Wednesday, September 11, 2019

No, of course today's legal ruling isn't bad news for independence. Don't be silly.

I'm rather bemused to see a certain pro-independence website claim today that SNP politicians should never have taken legal action to challenge prorogation, because that supposedly harms the cause of independence.  This seems to be part of a thinly-disguised but none-too-subtle daily campaign to chip away at faith in the SNP: "The current pro-independence party isn't fit for purpose, so what on earth are we going to do about that, readers?  I'm blowed if I know.  What big teeth you've got, grandmother!"

I'm not a great believer in the scorched earth theory of politics, ie. the idea that if you actively contribute to making post-Brexit Britain a wasteland, independence will become inevitable.  There are two obvious flaws in that theory: 1) voters are likely to spot what you're doing, will probably think it's a touch irresponsible, and will be turned off from your political project as a result, and 2) whenever an indyref is held, the result is likely to be close, and none of us can guarantee that we won't actually end up living in that Brexit wasteland for an indefinite period.  I know the website in question takes the 'win or bust' approach to politics, but I don't subscribe to that either - responsible politicians always have to think about how we'd live to fight another day if Plan A doesn't work out.

In any case, the logic for believing that the ruling of the Court of Session makes independence less likely is thoroughly unsound.  The jury is out on whether this will give the impression that Scotland does after all "have influence in the UK", because that entirely depends on the view the UK Supreme Court takes on appeal.  I'd have thought it's pretty likely that the UK government's appeal will be upheld.  (Joanna Cherry takes the opposite view, but of course it's sensible for her to be as upbeat as possible to create a sense of momentum.)  I can't think of a better demonstration that Scotland is not an equal and influential partner in the Union than for the Supreme Court to strike down a ruling by an uppity Court of Session.

In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court upholds today's ruling and prorogation is nullified, I'm struggling to see how that would make Brexit - and thus the casus belli for Indyref 2 - any less likely to happen.  The whole point of prorogation was to prevent the opposition and Tory rebels passing a law designed to stop No Deal on 31st October, and that's already happened anyway.  I suppose it's possible that a sitting parliament might find it easier to force the publication of sensitive documents, or to give Jeremy Corbyn more flexibility in his options for seeking to bring the government down.  But that's all highly speculative.  My guess is that the overturning of prorogation would have huge symbolic significance, and huge long-term significance for UK constitutional law, but relatively limited practical significance in the here and now.

Lastly, the website claims it would be "astonishing" if a non-prorogued parliament actually chose to sit during the party conference season.  Astonishing or not, I'm extremely confident that's exactly what it would do in the light of the current crisis.  I don't think the conferences would necessarily be cancelled - MPs would just juggle them as best they could.

99 comments:

  1. From my reading of Scots Law decades ago, any decision of the Highest Scottish Court cannot be overturned by an English Court which is enshrined in the Act of Union. When the Supreme Court was set up after Labour's win in 1997 I doubt if they had in their mind what happened today in Edinburgh. Let us see how this pans out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You probably know more about this than I do, but as I understand it decisions by the Court of Session have always been subject to appeal to the Supreme Court (or to the House of Lords before the Supreme Court existed). It's criminal cases before the High Court of Justiciary that traditionally can't be appealed in London (although that principle has been slightly undermined in recent years due to the possibility of challenges related to the ECHR).

      Delete
    2. The UK Supreme Court is several courts in one, also serving various various Commonwealth jurisdictions. When considering a Scottish case, the UK Supreme Court (as did the House of Lords sitting as a court before it) sits as a Scottish Court unless it is dealing with something as a devolution matter when IIRC it acts as a UK tribunal. Radio Scotland news has just said that SCT/NIR/ENG cases are being dealt with together so maybe the latter.

      Delete
    3. "also serving various various Commonwealth jurisdictions"

      Aren't you thinking of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? That's technically a different institution (although many of the same judges are involved).

      Delete
    4. The Supreme Court was set up in 2007 Marcia.

      www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-court.html

      Delete
  2. The problem I'm having with wings at the moment is that I think he is in electioneering mode and maybe he is coming to the end of his usefulness. I hope I'm wrong. I disagree with his sheep shagging football nonsense but I check his blog daily,and have supported the site financially.He may yet see sense and drop his political ambitions for which he neither has the support or the personality to be successful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Stu Campbell! Have you ever seen such a turnaround? He's either lost the plot or someone is now pulling his strings. I'm also wondering what the contents of his WBB will be like? Pages and pages of Nicola Sturgeon / SNP Baad and / or being used to promote his own party? If so people like me who donated to that (plus all else) will be raging.

      He doesn't come across as being too happy today with so many people (those he's let through) rubbishing his latest load of propaganda drivel. Hopefully more and more people are beginning to see the light. That in turn could impact on his next Dugdale Appeal crowd-funder. He's one big-mouthed, greedy, self-centred b....... guzzling money that could be used to help many other struggling pro-independence activists / sites.

      Delete
    2. Abu Small has called for the destruction of the Bathist Party. He says he can provide the "boots on the ground", but from past experience...

      Delete
    3. "Strings being pulled..."?
      I remember Wings being raided by the police some time back, having his computers confiscated, then being told nothing was to be done.
      What chance the contents may have provided an opportunity to 'lean' on him, and we are now seeing the results?

      I,too, worry about the WBB contents as his hatred of anything SNP is now becoming almost deranged . Donations wasted - but never again.
      However, if he thinks the general public would vote, in any election, for his foul mouthed utterings, then he is deranged.

      Delete
  3. Hi James, I guess the point is very straight forward if you have a cynical enough mind. If SNP pols manage to stop delay or otherwise interfere with Brexit it has no positive effect on securing independence and will simply put a uk government back in charge with no reason to grant a section 30 once they're in charge "now is not the time" ad infinitum

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Section 30? That might end up in the Courts too.

      Delete
  4. Wings is steadily turning into a "Blow for Sturgeon" article generator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the whole thing is win-win basically - it's focussed attention on the Court of Session, the Rule of Law, and democracy.

    Chances of the UKSC upholding the ruling? At least 50%! Bearing in mind the Miller case when it found against the UK Gov.

    yesindyref2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Nat sis and remainers turn to the courts to reverse the decision of the people. They also want more referendums to overturn previous referendum. Bunch of Nazis.

      Delete
    2. You are obviously confused with your history, as historically the 'Nazis' were an extreme right-wing movement, just like the current Tory and Brexit parites.

      Delete
    3. The Nazis were socialist. National Socialist.

      Delete
    4. The Nazis were socialist in much the same way that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

      Delete
    5. As democratic as those who do not accept the results of the Scottish and EU referendums.

      Delete
    6. Wait, what, Scotland is independent?

      The 2014 result wasn't respected and it's left the UK?

      When did this happen?

      Delete
  6. The jury is out on whether this will give the impression that Scotland does after all "have influence in the UK""

    My feeling is this is a red herring, or at least, not of much importance, though the Rev seems to think it is.

    yesindyref2

    ReplyDelete
  7. In a real democracy, the Queen would be called into court to testify as to what the PM told her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He said blah blah and HM said go away and sort out my German relatives.

      Delete
    2. GWC is like Ivanka Trump, inserting herself into discussions with world leaders. Annoying and very embarrassing. I feel the same level of embarrassment for GWC as I did for Ivanka.
      Alex B

      Delete
  8. If the supreme court holds that the ruling executive in Westminster has complete authority over political decisions with no recourse to law there's a constitutional big bang coming because Scotland's government is subject to the law of the land as should all governments of all countries be, unless we're doing 1939 German history and if folks remember the courts in that instance had no power over the *executive*

    ReplyDelete
  9. Young James you continue to be an Ostrich. The EU referendum was a UK referendum not a local council referendum. Make up your minds Nat sis is it Scottish independence or being run by the fourth Reich.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GWC is like Ivanka Trump, inserting herself into discussions with world leaders. I feel the same level of embarrassment for GWC as I did for Ivanka.
      Alex B

      Delete
    2. I would give up my benefits for a week to insert Ivanka.

      Delete


    3. ''or being run by the fourth Reich.''


      We are being run by the fourth Reich. It's called Westminster.

      Delete
    4. I would just shag Ivanka.

      Delete
    5. Then we could address you with the proper tone required for the 'King of Ivankatown'.

      Delete
  10. HM the Queen has the power of how many sugars she can put in her tea, I'm afraid that's about the height of it, The Monarchy ceded all power to the Westminster parliament, you'll note not the government

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Westnister Parliament voted for a referendum therefore giving giving the final say on that one issue to the voter. I concede that Parliament were confident the voter would vote to remain however Parliament got it wrong and should accept the result.

      Delete

    2. Parliament can accept what it likes or not. The sovereign people of Scotland will have the ''final say'' when it comes to dissolving the Union.

      Delete
    3. Gin and Tonic for that woman.

      Delete
  11. The other issue regarding fighting Brexit is that I do not see any way in which it would be to an independent Scotland's benefit to have its nearest neighbor a fascist wasteland in the depths of constant financial crisis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing that is constant is change. Brexit was the result of a legal referendum supported by the overwhelming amount of Mps who clearly thought that all the stupid people would vote remain just like the stupid people voted for them. The stupid people won and erses will be nippin amoungst the Mps who know the people have sussed them.

      Delete
    2. The brexit result was not legally binding. It was a legal referendum, but merely advisory. Same as a Scottish iref without a Section 30; totally legit, but not legally binding on Holyrood.

      The brexit result should be respected however, if simply because that triggers the mandate for iref2.

      Delete
    3. You waffled that well Skier like most things you post.

      Delete
    4. A section 30 order was (is) desired for a Scottish Independence Referendum called by Holyrood because the constitution is reserved to Westminster. If Westminster calls a referendum that impacts upon the constitution no such order is needed since Westminster already has powers over the constitution. So it would be implied that Westminster would abide by the result of any referendum called by it since it already has authority to enact the result.

      Delete
  12. Given that the UK is accepted as not a country and that the legal systems are now on course for complete divergence between Scotland and its *partner* country England, the act of Union may now be applied in Scottish courts for revocation under the rule of law and notice given of a decision by the elected and constituted government of Scotland to declare it so and offer a referendum to the people as the sovereignty holders of Scotland on whatever plebicite the government may choose with the question to be made available to them as to their own future

    This question would be of course binding and not advisory because the legal system once again in Scotland is that the people are sovereign whereas in England the parliament is sovereign not the people

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Britain should only have 1 law system, 1 school system, 1 education system, and 1 football team. 1 country means 1 things.

      Delete
    2. I agree. The UK should adopt Scots Law, Education and religion. Football I don't care so much about.

      Delete
    3. Dittany... Britain is not, never has been, a country. It's a landmass which is shared by three countries.

      Delete
  13. Hi James - I would really appreciate it if you could link to Mark Frankland's blog -http://marksimonfrankland.blogspot.com

    To all you Scot Goes Pop and indyref fans - Mark's blog is well worth reading. Not just whatever is the most recent post. Work your way back - there are many gems to be disovered.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The will of the N. Irish people.

    SoS should start looking at a border poll now based on the terms of the GFA.

    Europe Elects
    @EuropeElects
    UK (Northern Ireland), Lord Ashcroft poll:

    Irish Unification Referendum

    Join the Irish Republic: 51% (+4)
    Stay in the UK: 49% (-4)

    +/- vs. June 2018

    Sample size: 1,542
    Fieldwork: 30/08/19-02/09/19

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1171848743076937728

      Delete
    2. Just like in Scotland, it's only the over 65s in N. Ireland that back the union.

      Unionism has no future. It's an empire relic on it's last legs.

      Delete
  15. The ruling means that the parliamentary session continues and the May deal (Withdrawal Agreement) cannot be brought back to the parliament for a fourth time without contravening the parliamentary rules (laws?) which were compromised to present it for the third time.

    A strict interpretation should mean that unless the EU opens up the WA for renegotiation it cannot offer a further extension which leaves a very short window of opportunity to use the indyref2 mandate (which necessarily expires on leaving the EU).

    Since the ruling means that the EU may even be obliged to terminate the current extension (the WA having been adamantly confirmed to be the only deal possible), the mandate for indyref2 may already be compromised and the observations of the web site in question are thus vindicated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. So a mandate which actually requires the UK to really leave the EU (not just be a totally pussy / coward and talk about it for years, getting extension after extension) to have technical validity expires the moment it does?

      This is up there with £350m on the side of a bus.

      Delete
    2. Laugh if you like.

      Sadly however it tends to misunderstand/ misrepresent both the mandate and the message on the bus - which, I believe, was demonstrated in court to be both true and an underestimate (the actual lie - defamation even - coming from those who claimed there had been a promise to spend it on the NHS rather than simply question why it would not be better spent on the NHS instead)

      On the funny side (or not!), the mandate is only compromised under Scots law so, whilst it cannot be used as an excuse to object to one under English law, it does imply that, in the absence of a new mandate, any Brexit related indyref2 must now go ahead without a Section 30 agreement.

      Delete
    3. Doesn't Kinnock's amendment make it mandatory to vote on May's deal one more time? How do they square that circle?

      Delete
    4. Erm, sorry, but...

      Mandates are not legal things. They are simply manifesto promises to the electorate.

      You don't need a mandate for an iref, nor do you need to hold an iref if you promised one. You can also hold an iref (or not hold one) whenever the fuck you like; just needs sufficient MSPs backing it, and it's legal/above board.

      Of course there are political implications (e.g. at the next election) of not doing what you promised in a manifesto, or doing something that you didn't promise. But that's it. No legal implications whatsoever.

      As for a Section 30; all that does is says England [Britain] will recognise the result no questions asked, with that recognition written into law. That makes life easier in a 'divorce'. It's not needed for an iref nor indy. If refused, it just means that Scotland should immediately go for independence as the UK is not a democracy (something the courts currently agree with I'll add) / it's main partner nation is a very unpleasant, fascist state.

      Delete
    5. Quite, although I was referring to the triple locked gold standard one that I'd heard about from professionals and that had been endorsed by the Scottish parliament no less.

      Delete
    6. Aye, but that's ('gold standard') political, not legal.

      The Scottish parliament now has a legal mandate. That legal mandate is irrespective of brexit. The only legal requirement for iref2 is enough MSPs voting for it.

      The current legal mandate would however run out in 2021 if not exercised. Unless of course enough MSPs still back it after that election, and so it's still on. Legally.

      Delete
    7. Re Holebender: Have not read the judgement (which may imply that the Kinnock amendment - by bringing parliament into disrepute - was also unlawful) but since it was rushed through in anticipation of there being a new session it is:

      (a) Now able to receive the proper scrutiny that ought otherwise to have seen it rejected earlier, and

      (b) No longer relevant in any event

      Delete
    8. Scottish skier: For the reasons stated above the legal mandate (which you claim in the same thread cannot exist) may arguably have expired yesterday.

      On the bright side, the terms of Brexit are now clear under Scottish law - albeit 12 months later than the original schedule agreed between Scotland's FM and UK's ex PM:

      https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/789293/indyref-2-scottish-independence-referendum-snp-nicola-sturgeon/



      Delete
    9. Erm, the legal mandate comes from the ability to legislate for a referendum legally. Something that is currently underway.

      The first vote which really demonstrated the mandate (which we all knew existed following the 2016 election), was the one you are quoting.

      It is very open ended, with no commitment to a particular date, be that before or after brexit. Even then, it was just politely seeking the parliament's permission to proceed with that legislative programme; something that was not actually needed. Symbolic, to show the that the legal mandate can be and is to be exercised. Sorry to disappoint you.

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx?SearchType=Advance&ReferenceNumbers=S5M-04710

      Motion S5M-04710: Nicola Sturgeon, Glasgow Southside, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 20/03/2017

      Scotland's Choice
      That the Parliament acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and therefore mandates the Scottish Government to take forward discussions with the UK Government on the details of an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum to be held that will give the people of Scotland a choice over the future direction and governance of their country at a time, and with a question and franchise, determined by the Scottish Parliament, which would most appropriately be between the autumn of 2018, when there is clarity over the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, and around the point at which the UK leaves the EU in spring 2019.

      You should really have read it before using it as a basis for arguments at least.

      Delete
    10. If the mandate for a referendum is not Brexit based, the timing of the vote in Holyrood must have been quite the coincidence.

      Since it was not a coincidence, that particular mandate expires, by definition, when/if the UK leaves EU on or before 31 October.

      That does not mean that another one cannot be got. It simply means that, if it has not already done so, time is fast running out to use the old one.

      Delete
  16. I very rarely post here and only a little more frequently on the other site.
    Thank you James ! The factional self interest of the other site is becoming blatant and embarrassing. Well done for keeping the heid in difficult times.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So, now the two massive spanners in England's brexit works now narrowly back leaving the UK, and that's while it's still firmly in the EU. Not an empty shelve nor English stasi border jackboot in sight. Not yet.

    These could end up totally ruining it for England, even blocking it completely, then just leaving because the this is their future anyway based on demographics.

    If I were English Boris, I know what I'd do.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The court action is not a good look for people that voted LEAVE (and some of these, believe it or not were YES voters). Proroguing parliament is not unusual, and this certainly looks like an undemocratic coup - the question is - who side is responsible? Well, that all depends whose side you are n, doesn't it?

    For the SNP to actively support REMAIN s one thing, but to use the law to thwart democracy is anoter. They had done enough already - they should have left well alon, Heck we are only talking about 3-4 extra days off parliament anyway, once you consider the MPs holidays and party conferences. If they really cared about available time, perhaps they should have taken some time off the holidays and cancelled the conferences this year. If they really cared, that is. Powerful stuff eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not necessary to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks to introduce a Queen's Speech. A one day suspension would do the job just as well, so that excuse is bullshit.

      As for the break for conferences, I'm sure that can be put on hold for a national crisis. They don't break for the SNP conference anyway so why should they for the others?

      Delete
    2. I agree with Scots law that Johnson has acted unlawfully.

      What's next, 6 months shut down? 1...5...10 years?

      If this is deemed lawful, it will be abused again very quickly, and for longer next time.

      Delete
    3. Nope Johnson acted in bad faith, but legally IMO (regardless of what the Supreme Kangaroo Court decides next week). There has been a blatant attempt by MPs to thwart the democratic will of the people. I'm not a LEAVER but hey we voted for it - talking of excuses: "But th people were misinformed - its' not what they voted for" is rather pathetic IMO. People knew what they were voting for - they gets waht they want. Democracy and IQ don't always fit well, but if you want democracy you let the people decide, regardless of how thick you thnk they are. The fact that Scotland voted REMAIN s another matter - can be solved, but it will reuire some courage from the voters and the Scottish politicians who lead them.

      Delete
    4. No, he acted illegally. This isn't my opinion. This is the law as it stands. He tried to shut parliament for his own political gains; an extremely serious thing to do.

      I think the UK voted leave so it should leave somehow. The only way to undo that is another vote, but that really needs to be something the electorate ask for or it will likely be lost.

      There is no mandate for no deal though. That means people dying due to lack of medicine etc. Foodbanks empty of food while the number of people needing them is rocketing even more than now. So that must be stopped by all (democratic) means.

      I also think the SNP should do everything to stop Scotland leaving the EU as that's what they have a mandate for. That may indirectly stop the UK, but that's not their fault. England is free to go for indy.

      They should dispense with the 'Stop brexit' signs thought and at best hold up 'Stop Scexit', while focusing on indy. Brexit is England's choice.

      Delete
  19. Latest Yougov Scottish sub-sample from Prof Robertson's site that you have linked - 10th - 11th September;

    Con 19%
    Lab 8%
    Lib 11%
    SNP 52%
    Brexit 7%
    Green 3%

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ever tried to engage reverse gear on a motor car when you are travelling forward?

    What Luigi has to say is the exact opposite of what I think.

    I think that we as an electorate have been fooled twice, firstly on the day after the Scottish referendum when Cameron showed what a charlatan looks like. Strike one. And secondly when Brexit was 'won' and quite a lot of folk seemed to think that leaving would be easy. Strike two.

    The noise from the transmission of these ideas - what Luigi believes, what I believe is a fundamental parting of the ways.

    To trivialise it as 'thwarting democracy' is a fascinating take on an attempt to impose democracy.

    YMMV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leaving was easy. It is the reactionary liberal left filthy rich who have halted the process.

      Delete
    2. So GWC, what do you think about the N. Irish now backing reunification?

      Delete
    3. "Trivialise"???


      What is it about 17.5 million voters that you don't understand?

      We are all biased to a degree. Just because something does not fit your personal belief or narrative does not make it wrong.


      To try and use the excuse "but the people did not understand the implications" is so lame, so weak, so Westminster. We can be better than that. Democracy is democracy. Live with it.

      Delete
    4. Democracy is only democracy when the electorate make informed choices.

      Delete
    5. And when they make informed choices that upset the ruling class then it is back to the ruling class to change the wording.

      Delete
  21. Who decides what an "informed choice" is?

    Who is qualified to decide what an "informed choice" is?

    If you believ in democracy you cannot treat the voters like children or idiots (even if they are)!


    We could go round in circles here. :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. In 2016 a majority of voters in the UK voted to leave in the EU referendum.
    In the 2017 UK General Election a majority of MP's elected were pro-remain.

    Democracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well yes and no. Technically, the promise of both Lab and Con was to move forward with brexit.

      Then we have the fact that many pro-brexit MPs have voted against brexit (voting down May's deal)!

      But aye, if you voted for a remainer when you wanted brexit, or for a hard brexiter when you wanted a soft brexit, then more fool you. It was your choice.

      Delete
    2. Yes but quite a few MP's elected held views contrary to the parties manifestos. Labour benefited in England with the student and remain voters ousting a few Tories in places such as Canterbury and Kensington.

      Delete
    3. Of course in 2017 the majority of the votes went to pro Brexit parties.

      Delete
  23. Right on cue here come the promises of the same frigates that were promised the last time with no doubt loads more promises wrapped up in Union flags never to be delivered same as last time and the time before that
    Seems that every time Westminster is found out they wheel out the precious Union flag and all the *into the future with the UK* drivel, will the same idiots fall for it again, of course they will, that's why they're idiots

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Nat si approach to defense is arming the Waverley Paddle Steamer and appointing wee Eck the former Soviet spy master a Scottish defence minister.

      Delete
    2. The amount removed from Scotland's own taxpayers for defence by Westminster is £3.7 billion which is £0.9 billion more than Israel

      Delete
    3. Scotland would have to contribute to NATO. So what is your point?

      Delete
  24. I am reluctant to enter this heated debate because I find the level of vulgarity in certain of the views expressed to be distressing and verging on a Gide-esque acte gratuit. I urge suaveté and an inofmred appreciation of the occasional bon mot.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The amount removed from Scottish taxpayers for defence by Westminster is £3.7 billion which is £2.9 billion more than the Republic of Ireland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ROI Catholic State get free UN military protection although they do provide UN protection to poor states.

      Delete
  26. @ GWC You just make it up as you go along son and drag your bigotry with you for all to see

    ReplyDelete
  27. Can anybody direct me to an Independence site because Wings over Scotland's become an anti SNP Pro Brexit site now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any real Jocko Nat si would not entertain being run from Bruxelles.

      Delete
  28. I also have been a bit surprised by Campbell's position on the SNP's active opposition to Brexit.

    It seems to me that the SNP parliamentarians are showing the sort of maturity, clear thinking and competence which will be required in the processes involved in the establishment of an independent Scotland. If they sat back and did nothing, opponents could make hay with accusations that the SNP did nothing to try to halt the Brexit they didn't want, and probably weren't capable of forming any sort of plan of action. If Brexit does happen,the SNP will look good for having tried to do the right thing by Scotland's interests; if it doesn't happen, there'll still be enough anger and chaos in England to make a marked contrast with Scotland, and encourage more converts to the cause of independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A million real Scots voted for brexit.

      Delete
    2. Closer to 500,000 who jumped ship and weren't thrown a lifebelt by La Sturgeon.
      But what would the mind-blind Pining For The Shankill mob know about that?

      Delete
    3. Good people the Shankhill mob who stood firm against the PIRA Catholic Crusaders.

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately the fact that a million people in Scotland voted for Brexit in constitutional terms means absolutely nothing because they were outvoted by a great many more who voted pro remain and that is the will of the Sovereign people of Scotland which constitutionaly is an instruction to the Scottish parliament to carry that out

      In England however the people are not sovereign because the Monarchy ceded all power to the then English parliament and that ruling has never been changed, so in constitutional fact the referendum in that part of the UK was and is advisory only to the parliament and in fact does not need to be carried out at all

      Most English people don't know they are not sovereign and no matter what they vote for or against the English House of Commons need not apply, it's only a convention to pretend to England that they live in a democracy founded on Monarchy which the English don't understand you can't have a Monarchy and democracy at the same time

      Our ancestors in Scotland were smarter in creating the people as sovereign and not the parliament and that's why our law is slightly different to that of English law

      Scotland's parliament is based on the rule of law

      The parliament in England has no constitution and that's why Boris Johnson and his cronies are at this moment in time subverting legal principles in England so that the executive rules in the manner of Monarchy which was unanswerable to law, in other words dictatorship just like 1930s Germany when the party the Tories most admire took control of that country

      Delete
  29. Oh dear - I see Wings has deleted the link to Scot Goes Pop from the list in the Scottish Politics section on his site (one of the sections in the middle column on his page).

    Sad that a disagreement on tactics makes him not want to show that you exist :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not about tactics, Wings wants a Nigel Farage approach to Independence and doesn't seem to care that that's dumb because you play right into the hands of the bigoted right wing and could end up after Independence with more trouble than you had before it

      It can't be Independence at any cost, it must be as consensual as possible or there'll be trouble, Stuart Campbell just doesn't seem to care about that

      Delete
  30. Here's a well known fact that Brexiters and Unionists don't want you to know, Brussells controls 13% of laws in the UK, Yes just 13%, and those laws apply to food standards, working practices, health and safety, animal husbandry and various things like that

    The EU does not control immigration policy for any country in the EU, each country has it's own policies and laws in these areas

    So when they bang on about the EU ruling over countries it's a great big fat lie and they know it but they hoped the xenophobes and bigots would fall for it if they kept saying it enough and without the tame media to correct them it was a breeze to lie to millions of people and get away with it

    This sort of propaganda was also used in Germany in the 1930s and remember the phrase "And we did nothing, then they came for us"

    ReplyDelete