Monday, January 20, 2020

Could excessive timidity lead to us squandering a golden opportunity to win independence?

It seems to me that the rhetoric of the "caution" faction within the SNP is aimed more at changing the behaviour of Yes supporters than of the UK government.  Essentially the intention is to put Yes supporters into a kind of trance by insistently and repeatedly saying: "Stop asking how the SNP are going to bring the promised referendum about, those are bad thoughts.  Instead, try to grow support for independence, that would be a good thought".  It's not really working, partly because people have minds of their own and their preoccupations can't be so easily directed from on high, but mostly because there's such an obvious flaw in the "grow support for independence and don't worry your pretty little heads about process" schtick.  It would all be so much more persuasive if there was a concrete plan for bringing about an indyref (with or without a Section 30) once that greater Yes support has been achieved, but in place of that plan is magical thinking, ie. "the UK government's position will prove to be unsustainable once we have overwhelming support, you'll see".

There's actually quite a strong case to be made that higher percentage support for Yes in the opinion polls would make the UK government even more intransigent, not less so.  That could be especially true if the Tories remain in power indefinitely.  If they had stayed in power after 1997, they would never have granted devolution, or a devolution referendum, in spite of the fact that support for a Scottish Parliament was running at 70-80% in the polls.  (And yet I'm sure there would have been people chanting the mantra of "this is totally unsustainable!")

It remains to be seen how much influence the caution faction has with the SNP leadership, but until that becomes clear, all that the rest of us can do is continue making the counter-argument as forcefully and respectfully as we can.









209 comments:

  1. James..I always enjoy your thoughtful contributions but...counter arguments. I have yet heard a credible counter argument. I even found myself agreeing with Alex Neil yesterday. Well mostly. NS strategy seems to me to be by far the one which will take us to independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You're wrong" is fine, but reasons are generally better. Incidentally, I'm not taking issue with the leadership's strategy for bringing about an indyref, mainly because I don't know what it is yet. If you have advance knowledge, by all means spill the beans.

      Delete
    2. Call me cycnical, James, but I don't think that the leadership even knows what it is yet...

      Delete
    3. I think Boris can just carry on saying 'No' pretty much forever. So if the argument is 'We just need another mandate for IndyRef2 in the Holyrood elections in 2021' then you are deluding yourself as he will just ignore it. So we need either or both:

      1) Something that puts a cost on saying No that Boris isn't prepared to pay,
      2) Something that does not need any agreement from Boris.

      So we could use the election next year, but not for yet another mandata. It would have to be the actual vote for Indy.

      Delete
    4. I agree. The SNP could carry on building up a prize collection of mandates and the Tories would just keep on ignoring them while they carried on with their day job of robbing Scotland blind and grinding us into the dust. How much of the UKs tax revenues from Scotland do we get back? 35%? Does anybody in their right minds seriously expect that to improve?

      Delete
    5. We have to start from the very beginning.

      Back in 2007 The SNP became the largest party in Parliament. Labour reacted as every by imploding and appointing a fraudster as leaderene. When she did her sneering <"bring it on" was there any mention of a Section 30 order?

      In 2011 the SNP won a majority in parliament. It was a weekly occurrence at PMQs for cameron to challenge A Salmond to stop being a coward and call the referendum. If anyone would care to study Hansard they will see no mention of a Section 30 order.

      When the FM did call the referendum he clearly stated it was going ahead regardless of any shenanigans from westminster. No Section 30 order.

      The notorious Edinburgh Agreement involved a Section 30 order but it wasn't required and had absolutely no legal status. Westminster could have ignored the result, if Yes and just changed the law to make independence illegal. It was completely irrelevant to the conduct and outcome of the vote.

      So why have we allowed the Quisling media to brainwash so many people into thinking that the Section 30 order is the Word of God?

      We didn't need one before so why must we have one now?

      Delete
    6. I agree with what you said anonymous except for the fact that I think it is sensible to follow the precedent set in 2014 and then when it is rejected as is the case at this point in time it opens the door to any future approach without being challenged about why no Sect 30 as previously.

      Delete
  2. I must be very slow witted, because it’s only just occurred to me that what the unionist parties may well be planning for 2021, is (in covert cooperation) setting up a Scottish Unionist Party, which would put up no constituency candidates in the Holyrood election (instead recommending the best unionist tactical voting strategy, constituency-by-constituency), but would put up a full set of candidates on the list. If a reasonable proportion of unionist voters, having voted Tory/Labour/LibDem in their constituency vote, then voted SUP on the list, the result would probably be to deny the SNP the ability to form even a minority government. Remember that the Holyrood election system was designed to avoid any one party having an overall majority in the Scottish parliament. Stormont provides the example of a devolved administration that is a coalition of polar opposites, so a coalition scottish government of all four unionist parties is not inconceivable. The SNP could be permanently out of power at Holyrood, and therefore out of power everywhere. Goodbye indepndence, of course — and goodbye effective devolution too…….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The unionist parties won't attempt to blatantly cheat in that way for exactly the reason that the pro-indy parties won't, ie. they wouldn't actually get away with it.

      Delete
    2. I agree with James that they won't try it, but if they did the pro-indy parties can just copy the tactics at the following election and sweep the board.

      Delete
    3. Who says there would even be a following election? They could simply shut Holyrood. Unlikely, but not inconceivable.

      Delete
    4. Closing Holyrood would be advantageous for the public purse and taxpayer. Power could easily be given to the Scottish Mps to run Scottish affairs. We have had an almost triplication of politicians since the Holyrood gravy train was set up. We are falling over politicians. At least the EU wasters are returning home.

      Delete
    5. Except it wouldn't be seen as cheating: numbers of people now vote Green on the list, having voted for their party of choice with their constituency vote. The 'SUP' strategy would be presented, and widely accepted, as another example of the same idea -- providing support for a cross-party idea. Naturally, all the names and faces of the SUP would have no connection with the other three union supporting parties. Don't forget:
      a) the SNP only needs to be slightly weakened at Holyrood
      b) unionists are full of self-righteousness
      c) the legend of SNP ignoring the day job, and paralysing 'progress' in Scotland is at least as well established as the one about the Labour government causing the financial crisis of 2008
      d) many serious people believe that there have been a number of successful covert tactical vote deals in Scotland.
      Anyway, it won't take long to see who's right on this -- and at least I won't feel very foolish if I'm wrong!

      Delete
    6. labour DID cause the financial crisis of 2008. It was James Brown who ran a massive deficit at the height of a boom while removing almost all regulations over the banks. Him and his Darling Balls.

      Delete
    7. Of course it would be seen as cheating. It's the most blatant form of cheating imaginable, and the Electoral Commission would step in.

      Delete
    8. Of course, I hope you're right: but who would the EC take action against, and what action would they take? Do they have the power to ban a political party? What action was proposed/taken against the Farage pseudo-party in the General Election?

      Delete
    9. Parties can combine or stand down candidates if they wish, it absolutely isn't against any rules EC or otherwise. There's plenty of precendent, SDP/Libs, Con/Brexit, Plaid/Libdem/Green, Lib/Lab, SDLP/SinnFein, DUP/UUP . It's the electorate that will judge if its duplicitous or opportunistic.

      Delete
    10. George Osbourne pondered the idea of standing with the LibDems as the coalition prior to GE 2015.

      Delete
    11. Anon at 4:39pm: Nope, none of those are precedents. Not even close. You're missing the point entirely - this is about trying to exploit a bug in AMS. Electoral pacts under any other voting system, or even electoral pacts under AMS that don't try to exploit the bug, are irrelevant to this discussion. Literally irrelevant.

      Delete
    12. James -- Could you please provide an accessible reference to EC policy in this respect? I've tried looking at the EC website, but all that seemed to be relevant was a section on criteria for registration of a political party ---- which I, viewing the site as a 'voter' was not authorized to read. And, at first sight, the EC report on the 2016 Scottish election seemed to mention nothing relevant......

      Delete
    13. Anon: Comment deleted. Please check your facts before making intemperate and wildly inaccurate comments of that sort.

      Frank: During the passage of the Scotland Act in 1998, the danger of 'alter ego parties' standing on the list in an attempt to cheat was discussed at enormous length. The late Michael Ancram (the Conservatives' Scottish spokesman at the time) was particularly obsessed with the subject, and he extracted commitments from the government. If I had seven hours to spare, I'd trawl through the Hansard records from 1998 and find you the relevant links, but alas I don't have seven hours to spare.

      This discussion is now closed.

      Delete
  3. Whether the SNP's tactic is caution or not, we, the grass roots must ramp up the pressure regardless. If we don't, the media narrative of 'most Scots don't even want a referendum' becomes all the easier for them to play up to. The natives are restless, so why the hell not make it known?

    ReplyDelete

  4. ....or could gross over-confidence lead to some in the movement rushing to "do something" without having much idea what that "something" might be and forgetting that all political movements become more powerful the more support they have.....?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, heaven forbid that we might actually "do something" over the next five years.

      Delete
    2. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 20, 2020 at 12:36 PM

      We should honour the Declaration of Arbroath by "doing something" when we have one thousand, three hundred and twenty mandates. How could any PM ignore one thousand, three hundred and twenty mandates? That would just be crazy.

      Delete
  5. James Kelly wrote: "It remains to be seen how much influence the caution faction has with the SNP leadership"

    The Caution Faction is a wholly owned subsidiary of the SNP leadership. Its officers comprise Sturgeon's cabal and associated hangers-on.

    They are not separate entities. They are indivisible. Policy change will only occur when and if Sturgeon and her cabal are removed from power by the Party.

    If the Party cannot reform itself it faces terminal decline, for it has lied to the people and betrayed a sacred trust to deliver the referendum in the lifetime of this parliament in the event of material change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''for it has lied to the people and betrayed a sacred trust to deliver the referendum in the lifetime of this parliament in the event of material change.''

      Stop talking rubbish. What lies are you talking about and is the lifetime of this Parliament over yet?

      Reply

      Delete
  6. "If the Lib Dems are crazy enough to urge their supporters to abstain in a legal referendum, that should not deter the SNP from holding one. Rather the reverse. A majority Yes vote might not resolve matters, but it would self-evidently be a leap forward."

    I agree with this whole-heartedly. So what if there's a BritNat boycott? So what if there are legal challenges? The main strategy should be to keep the pressure on, keep independence top of the agenda. What better way than to have a controversial YES result and the mayhem that follows?
    For those that want a proper referendum, well a first contentious one would lead to a second proper on eventually. It would be the only way it could be resolved.

    I understand that many want a nice, legal, all loose-ends secured, binding referendum. But that may not be possible. Better to go down fighting, ensuring that the issue will never go away, than to meekly accept that we cannot go cos all the imaginary ducks are in line. The ducks will never be 100% in line. The BritNats are forever finding ways of moving the ducks. There will come a time, soon IMO, when we just have to say "Heck this is as good as it's gonna get - let's go!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if there is a sect 30 and an Edinburgh style agreement and yes win I wouldn't trust Johnson to honour the result. He is after all the great liar who does not care about the law and has no personal integrity. So I do not see anything wrong in going for a referendum without a sect 30. In fact there are advantages.

      Delete
  7. Sure the British nationalists could boycott a consultative referendum, but then what? Imagine a substantial YES result for a boycotted referendum. Would YES voters say "Ah well, it was boycotted, so we may as well accept that we ain't getting independence?" Aye right!

    Things would quickly become so chaotic that the UN would have to get involved and a proper, "legal" referendum would have to be undertaken to resolve the issue.

    I really don't know why some people seem to be reluctant to test the waters and have a referendum against WM's wishes. Nothing to loose and potentially everything to gain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 20, 2020 at 2:32 PM

      Sensible comments, Luigi. And this is how things will probably pan out IMO. There will be a referendum without an S30 or aHolyrood plebiscite on independence, Yes will win comfortably, but it won't immediately win us independence. London will refuse to recognise the result, which will push Yes even higher, and then... major civil disobedience?

      "Better to go down fighting, ensuring that the issue will never go away"

      To this end, if the SNP are considering turning the Holyrood election into a plebiscite, they should take advantage of this shift away from the 'gold standard' and say that from now on every Holyrood election will be a plebiscite on independence. Maybe even every other election too. Kill off this idea of one all-or-nothing referendum and drill it into everybody's heads that there is zero chance of this issue going away. Based on the mood music this weekend, though, it seems unlikely the SNP will go this route.

      Then again, Nicola did end her Twitter response to Generalissimo Johnson last week with #indyref2020, so who knows.

      Delete
    2. A referendum in NIreland was boycotted by Republicans in 1973 but Westminster accepted the result. A precedent has been set.

      A good chunk of the population boycott referendums and elections all the time. Does not invalidate the result.

      Delete
  8. Also, James, I do think we need to “win big” because winning a referendum will only be the next step towards independence. Our support doesn't just have to be a majority but a "hard" majority ie one that doesn't disappear like snaw off a dyke when the UK government continues its Project Fear campaign post referendum. You are the expert on election results but it seems to me that recent results have shown that the SNP vote has “hardened” since 2014 and our 40% or so is not going anywhere this side of independence.
    Of course, I’m assuming that The New Plan should involve some sort of referendum in the first place because a lot of the "call-it-now!" brigade are suggesting that we dispense with the referendum route all together.
    But those who are still content to go with some kind of referendum-linked approach are far from agreed as to how that Plan should be formulated. Should we take a legal route? And, if so, should we be appealing to the UN, the EU, the UK or our ain wee Court of Session? Or should Nicola just “call-it-now!” and not worry about the law?
    Or maybe a civil disobedience campaign IS what is needed to. It would pressurise Westminster (in some way) into either granting a Section 30 order or even just giving us independence. Problem solved!
    But wait a wee minute! We don't need to ask Westminster because we are already a sovereign nation! We just take it! UDI NOW!
    But wait another wee minute! Don’t the answers lie in the Treaty of Union itself? Didn’t I read a post on Facebook that there’s a clause in it where we can just walk away anytime we like? Why don’t we just invoke that right now? I’m flabbergasted we haven’t done it already!
    Or perhaps we need to talk even more about the way forward. What about the SNP setting up a National Convention? OK, we refused to be part of the last such convention but that was only because independence wasn't one of the options on the table. As long as we promised to have Federalism as one of the options there would surely be no problem...oh, and devo-max, of course. Ah, progress at last.
    Or maybe, as Jim Sillars is now arguing, the best way to win independence is to stop marching and concentrate our collective minds on the likely Brexit trade agreements. If we're not going to be free by Hogmanay, maybe we could do a lot worse than hitting the ground running in 2021 with a coherent response to Johnson's Brexit deal...wow, I just had a wee deja vu there!
    The main, though little-mentioned, point in this debate is that the alternatives offered to the SNP's "do nothing" policy (when any are even offered) are themselves disputed and unclear. There is nothing close to consensus among those who express frustration and impatience with what little the SNP is doing.
    This is why I'm sceptical about your comment "There's actually quite a strong case to be made that higher percentage support for Yes in the opinion polls would make the UK government even more intransigent, not less so." Surely, the current log-jam has been created by the current intransigence of the UK government. Surely, a movement with 60% support would have more power and, therefore, more options than one with 45%.
    I hope these comments don't come across as sneery and facetious because they are not meant to be. But we need to understand there are no easy answers here. We lack the powers to make simple progress towards independence BECAUSE we do not have the powers of an independent country. That’s some Catch that Catch22!
    In my opinion, Nicola Sturgeon has been an excellent SNP leader. However, she has given a number of unnecessary hostages to fortune. "Judge my on my record on the attainment gap" was one of her own making but "There will be an independence referendum in 2020" was pushed into it by independence supporters some of whom, in my opinion, should have known better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Also, James, I do think we need to “win big”"

      In that case you've given up on independence completely. I'm not saying you necessarily realise that, but if we wait for a 2-1 majority we'll still be twiddling our thumbs decades from now. Independence isn't the sort of question that lends itself to "winning big". If it happens, it'll be hard-won, and it'll be close.

      "the "call-it-now!" brigade"

      Is that your pet name for the people who've read the manifesto?

      Delete
    2. Where do you get your info that 45% support independence. The last poll I saw said 52%. The only people I hear that keep saying the vote hasn't changed from 45% are Britnats and Sillars. Are you Silars?

      PS your catch 22 is just a nonsense statement.

      Delete
    3. Who mentioned 2-1? I want to aim as high as possible because too many people seem to think it's already in the bag.
      The "call it now brigade" are those independence supporters who who have have been demanding another referendum since the last one was lost (many of whom think it was rigged anyway). Should we have tried to call one in 2016 or 2017? How many people today are saying "Aye, we missed our chance by not having indyref2 in 2018"?
      None. Yet there were plenty calling for it at the time.

      Delete
    4. ''But wait another wee minute! Don’t the answers lie in the Treaty of Union itself? Didn’t I read a post on Facebook that there’s a clause in it where we can just walk away anytime we like? Why don’t we just invoke that right now? I’m flabbergasted we haven’t done it already!''

      What exactly do you think the around 50% of sovereign Scots (unionists) will do then Grendal?

      Delete
  9. Can't help but think that Nicola is waiting on the YES movement to do 'something' to increase support for independence before she acts. The YES movement in turn need Nicola to do 'something' to focus a campaign like 2014. Nicola please no more deferring action, you are playing Boris' game. Just get on and announce a referendum this year like you promised!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not that it matters much but I seem to recall that every opinion poll which describes an independent Scotland without using the actual word "independence" ends up with 75-80% support for said option. The idea that Scots are still only 50/50 is a nonsense caused by the media terror tactics.

    In 2014 a majority of Scots voted yes. A majority of the population were about to vote yes before the vow and brown's lies were broadcast 24/7.

    We don't need to wait for majority support, we already have it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think that being cautious has a lot of advantages,Is there a plan A with a plan B perhaps even C,D,E and F.you see they become edgy and plan for answers to all our plans we may or may not have, they become entangled with all sorts of plans. Then perhaps we are all thinking too much and now our brains are mince I say let us leave it up to those with the power to enact the plans after all that is why we voted them in, that is why many of us are SNP members some manage to go to marches and do lots of work for "the cause" freedom is coming we will be glad when it happens.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 20, 2020 at 3:51 PM

    Scottish share of Trident: ~ £16 billion. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/17/trident-renewal-205bn-arguments-for-against

    Scottish share of HS2 London to English midlands: £8 billion. https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-20/hs2-could-cost-106-billion-says-review/

    Brexit cost to Scotland already: ~£10billion. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/brexit-bulletin-eu-exit-has-already-cost-britain-170-billion

    Projected future Brexit cost to Scotland under Johnson's deal: 6.7%, a conservative estimate for Scotland due to Brexit's impact on our north-east in particular. https://fullfact.org/europe/brexit-economic-impact/

    Or over 8% under No Deal. This is on par with the worst European crashes during the credit crunch. In 2033 alone Scotland would be losing over £12 billion a year due to Brexit.

    UK govt revenue in 2019-20 from North Sea oil and gas: £1.1 billion.
    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/oil-and-gas-revenues/

    Can somebody tell me why offering London all the oil and gas revenue in exchange for independence shouldn't at least be part of the conversation?

    ReplyDelete
  13. My own preference is for Indyref2 in the second half of this year, if it doesn't happen then I'll wait until it does and still be voting Yes. Prof. Curtis a few days ago on his bog What Scotland Thinks published an article "Does Scotland Want IndyRef2 This Year?" in which he claimed the answer was No, they didn't want one this year.

    The claim was based on two Scottish polls prior to the election, one by Ipsos Mori in Novemebr which asked the question "Do you support or oppose a second referendum being held within the next year?

    It makes for uncomfortable reading, 43% Stongly oppose, 7% tend to oppose while just 33% Strongly support and 9% tend to support.

    In the second poll which took place in December by Panelbase, the results can be considered "worse" from an Independence supporters point of view. The question asked was

    "The next Scottish Parliament election is due to take place in May 2021. Do you support or oppose holding a referendum on Scottish independence before that election takes place?"

    This resulted in 51% saying that they opposed a referendum and just 38% supporting one before May 2021. With don't knows excluded Ipsos Mori is 54% to 46% against a referendum in the next year while Panelbase is 57% to 43% against having one before May 2021.

    https://whatscotlandthinks.org/2020/01/does-scotland-want-indyref2-this-year/

    If the results are to be believed then the fact that so many oppose even having a referendum this year, never mind intending to vote for Independence, that does worry me.

    Of course there are some Independence supporters currently opposed to a referendum right now, possibly in the belief that a good dose of Johnson leading a Tory government and that the Brexit effect might bring greater support once the damage filters through. The reality is probably somehwre in between and that is why calling a referendum at any time is not a simple choice.

    There is a gamble involved whenever it is held of couse, referendums usually are unless there is owhelming support for one side or the other before it takes place, just look at Cameron and his EU result for proof of that.

    Win the referendum though and at least Independence supporters will all be very happy. Lose it and in my view it most likely really will be over for a generation and the SNP may fall out of favour too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All pre-GE polls are largely meaningless, not least because e.g. Panelbase were wildly out, predicting 38% SNP when the result was 45%. That 38% was the number that backed an iref, so we can assume it was actually 45%, with those against much lower...

      Even ipsos mori underestimated SNP (although less so as it didn't use flawed Westminster past vote weighting), but it's got a bit more credibility.

      That aside, the actual GE result completely changed the entire situation. It basically cancelled any hope of brexit being avoided, and put in place the most racist, Scottish/Welsh/N Irish hating English government in history.

      So, we'd better wait for fresh polls before assessing the situation.

      Delete
    2. Strange that there's been a dearth of polls lately. You would think this would be a crucial time to assess the mood of the nation. Have none been commissioned, or are they now so bad that people are simply feart to publish em?

      Delete
  14. I've said it enough times, but a legal consultative referendum is the way forward if England has just gone fascist dickhead as seems to be the case.

    If it is legal, free and fair (with international observers) under Scots law, it doesn't matter shit if every unionist boycotted. The result stands. It sets the heather on fire.

    And so you go for UDI. UDI is absolutely legal (see UN court ruling on Kosovo for example), and the world will accept it as there can't be holes in the map...unless the 'parent' state does not accept it and sends in the brown shirts to take back control.

    Spain understood this and was willing to do it. England is a chickenshit bully and doesn't have the balls. We'd kick ten shades of shit out of the wankers if they tried it. They peed their pants at a few Irish potato farmers FGS. The reason we have the union is England consistently failed to take Scotland by force, even with one of the most powerful armies in Europe. It's a bully and bullies are cowards.

    If you shouted boo at Johnson in the street, he'd soil himself. Just watch that video of him running out the back of but house to see what a pathetic, tiny little man he is. Churchill my erse.

    Johnson is relying on Scots being chickenshit like him. He things we're all like GWC and crap ourselves at the thought of having some self respect.

    I'm watching to see what the SNP do here. If they don't have balls, I'll vote for a party that does.

    However, we must first show the world that we did try everything to do it the nice way with England on board. Only if it's clear that route didn't work because the latter went all racist c**t who hates us and all foreign people (as evident in brexit), can we up the ante.

    I'll say this again too. If Spain had not sent in the brown shirts that day, Catalonia would be independent, at least of a form. Spain could moan all it liked, but the EU would say, even if it was against Catalan indy, 'If you are not prepared to take back control of it, then you must let it go, for their cannot be holes in the map, certainly not in the heart of Europe!'.

    This is not going away. All trade deals depend on UK continuity vs breakup. Scotland must use every legal means to screw up all UK trade negotiations so long as a Section 30 is not forthcoming. Anything that delays and causes trade partners to step back and demand concessions / securities. Be a constant thorn in the side of England like NI is.

    In the meantime, proceed, at a steady pace, with plans for our own wee referendum and sharpen the claymores just in case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make it Irish Skier and you may get some respect. You are Irish according to yourself. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

      Delete
    2. Away and fuck yerself ya pathetic boot licking shit.

      Oh English Boris.. I love you Boris. I know I'm not English, but if I try hard enough maybe I can be? Please? You English are so amazing and Im just a mere sweaty sock. Oh please master, just piss on me maybe, it would mean so much to me...

      Only if you support the right of scots to determine their future free of outside interference, you can call yourself a Scot.

      Delete
    3. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 20, 2020 at 8:31 PM

      "Oh please master, just piss on me maybe, it would mean so much to me..."

      The indy movement has been far too kind and polite when it comes to staunch Unionists' submissiveness towards London politicians. And all joking aside, it's unlikely that this doesn't at times take the form of dismal sexual fantasy.

      Hard to prove definitively without spying on him among the rats and half-eaten pizzas in his skip, of course, but it's also hard to imagine any GWC existence that doesn’t involve him working himself into a frenzy about being pissed on by Generalissimo Johnson in jodhpurs.

      Delete
    4. Opening statement spot on, Skier.

      Delete
  15. Let's actually think why there is a reason to wait and be cautious. Think of all the arguments for remaking in the UK, what can they use again? Pick 1 and then think of the brexit tropes or the disaster that awaits. Strong shoulders, eh no, we love you, eh no, devo max, more pish, economy, eh brexit treasury figures the list is endless. How can we beheld to a plan a-z when the leave campaign never had to answer any questions. Take back control, we won't be told what to do from a government hundreds of miles away, but when Scots say these things it's shut up and go away. It's a joke that we are putting up with our government being belittled at every turn in supreme Court or the rewriting of the devolution settlement. If the SNP don't do something to up the anti then they have already lost. I see comments about down crying the restless natives but there is no time to be fanning about. It really is now or never. If it comes about that we are voting in a holyrood election and they are asking for another mandate without doing something to ratchet up the pressure ie a plebiscite for negotiations to leave then for me it's dead already. I understand full well what we are up against but I'd rather die on my feet than live a life on my knees. I trust Nicola but I'm in danger of withdrawing my support and looking for another party because this hold shit is seriously starting to un-nerve me. The SNP are walking a tightrope and I wish I had all the answers but I'm starting to think that the likes of Wishart and Robertson are plants and my reaction is exactly what the state has put them there to create. The warning of New Labour should really concentrate minds. I said that a long time ago before the Rev put it up, if they lose the reason for existence then they will be replaced. I still have faith but I can't deny its hard not to get thoroughly pissed right off. We have to start owning this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ''Rev''? Get real. He's leading you all up the Unionist garden path.

      Delete
  16. Why should we be scared of Johnson the guy who hides in a fridge. He gets going all right when thinks get tough - straight in to hiding.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The 31st January "response" will be crucial. A consultative referendum on independence this year is a must.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The 31st January "response" will be crucial."

      Agreed.

      I was trying to work out what would be the minimum that the SNP/Scottish Government could propose in their response for me to not seriously think about voting for someone else at Holyrood 2021.

      If the SNP said "vote for us in 2021 and we will ask for another Section 30 order" I don't think I could get on board with that unless they EXPLICITLY made clear what the Plan B was when Boris said no again.

      They managed to bluster it out in the 2019 GE with the usual "well we don't do hypotheticals" and "well we'll cross that bridge if we come to it", but I don't think I'd be supporting them if I thought they were just going to do the same thing again.

      Delete
  18. Just listening to Alison Clueless MP in the Commons. She can certainly moan for her Nat si followers. No wonder suicide is high in Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you increase the rate?

      Delete
  19. In the words of Martin Luther King ( it's MLK day here in USA) wait almost always means never. From his letter from Birmingham jail. For the record , when he was killed only about 30% of America approved of him. In 50's it was less. Bus strike lasted a year. He won if you want freedom you need to stop apologyzing for asking. Stop waiting for approval.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Chris Sacer-SloateJanuary 20, 2020 at 7:28 PM

    I have 2 main points to make. These could be helpful because I think I detect a level of despondency which is unwarranted. Let me explain.
    1. When at work, if I feel tired, I whistle a tune in Military Two Step time. It could be any tune but recently I've been whistling "Looking high high high" and "Good bye to Arthur Bignold and his Ho Hi hats". Just at the end of the whistle, I move my arm next to my body then bend my elbow to raise my hand up level to my chin. At the end I move my elbow out 90 degrees so that it's like a continuation of my shoulder. Almost. It is absolutely exhilarating. Ask my workmates - they call me Crazy Chris.
    2. I like calling people by funny names both those I know AND THOSE I DON'T!!! This can be refreshing. I sometimes call my sister in law Famagusta Lil and I call Ray Whimsical Pyff. I call my self Armjet Puffregard, but not every day.
    3. Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life.
    It's all awesome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scottish taxpayers subsidising University students. Ye cannae whack it.

      Delete
    2. Why don't you ask someone who has paid taxes?

      Delete
    3. Unlike the Nat sis I do not keep lists.

      Delete
    4. Nobody is mentioning my very important ideas on mental health, wellness and curation. WHY?

      Delete
  21. The reason johnson said no is that his extensive polling says he will lose any new iref in all probability, and probably pretty badly.

    So, he's trying desperately to buy time while he makes some shitty half ersed attempt to come up with a way out of this mess. Minister for the union lol. He's crapping himself.

    Of course all he's done by saying no however, is guarantee he'll lose when the time comes.

    But what choice did he have? It's the only card he had. He's nothing left to play now.

    What just happened is that the union admitted it has nothing to offer Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Irish Skier, what does Scotland offer the Union except moaning, griping and hard done tae stories. If the Scots (not you) left the Union they would need a new bogey man to blame. Give the English the vote on a Scottish referendum and the Jocko Nat sis would win hands down.

      Delete
    2. Lol, the english are too chickenshit for indy. Hence Boris and his no section 30. Subsidy junkies who can't give up their fix.

      No Section 30 reverses everything you fuckwit. It officially confirms England as the feart subsidy junkies who are too scared to stand on their own too feet.

      Delete
    3. Irish Skier, did you mean fookwit?

      Delete
    4. Just to be clear, I love being Irish. If you want to keep making me feel pride in that newly adopted official citizenship, please keep at it. I feel pride each time you do.

      It's great being a citizen of an independent country.

      Felt really good, so normal, handing over the passport for the first time at immigration. Glad I'll never hand over a chickenshitty english/British one again.

      Delete
    5. I just hand over my passport to enable normal travel and failed to have a nationalist orgasm.

      Delete
    6. You have never had a passport.

      Delete
  22. Aye, the Scots have bravely voted for indyref 2 but the chickenshit English are soiling themselves at the prospect of huvin tae stoan oan their ain twa feet so are bottling it and trying to stop Scotland leaving.

    What a pathetic, weak people.

    Glad I'm half irish. They've got baws, unlike England.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear you're a racist now father

      Delete
  23. It is staun and you are only half Irish now! Is that below the waist and your erse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shardwin wants to be my love puppet.

      Delete
  24. It's all proving to be difficult when we have people like Craig Murray and Stuart Campbell intent on doing everything they can to spread discontent and rumours in order to bring the SNP down over their personal hatred of Nicola Sturgeon

    Craig Murray has had he raging anger for the SNP and the FM since they turned him down as a prospective candidate, and they did that for a very good reason, his mouth, he can't keep it shut and as for Campbell he's just a self promoting nobody who lives off people who read his blog but he can't actually be a politician himself because well let's face it the guy's pretty odious

    The justice committee at Holyrood are looking at ways of shutting down internet abusers, I hope Campbell's the first to go followed by the weasel mouthed Murray

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks as though these two, Murray and Campbell, enjoy being taken to Court and having the brass neck to crowdfund to do so. Looking forward to them being shocked on both counts. Being taken to Court and few financially supporting them.

      Delete
  25. Many restless natives,mmm, i have some questions for the natives, that need logical answers,
    1: is the queen, queen of Scotland, or queen of Scots or queen of Britain?
    2: does the treaty of Arbroath hinder you, on your road to being independent?
    3: does the Scotland act help or hinder you, on the road to being independent?
    4: does the claim of right help or hinder you, on the road to being independent?
    5: does the right to choose, who governs you, help or hinder you on the road being independent
    6: do you think the Scottish people are sovereign?
    7: do you think that the Scottish parliament is sovereign?
    8: do you think the SNP are sovereign?
    9: which of the above questions, do you believe that Westminster recognises?
    10: are you waiting for a sovereign political party, to lead you to independence?
    11: are you waiting for a sovereign Scottish parliament to lead you to independence?
    12: or do you think that the political party in the Scottish parliament is waiting for the sovereign Scottish people to give them the command?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Q13, will landlords be able to increase my rent.

      Delete
    2. Always nice to know I have a wee unknown pervert lurking in my garden shed.

      Delete
  26. GCC is set to increase business rates and council tax bands for football clubs within Glasgow
    That'll be a good start

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Council services are the essentials for all and must be paid for. Everyone living in a council area gets the same service but some people think someone else must pay! Four people who work and living in the same house get subsidised because only two pay. The four shit and use clean water. They get drainage and street lighting, libraries, parks etc. The I do not need to pay mentality needs to change.

      Delete
  27. Meanwhile on the other side of the North Sea.

    “(CNN)It’s not a boast you usually hear about an oil field: Norway says its huge new facility is great for the environment.
    “Johan Sverdrup is now open. That’s good news for our investors, for Norway — and for emissions,” boasts the official website of Equinor, the Norwegian state company that operates the field.
    Its critics, however, see Norway’s third-biggest oil field ever as a perfect symbol of the Scandinavian country’s climate hypocrisy.

    The field, located around 87 miles off the Norwegian coast, is named after the country’s first prime minister. It has reserves of 2.7 billion barrels of oil, enough to last half a century and bring more than $100 billion into Norway’s pocket.
    The operation is powered by energy brought from the shore, generated mainly from hydroelectric power — a rarity for offshore oil fields, most of which are powered by diesel generators.”

    ReplyDelete
  28. You and your brit jock friends are vermin GWC. I meant it when I wrote it. You'll never be English. The best you can hope for is to polish our shoes.

    At least sturgeon's nats have some self respect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My pal used to say "I've been plugging fuds".

      Delete
  29. I think I'm becoming convinced that the way forward is to stop seeing independence as something achieved at any one moment and stop setting ourselves, self torturing, deadlines for getting it done.
    Maybe our movement should say, 'Thank you King Boris the Mendacious for telling us clearly that democracy is ended in relation to our right to self determination - that discussion being over we will act accordingly.'
    We then make every major issue, and vote, that comes up about independence. If we find that we're keeping support with us we keep up the strategy ramming home the authoritarian nature of the right wing uk state and project this into every corner of the globe that will listen. Extra parliamentary tactics can be gradually added.
    Even if our support holds up this could take years but we would accumulate mandates of all shapes and sizes and gradually make our country ungovernable for the uk.
    So a demand for section 30 this year could be one step, rejecting a shitty Brexit 'deal'is a second, a plebicitary election in 2021 a third etc. etc.
    If support starts to ebb we know that the 'bottle' is not there and I go and spend my last few years sitting on a bench looking at sunsets over the sea.

    On a subsidiary matter - for 'Skier' and a couple of others that the pathetic little tic specifically targets it will be very hard but let's just ignore GWC. His grotesque thoughts demonstrate every time that he's a miserable inadequate. Responses just encourage his racist poison.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is rather grotesque not wishing Scotland to be run and dominated by the EU pounces. This in itself is further proof that it is just anti English hatred that motivates the pretend Scottish Nat sis.

      Delete
    2. Indy is nothing to do with the EU you dunce. The two questions are separate. Hence separate referendums, which made this obvious to my neighbours 3 year old, but obviously not you.

      Delete
    3. Irish Skier if indy has nothing to do with the EU then why are the Nat sis saying it is!

      Delete
  30. Other words come to mind as well, such as racist, incitement, hate speech, its a wonder he has not been charged yet with one of the above,

    ReplyDelete
  31. James, should a Scottish Minister lodge a bill to hold a referendum on independence without first obtaining a section 30, could the speaker over rule this due to the proposed bill being out with the competence of the devolved parliament?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No,is my understanding. The speaker does not decide what's with competence, but advises. This happened before with the counter Brexit bill. Speaker said outwith competence, but it went through anyway. Court judged it within competence, but then too late as the scum racist English tories had got around it by the back door in the meantime.

      Delete
    2. Also, it's not the speakers opinion that might cause a bill to be challenged in court, but rather the speaker is more likely to say a bill might be outwith competence because it is, and it's that that leads to challenges, not the speakers opinion. If that makes sense.

      Delete
  32. Beware the enemy within. When I was a trade union steward, that was our mantra.

    Make no mistake, the enemy and mean the British state will have infiltrated every part of society.


    What they want is infighting which they will exploit.

    What they do not want is a peaceful democratic movement that moves from strength to strength because its the right thing to do.

    Allthis talk of plan B is exactly what they want, they want us to be on the streets, fighting the establishment.

    I'm in my 60s now and can see Independence on the horizon.

    A bit of patience goes a long way. Agreed, it can't be delayed forever but the more people see of the current Tories in action, the better.

    Don't ruin it by civil disobedience, the SNP are better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The UK government up to no good. Apparently, a sneaky little clause has been sneaked into the Brexit Bill, asserting that the UK parliament is sovreign. Very sneaky. A sneaky attempt to override Scottish constitutional law. If they get away with it, were screwed:

    https://equalitynation.org/2020/01/18/uk-parliament-is-sovereign/

    ReplyDelete
  34. Clause 38 in the Bill asserts that the UK parliament is sovereign.

    Trouble ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see how that would change Scottish constitional law. It's an assertion.

      And anyway, if Scots mps vote to withdraw Scotland from Westminster, that would be the union being ended by a sovereign westminster.

      I always understood that's how indy would happen. Scottish grand Committee would meet and vote to withdraw.

      Sinn fein do this at every election.

      Delete
    2. Its a nothing clause. All its saying that despite some EU law still being in force; EG:

      directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be
      recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B
      of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law
      for the implementation period)

      The UK Parliment is Sovereign in the fact that it is choosing to keep this EU rules not being a made to put them in by the EU.

      Its just a clause to keep the hard core Brexiters happy; ie there will still be some EU laws post Brexit but that's OK because the UK Parliament is choosing to have them rather than being 'forced'.

      Its a nothing clause.

      Delete
  35. English government hatred of the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish sees all three devolved parliaments refuse consent for the brexit Bill. A massive power grab by England which completely overturns the devolution referendums, never mind the remain voted in NI and Scotland.

    Johnson's racist English nationalists are attacking not just remainers, nor even them and pro-indy movements, but unionists too. They are attacking all non-English peoples. An attack on devolution is an assault on soft unionists.

    The union will not survive this.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Irish Skier you are not Scottish do stop your hypocrisy. 31 January 2020 not far away. Seems the Nat sis do not have a secret lawyer bunny in their top hat.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The thought of the SNP attempting their own illegitimate referendum is delicious.

    None of the usual polling places. No access to the electoral roll. No electoral commission oversight. No proper media coverage. Maybe indyscotlive could hold their own debates.

    Probably have some Catalans and Irish people to act as 'neutral observers'

    Just a nationalist curiosity. A trumped up petition. I dare say some enterprising nationalists would vote several times.

    And then when the result is declared, with the ballots being tallied somewhere away from tv cameras (except for RT's) the result would be declared - a thumping 99% win on a turnout that would be estimated (and it would have to be an estimate) of less than 40%.

    And Scotland would still be in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All those who followed the Bobby Sands diet plan and died in their own shite would get the vote.

      Delete
    2. That's not how it would work though. It would be exactly like the last one. Identical in every legal way. That's what is being passed into law, again.

      Unless it is successfully challenged. Which it's not clear is actually possible. Even if it was successfully challenged, that might just mean some small revisions and it can go ahead.

      It's a game of chicken really. Politics is controlling things.

      Delete
  38. Everyone who wants scottish independence wants a referendum on it. They also want to win it. Diving in all guns blazing could cost us independence for decades. Jim sillars is not completely wrong here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hate to upset you mate but Jim Sillars was never pro Independence in his life, he was a Labour party Unionist the same as the rest of them it was only his marriage to Margo McDonald that made him ride the Independence bus to more achievement than he could have done with Labour, and if Margo could see him now she'd batter him wae a fish

      Jim Sillars is just Gordon Brown in a different suit, always has been

      Delete
    2. Think that is unfair. Read his book and listen to him in person.

      Fwiw I think we would just get a yes vote over the line just now. But another few months of brexit chaos will increase that number.

      Delete
    3. Jim Sillars was tipped to be Labour leader early seventies. However the oil crisis fragmented the Labour Party and Sillars moved on. The problem he has is he is really a socialist and that was not acceptable with Labour or later on the Scottish Nat si Party. His opposition to the EU capitalist Mafia is commendable. The Nat si party Tartan Tories cuddling up to the EU anti working class capitalist class says it all.

      Delete
    4. Sillars would've settled for being an insular wee Jockstrap oil rich billionaire not co-operating with anybody, although a Socialist he hated the English more than anybody I ever met after they stole all the oil and are still stealing it, he's a troubled man

      Delete
    5. The numbers are there now, polls will never show more than between 52% to 55%, anyway nobody should allow the media to convince people into running countries by media polls or you might as well leave it all to the media which is what they try to do now, if you want real democracy you cut the media out and put it to the people instead of allowing the media to analyse and disect and disseminate their biased narrative

      There's no such thing in the world as an unbiased media, it's an impossible idea because they're paid by people to promote their news channels as the mostest bestest newsyness of truthyness, we must stop them selling their truth

      Delete
    6. Sillars would be a troubled man if he actually hated all the English people because of oil. The oil at the time was lawfully British oil and still is today.

      Delete
    7. Point out on a map the *country* of Britain
      Post a picture of a flag representing that *country*
      Show a single document that shows such a *country* exists

      Delete
  39. The UK Parliament is sovereign, in England, where the English Monarchy seded it's authority to the then English parliament, however in Scotland as is Internationally recognised the people of Scotland are sovereign as legally understood by the declaration of Arbroath and the Claim of right

    So far this has not been tested in a court of law as there has been no challenge until perhaps now, the question must be which courts of law are these things challenged in and of course the English government, not the UK would be the defendant in such a case so legal challenge cannot take place in an English court but and International court as Scotland's claim or indeed possibly a Welsh petition for difference would have weight in law as the UK as the defendant would be forced into the position of defending it's signature to the United Nations charter of self determination for all while simoultaneously attempting to deny self determination to a country (Scotland) that is not a colony protectorate or territory of the UK but a declared (by the UK) voluntary partner

    The UK have still not left the Chagos Islands yet, so any legal arguments to an International court would not be easy for a self declared despotic regime

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By international court what are we thinking exactly? Judge Judy?

      Delete
    2. UN court will soon put sanctions on the uk, including potential expulsion from the security Council,for not allowing chagos islanders self determination.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/05/uk-forfeit-security-council-chagos-islands-dispute

      Delete
  40. The Herald states Scots will leave the EU kicking and screaming. There is no evidence to suggest this. I will welcome leaving this corrupt institution. My Mrs who is a remainer hardly mentions it and it is not a topic in her workplace. The Scottish Nat sis have totally ignored the over a million who voted Leave as they did the over two million who voted to remain in the UK Union. The Nat sis do not work on the principle of representing all the people only their narrow back clique.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your wife must be very tolerant having to put up with an asshole like you....

      Delete
    2. I'd like to start calling her Shardwin

      Delete
    3. There is no chance that the lowlife Britnat turd that is GWC has a missus unless it is a blowup doll.

      Delete
  41. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 22, 2020 at 1:48 PM

    Eat Your Cereal 2020:

    >union PR blitz coming:

    >Playbook can report that Downing Street is planning a major PR blitz north of the border in the coming weeks in a bid to shore up wavering support for the union. Senior sources say the U.K. government is planning a big push on pro-union messaging in Scotland over the weeks ahead as part of a two-pronged approach to undermining support for independence. The feeling in London is the SNP has been allowed free rein to push highly partisan, pro-indy messaging for too long, and that it is time for Westminster to push back. “You’re never going to win over the die-hards, of course,” a senior Tory source tells Playbook. “But it’s about shoring up support among ‘our people,’ showing the unionists we mean business. And it’s about winning over the people in the middle, the waverers. We need to get that 45 percent [who voted ‘Yes’ in 2014] down to 35 percent.”

    >And there’s more: Phase 2 of the pro-union push will then be launched early in the summer, with a shake-up of the machinery of Whitehall designed to show Scotland it is central to U.K. government thinking. Part of the overhaul will be based on the still-unpublished report on strengthening the union by Tory peer Andrew Dunlop. “Some of it we will take, some we will ignore,” the source said.

    https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/politico-london-playbook-new-lisa-life-bezos-vs-mbs-barniers-man-about-town/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Westminster are bunch ofincompetents, all they will do is increase support for independence with this.

      And the fact 70% of Scotland want to remain in EU seems to be overlooked by that piece.

      Delete
    2. Maybe if they respected the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish non consent motions on their brexit Bill that might help a little.

      Delete
    3. The UK in a UK referendum 1975 voted to remain and that was that. So some lost their Teddies this time round gut that is expected from fascists. Ye cannae hiv yer Haggis an eat it says the Bard.

      Delete
    4. Can I start calling you Shardwin?

      Delete
    5. The non consent motions are due to the english power grab GWC. This overturns the eg 74% yes of 1997.

      Delete
  42. I'm getting more and more depressed by the day .It's obvious that Johnson and the Tories are out to crush the Independence movement..
    The movement needs leadership a clear plan of where we go from here .It's this lack of leadership that causing the dissent in the ranks .We can't just keep going into every election seeking just one more mandate..
    As the years go by I hold the Union and Unionist with more and more disdain I am modifying my language when I describe the Union and Unionist .If I said what I really thought I would get banned for abusive language

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sovereignty? Where it lies doesn't really matter. They will not let us go. That option was lost in 2014. The history of the UK and its 'possessions' is always one of a final conflict. No one leaves with a hand-shake. The hand-shake is always part of the making up process several decades down the line. This government and possibly the Labour Party too are lining up to keep hold of Scotland - it will end in tears and possibly some blood. That's the UK way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Irish side of me can concur.

      I'll note however that the English/Brit imperialists are chickshite wee wanks though. They'll soil themselves and run if you put up a bit of a fight.
      Mind we are talking about the likes of Gove and 'back door Boris' here. Not exactly men of stature.

      It's why they've no empire left.

      Delete
  44. GWCJanuary 22, 2020 at 3:45 PM

    The UK in a UK referendum 1975 voted to remain and that was that. So some lost their Teddies this time round gut that is expected from fascists. Ye cannae hiv yer Haggis an eat it says the Bard.


    Mr WC,

    Can I remind you in 1975, there was no devolution

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given unionists overturned the overwhelming Yes vote for Scottish devolution in 1979, it seems only fair that we nats get to pick a referendum to overturn.

      Would you agree GWC?

      Delete
    2. No you nats sis should pick your nose or scratch yer erses. It was a very poor turnout in 79. 2014 and 2016 was a massive turnout.

      Delete
    3. Shardwin. Oh, Shardwin, are you wearing your lucky string vest?

      Delete
  45. Nicola Sturgeon isn't a freedom fighter she's a polician, the freedom fighting will be done by others as many countries have had to do in the past to rid themselves of dictators, and it will be done again

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cannot fight sitting in an Irish Republican pub in the Gallowgate ponsin drink from alter boys.

      Delete
    2. Born and bred Protestant but I'd be more than happy to take down every single one of you Orange Lodge knuckle dragging illiterate white supremacist sectarian throwbacks and your celebrations at murdering folk of another religion, and you typify the breed of hatred towards everyone who's not one of you
      You and you're kind will cause our country the same trouble your kind caused in Northern Ireland

      Cowards every one of you, wee Internet gutless Mammies boys

      Delete
    3. GRAND Catholic Cyclops LodgeJanuary 22, 2020 at 10:53 PM

      My son you are right about those Scottish Protestants we should have dun them in.

      Delete
    4. Another wee hidey internet coward bigot pops up

      Delete
  46. Irish Skier, In memory of Terry Jones. Always Look on the Bright Side of Life. The Union for anither hunner years.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Knickerless looked good in her Royal Blue outfit today. She said people are unhappy probably reflecting on her chances of a referendum.

    ReplyDelete
  48. There are people on here trying hard to incite war or and violence in the future for Scotland one way or another, first they try incite violence through football, then religion, then continuous derogatory name calling of the people of Scotland, hopefully their tactics to incite violence will be recognised for what it is and perhaps this incitement could be reported, as I understand it is against the law, anywhere in the uk, not just Scotland.
    And maybe those whom are repeat offenders might consider the amount of evidence that is mounting up against them over the years on this site alone.
    I am sure they will retort with some more incitement and abuse, however from a legal point of view, this will only dig themselves into evidence that would be held against them.
    Back to my points I was trying to make earlier. The people of Scotland are separate from the Scottish parliament or any Scottish political party whom are fighting, to gain being recognision as independent, in Scotland.
    The people of Scotland have, in all their entirety, maintained their own sovereignty as a collective people, this issue keeps repeating itself on these sites, we have the right to choose who governs us, so instead of waiting for a non-sovereign Scottish government to try act on our behalf through British elections, why not direct your sovereignty to choosing your own new government.
    It is not sovereignty that the Scottish people lack, they already own that, it is the lack of organisation to put their sovereignty together in writing so as to choose whom governs
    them while retaining the sovereignty of the Scottish people, That is what gives you authority
    to act as a sovereign nation of people and when that happens you have acted upon it you will be legally recognised anywhere, then you can choose who is in the government and for how long they sit in term.
    AUOB is is good example of Scottish sovereign people’s coming together, However it produces very little in the sense of legal weight, in fact is often ignored, as is the Scottish government,
    We are sovereign as the collective people, and have the right to choose who governs us, until you’re choice is put in writing, you will always be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do the Nat sis put up candidates for the UK Parliament. Is it just to line their pockets! Or is it the old excuse that they are protecting the Scots. Or is it the other old excuse that they want to change the system from within! They could at least table a motion to get rid of the Lords. I assume by incitement you mean the hatred towards our English friends and neighbours.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but a friend would happily agree to a section 30 without question, respecting the right of scots to decide their future alone.

      An enemy would do the opposite.

      Delete
  49. If Scotland holds a non-section 30'd referendum, as long as it was legal under Scots law, there would be no problem with international recognition. Apart from, maybe, in the case of England itself.

    It would only be an illegal referendum that would struggle with recognition.

    And you would need an actual Scottish court judgement (the law of the land) striking down the referendum Bill (or declaring the result invalid). England simply screaming 'it's not legal!' would of course be insufficient.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Like I said, incitement, trying to set English people against Scottish people or vice versa, I was born in England, my father before me and so on since before 1066, lived in Scotland and lived in Wales, and my grandmother was Irish, my ancestors come from the England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, I personally found lovely people in all these places, and have no objection to any of them, but I have found that the media spin stories that try to categorise a nation into one kind of character and personality, this is not true of England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland, I have found if you treat people with decency and respect you get the same back, I would never think of insulting someone or calling them names in a derogatory or racist manner if I wanted friends before enemies, there is good and bad in every nation, that does not make everyone good or everyone bad, we are all humans trying to survive first and foremost,
    As to my position on an independent country, I think that the old union no longer works for Scotland, England, Wales or Ireland, all four of these nations should now be concerned with looking after their own nation especially in these uncertain times, how would I like to see the future?
    I would love to see all four nations acting like grown ups and prospering, working together when needed and looking out for employment, the young, old and the needy in a more humanitarian way in their own countries, there is nothing wrong or illegal about this scenario, it would be a lovely dream to envisage four peaceful nations, where the biggest of those nations did not push its weight around bullying the other three, why not strive for harmony, I have got to the stage where I and many people like myself, on these sites are fed up to the back teeth of wars, austerity, our young leaving our countries, of the possible next financial collapse, bail outs for the richest only, surely you would like to see your nation doing well too, wherever you were born or live?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, there is an unpleasant, racist section in all populations. They have achieved office in England, and we are seeing the result of that.

      It does not reflect the population as a whole of course, but it is who we are up against.

      The refusal of a section 30 is incitement to violence by a government in office. To take away the right to vote is to say that you don't support peaceful democracy. Its very dangerous.

      Delete
  51. I know, due to racism, that many English / brits think an indyref must be 'British' (section 30) to have credibility.

    I'm afraid people in other countries are not racist against Scots like you are, and likewise the don't think English/British things are somehow naturallly superior.

    So, for them, a Scottish organised iref is fine. So long as it seems free and fair, representing scots public opinion.

    The fact that England is now obviously try to subjugate the friendly Scots can only generate more sympathy here.

    It's certainly what I'm finding anecdotally here in France.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Cottonbob - I for one agree with a lot of what you say. I certainly do not condone violence. However, what I was saying in my previous post is that I fear the impending disruption, chaos, violence that might occur. When you look at the history of the UK and its possessions it is the UK that creates either directly or otherwise violence in almost every instance when parts of the empire wishes to leave. This present conservative government is as near fascist as you can get and it is laying the ground that might foment feelings of injustice and suppression and thus incite the actions that they will meet with accordingly. They create the background and let things take the course they have designed. Its easy, they keep the moral ground and get the result they want.
    One other point: you say "The people of Scotland have, in all their entirety, maintained their own sovereignty as a collective people" this is an idea that is trotted out on many websites including this one and it means nothing apart perhaps from later recognition in international law - in the meantime such a claim has to be respected by the people who hold the power and they will act only in accord with what they believe is in the best interests of the UK as a whole or as I would put it 'the best interests of the vested interests of the UK'. It is naive to think that the UK is likely to allow an easy move (particularly in the short to mid term) to independence for Scotland - they might but it is not likely. We had that chance in 2014 and it was too close for them to allow another. If they remove the democratic route to independence - which has been mentioned amongst the members of the main UK parties - then there will always be someone somewhere who will go for an alternative route. Have a look into the history of the UK around the world - its not a pretty one.

    ReplyDelete
  53. WT, I agree that England has been a warmongering nation, I read recently somewhere on a Scottish site, that in the three hundred or so years we have been in the union with England, that there are only about seventy years that we have not been at war with another country in total, I hope I quoted them reasonable well,
    Think of all the lives that have and are being lost, think of all that destruction to other people’s homes and lands, think of the finances that nearly three hundred years of war has cost the four nations known as Britain, does the population of England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland want this for their future or even for the future of there own country. as to the effect that these Three hundreds years of war has had in contributing to climate change I can only imagine.
    I do not think we have to fight our way to freedom, we have any legal avenues, the first one I was talking about above, was recognised sovereignty of the Scottish people throughout the centuries nationally and internationally, Westminster recognised the right of the Scottish people to choose who governs them in July 2018, this is just one of many times throughout history that the sovereignty of the Scottish people as a nation of people has been recognised, the monarchy, nor the governments are above the the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, however it is very difficult to make the majority of people in Scotland realise this, I think it is a case of, ( It’s to good to be true) in most people’s minds, it cannot be that easy, or someone would have done it by now, well the only people that have the right to do it, are those very same people, but they doubt themselves, and wait for someone else to lead,
    Our devolved Scottish government is not sovereign, we are.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I have just seen the very rude comments about me by Anonymous on 20 Jan at 8.48 and again the next day. Perhaps it is not worthwhile to reply to a no-name coward, but let me merely observe that the proportion of people who know the truth of the matter to which you refer on blogs like this and within the Indy movement more widely is increasing rapidly and now quite substantial. Your vituperation will not end well.

    ReplyDelete
  55. sorry rather ironically my name didn't come out on that last comment

    ReplyDelete
  56. I initially supported the idea not to go for another Scottish independence referendum until we were sure of winning it. This strategy also seems to have strong support in the SG and SNP.

    However, given the fact that Scotland is about to be dragged out of the EU, clearly against the will of the people, I think we really need another ref soon to clarify if the people are willing to accept this - being dragged out even if its unpopular north of the border.

    If we believe in democracy, surely we have to do this, even if we loose - it may be more important to protect democracy than to hang on and hang on until we can win? Some things are just too important.

    ReplyDelete
  57. And if the people vote NO again, well at least they know what's coming and cannot blame anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Unison the Union have issued a statement saying that they support Scotland's right to a referendum and it should be decided by the Scottish parliament

    Alex Rowley constitutional spokesman for Labour in Scotland has called for the Scottish parliament to make the decision on an Independence referendum and not Westminster

    That's at least one union and the Labour party now in favour, who's next, I think now we can see the plan coming together, a united Scotland as opposed to an untied UK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's great news. The tories are attacking Scotland, including Scottish unionists. It's breaking the UK.

      We all need to stand together to defend Scotland, her parliament, and her people, including their right to choose.

      Unionistd can freely campaign for the union, but we must never allow a situation where another country tries to overrule our self determination. It's fucking appalling that this is happening. Nobody should support it.

      Westminster may decide matters for the union - and we have to suck them up if we stay - but independence is a decision for Scots alone.

      If unionists win elections, they get to implement unionism. If the nats win, they get a chance to ask folks about independence. Fair's fair.

      The only folk to make the decision and judge parties for their actions are the Scottish people.

      Delete
    2. I recall the Nat sis had their referendum 2014.

      Delete
    3. Take that up with Scottish labour and unison. They support the decision of the Scottish people and Parliament on Iref2.

      Scottish people can have as many referendums as they bloody well like. One every year if that's what folk vote for in elections. It's certainly not up to folk in England to dictate on this.

      Delete
    4. Taxpayers pay for referendums. I thought the Scottish public services would better value for our money than a bunch of Nat sis going on a spending spree to suit their own ends.

      Delete
    5. @GWC You're not a tax payer though are you, you can't possibly be a working person when you live on this blog 24 hours per day, so you're either a sponging pensioner living off the young like me or you're jobless, well of course you could be just dogging school I suppose, but you're bigotry sounds too entrenched, so just another useless toothless sectarian reading your knuckles

      Delete
    6. You are clearly a prick when you comment on the income of a person you do not know. I did dog school though.

      Delete
    7. You can give it out but can't take it, WC.

      Delete
  59. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 23, 2020 at 4:02 PM

    SS: "If Scotland holds a non-section 30'd referendum, as long as it was legal under Scots law, there would be no problem with international recognition."

    See Angus MacNeil's tweet yesterday:

    @AngusMacNeilSNP
    ·
    18h
    In fact last week speaking to senior Swiss diplomats on other options for Scotland - if no Sec30. Of 2 other options I mentioned there seemed no problem of international recognition of independence, if achieved to Scotland's satisfaction.

    Note the wording: "if achieved to Scotland's satisfaction." Not 'to the UK's satisfaction'.

    Hard not to think this will be crucial in coming months.

    --------------

    Cottonbob: "the sovereignty of the Scottish people as a nation of people has been recognised, the monarchy, nor the governments are above the the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, however it is very difficult to make the majority of people in Scotland realise this."

    I used to argue that what we needed was a referendum on this, to ask people who they believed had sovereignty, Scotland's people or WM. But now I think a simpler question should be asked, ideally on the same day as the next Holyrood elections: "Do you believe the UK Prime Minister should respect the result of an independence referendum, whether or not they agreed to it?"

    Get a win on that question on the same day as an election Unionists didn't boycott. Then hold indyref2 weeks later, the result given validity by the result of that first referendum and the fact that so many Unionists would have voted in it.

    A Yes in the indyref would surely then be seen internationally as having been "achieved to Scotland's satisfaction."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM

      One can of Red Bull later:

      That first referendum question is probably still unnecessarily narrow. If by the time of asking, indyref2 has been found legal in the Scottish courts, it might be possible to ask some variation of "If an independence referendum legal in Scots law is held, should the result be respected in Scotland, the UK and internationally?"

      How to make that less of a leading question I'll leave to the experts. If James could make it so, it might be worth asking that question in his poll.

      Delete
    2. But of course. The Swiss don't feel the need to get italy's permission for a referendum.

      Same applies for other European countries.

      Europe isn't on England's side here. However, while the UK is still a member, it will not take sides. That happens when the membership ends and the trade negotiations begin. Then it will be gloves off. Politely, but still gloves off, particularly as england is not a prospective member, but wants to undercut the 27+.

      And remember, all this crap about minister for the union is because Johnson is shitting bricks. He doesn't know how to stop the breakup. He's losing control. The no section 30 is a last desperate roll of the dice which may have bought time, but ultimately killed the union.

      Delete
    3. Depends on what happens next week. If the Scot Gov does not exercise its power in holding a Second Indy ref, they will soon stop bothering having any interest in what it says.

      Next week is a key moment on how Sturgeon is viewed in the EU, is she a strong politician who acts decisively and delivers on her promise of an indy ref in 2020, or is she just a coward full of talk and bluster but no action who bottles it and does not call an second indyref despite having the power to do so?




      Delete
    4. That's not how things work though. It's more to do with the perception of the longer term direction of travel in Scotland (which is towards indy) the legal situation, benefits to the EU of Scotland being a member + a weakened UK outside the EU etc. No point doing a trade deal with the UK only for it to break up a year later... Does Johnson have the balls to put down Scotland militarily, for how long and at what financial cost / lives lost? etc. What about EU businesses / citizens in Scotland in such a situation?

      Sturgeon's actions are only a very small part of that. If the EU judges Scots are going to go for independence, and probably soon, then they'll judge if Sturgeon doesn't deliver, someone else will. Same way May went out and in came Boris.

      They're not stupid, and are thinking long term. Unlike some posters on here.

      Delete
    5. Switzerland wouldn't ask italy for a referendum.

      But if Veneto wanted independence from Italy it would need the consent of Italy itself for a referendum.

      Because of course Veneto had an unofficial referendum. Supposedly 90% voted yes to independence on a turnout of 62%. Nobody thought the result credible and, as you probably know, Veneto is not independent.

      A blueprint for an illegal Scottish independence referendum.

      Delete
    6. No point doing a trade deal with the UK only for it to break up a year later...

      Thats the point if no indy ref in 2020 then they don't know whats happening. There not going to wait until to the 2021 Scot Parliament elections to see if there is a pro Indy majority. What if there is not? Do they wait to see what happens at the election past that?

      No, if the Scot Gov do not use there powers to call a 2020 indy ref they will assume that Scotland will be part of the UK for the short to medium term (which is all politicians care about, they are not bothered what happens a decade down the line, they will not be in power then).

      Certainly if no indy ref is called then Scotland looses the support of Ireland. They will remember the pain and suffering they had to go through to get Independence. For the Scot Gov having the power to call an indy ref and not use it will not sit well.

      Of course there will be no military needed, if there is no indy ref this year, its because the Scot Gov decided not to call one, here and Borris will be in full agreement that there should not be an indy ref.

      Delete
  60. It is really key to understand, that other Europeans don't see Scotland as a region of a 'great british' country. They see us as we see ourselves; a country and a people. For Europeans, we are scots. From Scotland. Haggis, whiskey, braveheart. Rubbish at football but not so bad a rugby. And absolutely, 100%, definitely not English!

    2014 seemed to confirm all of this. That we choose to be in the UK freely. If they didn't quite understand what the UK was, 2014 said to the world it was a free union. A mini EU. Just really like folks on Europe thought.

    They are appalled at what England is now trying to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 23, 2020 at 5:51 PM

      Can confirm. I spend lots of time in Spain and even here the attitude from literally everybody, from every country, is that Scottish independence is inevitable so "what are you waiting for?"

      Literally nobody has said they don't think it'll happen or 'isn't Scotland too poor for that?'or 'isn't Scotland just a region?'. And that's in Spain, remember.

      When Brexit comes up it's not only been embarrassing due to the Waiting for Godot absurdism in the HoC etc. It's also a bit humiliating to come from a country that gets dragged out of the EU by its southern neighbour, at a national cost of many tens of billions, and just meekly goes along with this.

      Imagine how we'd view the Netherlands if they allowed themmselves to be dragged out of the EU by Germany because of a national inferiority complex and just timidly shrugged their shoulders. Embarrassing even to type those words.

      'To see ourselves as others see us' indeed.

      Delete
  61. The tide is turning on England now with three out of the four countries rejecting them, Unions beginning to reject them, fishermen have now seen the error of their ways and are rejecting them, except the English fishermen because they don't have a clue yet, businesses are up in arms over Johnson

    Trade deal? not a chance, it'll be just like the EU exit deal, the EU will tell him what's happening and he'll fold like a cheap suit exactly like he did over Northern Ireland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Says the trade expert and soothsayer. The government have plan B and that is WTO rules. If the fascist EU play hardball which I hope they do then we are well and truly out of the Mafia.

      Delete
    2. @GWC Oh do explain to us all how WTO trade rules work and the mahoosive benefits, I'm sure we're all agog with excitement to learn how to do that Tarrif free

      Delete
  62. Replies
    1. I only got my Irish birth certificate because it seems to piss you off so much. I filed it with my Scottish one.

      I don't have a British one as no such thing exists.

      Delete
    2. You must have got them from Tam Shepherds joke shop in Queen St, Glasgow. My UK passport is expiring next year, I doubt I will renew it. I can still travel to Ireland under the 1923 agreement.

      Delete
    3. They call mé Zodiac.

      Delete
    4. So you are saying that you are in possession of a forged document? You don't get two birth certificates just because you have dual nationality, you have one, issued in the country you were born in.

      Delete
    5. No, I have a scottish birth certificate and an irish one (FBR birth certificate). I had to submit the former as part of the documentation for the later. I am a dual national (Scottish and Irish) and have three citizenships (Eire, UK, EU).

      You are just thick as fuck.

      I love the Irish. I could not find UK or Britain when selecting my country during the online application and I was a bit panicked as a result. Wtf? Then I realised I needed to scroll to to 'S...' and there it was. Country of residence = Scotland. Britain / UK not considered a country. Quality.

      As others see us...

      Delete
    6. I have an Irish driving license from this year (brexit), with my nationality stated as Scottish, not an available option on the yUK one i traded in. Funny that, progressive forward and outward looking 21st century nations, with lower income inequality, higher GDP per capita (nearly double) and more than double the pension and social security provisions of yUK.

      Delete
    7. My French marriage certificate has my nationality as 'Écossais' (Scottish). After all, that's what my birth certificate says. Born in Scotland under Scots law. Scottish. I may be a British citizen, but my legal nationality is scottish. For the French authorities, and the Irish authorities, and beyond, that's what we are, both legally and 'culturally'.

      British is a term only really used by brits.

      Delete
  63. James,

    Perhaps an update on your / our opinion poll would be useful?

    For this 'debate'is going nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is because Irish Skier has a dummy tit on his poteen bottle.

      Delete
  64. @GWC What's wrong with Skier being Irish is he somehow a lesser mortal than you or is it just you people that are Ra Peepel and everybody else is beneath you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Naw not at all. Skier is Irish one day then a Jocko the next. He claims his Mrs is a Frog. What can you believe. He will claim to be English next week or a Ugandan representative from the Vatican.

      Delete
    2. It's hilarious that it annoys the hell out of you so much. I can't really understand why, but who cares. If it winds you up so much you have to waste time posting about it, it's a good thing.

      Delete
    3. GWC. I'm going to see if I can get myself an irish driving licence too.

      Oh, and on Iref2 day, I'm going to vote as an irishman / eu citizen. I might even be French too by then. If so, I'll vote as a Frenchman, saying 'oui' as I place my x.

      Delete
    4. Irish Skier, do not flatter yourself. I reckon your da was on a one night leave from his foreign merchant ship.

      Delete
  65. Some Britnat turds made some noise at Holyrood during PMQs. They couldn't string a sentence together and were spouting a lot of crap probably GWC.

    ReplyDelete
  66. They were two of Ruth Davidson's OO no surrender troops

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In private one of them dresses up like a schoolgirl.

      Delete
  67. This tweet from Blair mcdougall describes perfectly what I keep saying.

    It's the brit unionists that are the 'subsidy junkies', and proud of it too it would appear. Lazy bastards, living off the backs of others.

    You see, unlike Blair and other unionists, I do pay for all the public services I get. HMRC help themselves every month to my pay packet. I voted yes too, i.e. for Scotland to stand on its own two feet.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1220287937776144384

    I wonder at what point my English family members who moved to Scotland became better. Did it happen like Popeye eating spinach as they crossed the border or was it more gradual? Plus the *massive* irony is we don’t pay for those things. The ugly, evil, uncaring English people do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He really is openly saying that he's proud to be a lazy arsed bastard living off the backs of the english.

      Even if the subsidy myth were true, who would want that? Who would want to live off the backs of others?

      Well, unionists it seems. And hence I guess why I am not unionist. I have self respect and will pay my own way thanks.

      Delete
  68. The SNP policy of doing as little as possible about the idea of leaving the UK obviously works very well for them. The only reason they could have for changing that is losing votes, which sounds very unlikely. My prediction for their response to Johnson is that they will declare another 'Summer independence campaign', the same as they did last year, the year before, and the year before that. Remember them?

    As an aside, can I suggest to Mr Kelly that 'GWC' and 'Scottish Skier' are both banned from posting, forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've no idea why anyone would want to ban Scottish Skier, but it's not possible to ban people on this platform anyway. (Peter A Bell is absolutely convinced that I used some sort of plug-in to ban him, but he's wrong about that, as about so many other things.)

      Delete
    2. Ban scots from posting...Ban scots from voting. It reflects the same mindset.

      Delete
  69. Furthermore, the SNP response the last time they were refused an exception to the Scotland Act for a referendum was to declare another 'Summer independence campaign' that never happened. That course of action didn't do them much harm. Also, when the Scottish Tories declared that the last Holyrood election was all about independence, the only people that worked well for were the Tories.

    I think the chances of the SNP doing something unprecedented are zero. I even think the chances of a single SNP MP or MSP calling for something unprecedented are zero.

    What to do? Boycott the Holyrood election. That would be the only option that could result in change. But the chances of that happening are zero, as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boycotting the Holyrood election could certainly bring about change, ie. a unionist government. How that would help matters is less clear.

      Delete
    2. What would you do if the response to Johnson is that the SNP declare another 'Summer independence campaign', which is pretty likely? Vote SNP some more?

      In those circumstances, what difference would a unionist government make apart from getting the SNP to change their tune, and egotistical angst that independence supporters would have, anyway? Holyrood already has an old-school neoliberal capitalist government.

      Delete
  70. I do think the SNP have got to do something . Johnson is determined to show who is boss .Unless Nicola and the leadership of the party do something they will look impotent and weak.People lose respect for weak and impotent government s the opposition parties will capatalise on this during the Scottish elections .
    Next week Nicola has to do something to show she on top of the situation.
    James is right at some point we have to challenge Westminster s authority .
    When and how is the big question but timing but it needs to be soon .We can't go into the Scottish Elections seeking another mandate that Johnson will reject .
    I'm actually getting quite depressed when I think about or situation.
    The Indy movement is crying out for strong and decisive leadership

    ReplyDelete
  71. If people boycott elections and allow British Nationalist parties to win at Holyrood the immediate reaction from Westminster would be the people of Scotland have confirmed they don't want Independence under any circumstances

    Remember British Nationalists only speak English or understand it when they reinterpret the translation to mean what they want it to mean

    An old Scottish saying goes "On meeting an Englishman with a mind to argue a Scotsman should remove his sword and cleave him in two thus saving very much time in getting about his day"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get that but it's not a good look for the SG to look impotent and weak which they will do if they don't deliver a road map or route to Indy After promising a referendum if we are dragged out the EU against it will and not delivering on that pledge will be the beginning of the end for the SNP government s in Edinburgh

      Johnson will be seen as having put wee Nippy in her place .People won't vote for indecisive and weak Governments .
      I don't what the SG can do or is planning but retreating with its tail between its legs can't be an option .
      Next week is crucial Nicola has got to convey that she is in charge and in control .She has to come with some concrete action .Just complaining that it's a democratic outrage that Johnson won't agree to a Section 30 won't cut it

      Delete