. And it better be prepared for economic sanctions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny, I remember when Irish nationalists tied to kill me just because they through it was ok to plant bombs in London and kill people because they lived in England.

      But of course its all England bad in your mind isn't it.

      Delete
    2. I would never support attacks on civilians. Nor any attack if a peace agreement is in place.

      However, the bombs in England are because England occupies part of their country. If Ireland was occupying part of England, there'd be an ERA. Let's not brexit la la land delude ourselves otherise. Unless you are saying e.g. England can be partitioned into leave and Remain areas, with the latter forming a new state which stays in the EU? If Ireland is divisible, so is England.

      As it stands, England is already breaching the GFA by not holding a border poll and imposing direct rule.

      The GFA is clear that the future of NI is for the people there (and those in the south), not England, to decide. Also, that a border poll must be held should it be apparent the people of NI want a say in this. Well, they were asked recently and they said a great big overwhelming no to leaving the EU. They also ended unionist majorities (of the vote share) at both Stormont and UK levels. England is however refusing to let them decide for themselves on the matter of their future, breaching the GFA.

      The international community is being really patient with England as it breaks peace treaties. I don't know if that patience can hold.

      Delete
    3. Must of missed the bit were the Irish Government was calling for a border poll (any poll has to be agreed by both Irish Government & UK Government). But a per normal its only England in the wrong.

      So you condemn the IRA then? they purposely targeted civilians.

      Delete
    4. Yes I condemn the IRA attacking civilians. See my post. Seems my French wife's English is better than yours. Was clear enough to her.

      I presume you condemn the British occupation of Ireland? Unless that is you support the partitioning of England along e.g. Remain vs Leave lines? If you support the partitioning of Ireland based on 'voting patterns', then you must also support the partitioning of England in the same way. Otherwise you'd be hypocritical scum.

      And British Terrorists are just as bad as the IRA. They even tried to kill my family in Glasgow, never mind all the attacks on Ireland.

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

      A border poll can only be facilitated by the British government working with the people of N. Ireland. Eire has no power over N. Ireland; all it can do is consent to reunification (which it does). Nobody should be even thinking about N. Ireland leaving the EU until the N. Irish people give explicit consent for this through a referendum held e.g. their elected parliament and facilitated by the UK.

      N. Ireland doesn't belong to England. It is not for England to decide whether there is a backstop or not. The international community is unanimous in this. Hence the UN peace deal and the backstop.

      Delete
    5. In the Republic of Ireland, reunification would require a constitutional amendment. This would require legislation to be passed by both chambers of Parliament, before it was put to the people in a referendum.

      Are you saying that the UK can organise a referendum in the Irish Republic?

      Of course i condemn any form of terrorism/violence. But i'm not the one wittering on about the IRA reforming and the 'SRA'.

      Northern Ireland is currently part of the UK as agreed in the GFA. The division was on religious lines, not voting patterns.

      Delete
    6. "Northern Ireland is currently part of the UK as agreed in the GFA. The division was on religious lines, not voting patterns."

      What utter guff. Are you saying areas of England which are majority Muslim should be able to form independent states? If Ireland can be divided on such lines, why not England?

      You must agree or be against the partitioning of Ireland.

      Eire can only welcome or refuse reunification in the republic. It can't facilitate a referendum in N. Ireland. That is for Britain to facilitate. Which bit of that don't you understand? You can't have N. Ireland as part of the UK then say what happens there is Ireland's responsibility. You sound like a brexiter, i.e. everything is always someone else's responsibility.

      Delete
    7. Economic sanctions are welcome as that is a deceleration ration of war.

      Delete
    8. Poor Cordelia.
      Does anyone know what a deceleration ration is?
      Maybe it's when Cordelia's Tory overlords start rationing fuel; I'm given to understand that Betfair are offering very short odds on that.

      Delete
  28. Anyway, England stands alone on the N. Ireland brexit issue. Scotland is against it, Wales is against it, the N. Irish people are against it, the international community is against it.

    If the province is dragged out the single market / customs union / EU free movement zone (the most important of these), England will never get a trade deal with any of its 31 neigbours or most of the international community.

    Might was well be N. Korea with empty shelves and lack of basic medicines.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think the yes result could be as high as 90% next time but realistically I am going for 82.6%. There is just no way the noars will win it again especially after brexit with all the rationing that will have to be introduced on bacon jam ham and so on. I read that during ww2 the women had to sleep with the butcher to get their daily portion of meat. If that gets reintroduced under the tory hard brexit i will become a butcher haha just kidding but at least things like that will make people vote yes next time especially the women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this drunken sincerity from Cordelia?
      It's certainly consistent with some of its more exotic fixations.

      Delete