Wednesday, January 15, 2020

The "no legal shortcuts to independence" article relies as much on political arguments as legal ones - and those political arguments are deeply flawed

You might have seen the other day that a couple of SNP MPs tweeted a piece by the constitutional law experts Chris McCorkindale and Aileen McHarg, setting out their thoughts on the legality of an independence referendum.  It was suggested that the article would explain why the Scottish Government have settled on the approach they have.  So I read it with an open mind, wondering if it would identify a legal opportunity that will arise if we're cautious enough at this stage.  But by the time I'd reached the end, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, because it's infused with magical thinking.  It summarily dismisses pretty much every practical step that could realistically be taken to bring about a mandate for independence (and in some cases the dismissal is based at least partly on rather vague and dubious political arguments rather than legal ones), but then suggests that an SNP win in next year's Holyrood election may somehow break the logjam, without really explaining how.  And I thought: "Seriously?  Is that honestly the plan?  The last three immaculate SNP mandates were ignored by Westminster, but next time it's going to be different because reasons?"  If that really is the "strategy", there's going to have to be a rethink, because the flaw in it can be spotted from outer space.  In fairness to the authors of the article, it looks like they wrote it before the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that no Section 30 order would be granted until after Nicola Sturgeon dies from old age - in other words their reasoning is a little out of date, because they were working on the assumption that a post-2021 Section 30 order hadn't yet been ruled out by the Tories.  It most definitely has been now.

I'm not going to take issue with the legal arguments in the article, but as stated above, the critique of alternative routes to an independence mandate is often based on political points, or points that hover ambiguously between law and politics.  And some of those points really ought to be challenged.  (For the avoidance of doubt, the words in italics below are paraphrases rather than exact quotes.)

'There is no legal requirement for an independence mandate to be secured via referendum but there is arguably a constitutional requirement due to precedent.'  This reminds me of Alan Trench back in the day arguing on his Devolution Matters blog that there was a de facto constitutional bar on Westminster legislating on devolved matters without consent, due to the precedent of the Sewel Convention being repeatedly respected by successive UK governments.  And yet when a Tory government suddenly decided not to respect the Sewel Convention anymore, the Supreme Court judges said "that's fine" because they were only impressed by the letter of the law, not by informal constitutional conventions or established practice.  In any case, major constitutional changes have in the past been enacted in the United Kingdom without a referendum - most obviously, there was no referendum before the Heath government took the UK into the Common Market in 1973.  It may have become the norm since then to seek constitutional mandates by referendum, but if that option has now been made much more difficult due to factors outwith our control, it seems logical and natural to at least consider reverting to the previous practice of seeking a mandate via a scheduled election, and it's a statement of the obvious that there is no constitutional bar on doing so.  (Persuading the UK government to respect that mandate would be harder, of course, but that's a separate issue - the first step is to actually get the mandate.)

'If the Scottish Parliament pass a Referendum Bill without a Section 30 order, the UK government might pass legislation to unambiguously make the holding of referendums a reserved matter.'  Well, yes, it might do, but then it could pass such legislation at any time, and so far it has not done so, presumably because there would be a political cost attached.  If McCorkindale and McHarg feel it's a viable strategy to seek yet another mandate for a referendum in the 2021 election and cross our fingers that it's respected this time, I'm struggling to see why it would be any less viable to pass a Referendum Bill and cross our fingers that there is no blocking legislation at Westminster.

'A referendum held without a Section 30 order might be boycotted by unionists.'  Yes, it might be, and in that case the challenge for the Yes campaign would be to secure enough votes (roughly 1.8 million) to demonstrate that victory would have been secured even with a 2014-style turnout on both sides.  It's not an argument against holding such a referendum.

'Using the 2021 election to secure an outright mandate for independence wouldn't work for three reasons: a) the Scottish Government have already said they are opposed to the idea, b) the UK government wouldn't accept the mandate, and c) the process wouldn't be accepted as legitimate in Scotland, the UK and the international community.'  These are all circular arguments.  The first one is a nonsense because to pursue this strategy the Scottish Government would first have to change its mind on the principle of using an election to seek a mandate, and if it changes its mind it would clearly no longer be opposed to the idea!  Similarly, if the Scottish Government and UK Government reach an agreement that retrospectively recognises an election result as a mandate for independence, all doubts over legitimacy would fall away.  The international community certainly wouldn't raise any objections if the UK government were on board.

So it all boils down to the central question: how do you get the UK government to respect a mandate?  And McCorkindale and McHarg have failed to explain why challenging London to respect an outright mandate for independence is any less promising a strategy than challenging London to respect a fourth mandate to hold a referendum.  I would argue that it's a more promising strategy, because it would decisively move the narrative forward.  The SNP would no longer even be arguing for a referendum - it would be arguing that Scotland has already opted for independence and would be seeking negotiations to bring that into effect.  If the London parties (most obviously Labour and the Liberal Democrats) wanted to counter that by saying that major constitutional changes should only happen by referendum, it would be up to them to make the case for a second independence referendum, which would radically change the dynamic.

*  *  *

Poll fundraiser: Thank you to everyone who donated - the fundraiser reached its target within only a few hours!  It'll take at least a few days before I can access the funds (that would have been the case with pretty much any crowdfunding platform) but I'll move forward as quickly as I can.  Given that independence has shot up the news agenda over the last 24 hours, it's entirely possible that a mainstream media outlet may finally produce a poll over the coming days, but even if that happens I'll still go ahead - there'll be no harm in more than one poll.

153 comments:

  1. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 15, 2020 at 4:11 AM

    'A referendum held without a Section 30 order might be boycotted by unionists.'

    Another reason this point is shaky is it's doubtful Unionists could maintain the discipline required to make a boycott fully effective. The Tories might maintain such a boycott, initially at least, as might the BBC. But the Unionist print media made plenty of money out of indyref1 and it's unlikely that struggling publications like the Herald or Scotsman or the Guardian would turn down the cash boost that fully engaging with the indyref might mean. Then once enough papers start doing so and attempting some version of Shock and Awe II, the BBC and other TV companies might have to join in. In such circumstances, the Tory boycott might be unsustainable. All of this would help validate such a referendum for the international community.

    Or the above is just wishful thinking and instead Johnson sends in the troops.

    Every conceivable scenario and its political impact, including those troops, depends so much on how Yes is polling at the time. A massive Yes win in a referendum, boycotted or not, or a Holyrood plebiscite, when the polls already put Yes ahead by ten points or more -- that's some serious pressure to bring WM to its senses.

    Which is why the quick funding of your poll is so encouraging. Who knows, maybe we're already on our way to getting ten points ahead. Once 16 to 17-year-olds are included, Ashcroft's poll last year had us not far off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed.Just go for it. Let's get the stooshie started.

      Delete
    2. Who knows, maybe we're already on our way to getting ten points ahead. Once 16 to 17-year-olds are included, Ashcroft's poll last year had us not far off.

      Ashcroft had us at 52%. Including 16- and 17-year-olds might add another point and a half to that if we're very lucky.

      Delete
    3. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 15, 2020 at 8:54 PM

      Then add EU voters and Yes was at 54% to No's 46%. So a Yes lead of 8%, which is not far off 10%. Thanks for confirming.

      Delete
  2. Seems unlikely that the international community would not accept an independence declaration that was made following a majority win in a parliamentary election, unilateral or not, if the winning party had campaigned for that mandate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand the need for building international backing for independence and I can also see the organisation of a referendum this year as problematic (even in the case of a s30). That’s why we need to rely on political process. Holyrood 2021 has to be used as a mandate for independence. A confirmatory referendum can be held after the elections (without a s30) but the SNP should have that clearly stated in their manifesto. If they can’t do that then they need to move over.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since their article was published Craig Murray has also written a rebuttal based on International law rather than UK domestic law. So it looks like, despite the article basically appearing to say we're gubbed, between political machinations & internationally recognised legalities there is still plenty hope. Looking forward to seeing the polling - hopefully it's positive!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The international community pretty much accepts independence by every route possible if it appears to represent the will of the people and the 'parent' state does not use force to take back control.

    This is why we don't have loads of states in limbo across the world. The world could not function. If you have e.g. lots of oil and power...are militarily in a strategic position...you'll be accepted readily.

    The do however, tend to watch what the parent state does and act in a good part on that. You basically have 3 outcomes to some form of 'UDI' on the back of clear popular demand, using Scotland as an example:

    1. Scotland declares indy and the UK agrees or remains largely silent, maybe muttering unhappily a little
    = Scotland becomes independent and recognised quickly

    2. England makes lots of protestations at the UN (lots will side with Scotland, including Argentina, Mauritius, probably Russia), EU (these will tell England to fuck off as England told them that), but does not actually send in any troops. Gets international friends (if any remain?) to cause problems for Scotland etc, with attempts at sanctions etc.
    = Scotland becomes independent, but life is tough for it and tough for England (because it traditionally relies on Scotland for defense bases, oil/gas, power etc and now gets no tax nor debt payments from it). This will go on as long as England is willing to be spiteful and subject its own citizens (in Scotland and England) to economic problems etc.

    3. England sends in English jackboots (Scottish are no good, must be English and violent/aggressive to ensure orders are carried out) like Spain did.
    = Scotland does not become independent in the short term, but permanent English occupation is required. A new N. Ireland is born, but one much, much worse because Scots don't support the union.

    I'll say again that 'legality' under domestic parent state law actually doesn't matter jack shit in the face of a clear democratic mandate. There's a lot of bluster about it to stop random regions just declaring indy, but once we get to a whole country voting for indy, we are into self determination of former colonies etc.

    UDI is also absolutely 100% legal, with Kosovo being a recent example (UN court ruled UDI legal under international law).

    Obviously, the Scottish government don't want us in 2 or 3. However, I would rather have these than live meekly under a fascist English jackboot. I'll fight the nazis like my grandparents did if called to do so. I'm Irish too. My great grandparents had to fight British imperial racist scum and I'll do the same if needed.

    I'll also be voting for a party with the balls for UDI if it looks like that's needed.

    However, remember, the English/British imperialists are cowardly pathetic little wankstains. Throw some potatoes at them and they shit their pants and run away. If they had any baws, they'd still have a huge empire, but they're weedy little wimps without an ounce of bravery as bullies always are.

    Boris Johnson ran out the back door of Bute house. The man's a cowardly little turd. Winston Churchill - aye right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What % of support for Independence do you think would realistically be required for UDI to have even a modicum of success?

      I presume that the lec=vel of support would have to measured if not in a referendum then by an election result. Is 50% votes in favour of pro Independence parties the nenchmark ot 50% of the electorate?

      Delete
    2. 50%+1 if it appears the referendum was free and fair, with vote counting all above board. The bigger the better obviously.

      The reason the Spanish sent in the federal police jackboots to disrupt the vote was so they could try to say it was not free and fair. If people are prevented from voting on large scale, you have reason to say it's not valid. The federal police technically blocked unionists and nationalists.

      Boycotting is often proposed as a way to do invalidate, but that only works if the vote is not free and fair. You can only boycott for good reason, e.g. foul play, intimidation, your candidate was banned from standing etc. Boycotting simply because you didn't want the vote is pointless; you just miss out on voting. You can't successfully boycott a free and fair referendum, particularly if local courts have rubber stamped it as fine.

      But as noted, it is what happens after that matters. London could not simply say it disagreed with a vote followed by preparations for indy, it would need to take back control somehow, or the world would start to accept Scotland. Big holes in the map, especially int he middle of Europe, are a no-no. The only way to take control is troops on the ground. Which is what Spain did.

      The brave will win this battle. London is relying on Scots being too chicken to go for it, and lets be honest, the Spanish fascists have more balls than the English. Even then, Rajoy has been ousted and now the pro-indy parties hold Spain to Ransom after making big gains. The jackboot approach just made indy more popular in Catalonia.

      You can't keep hold of countries that don't want you. Hence when indy movements pass the 50% mark, it becomes inevitable, whether the colonial power wants it or not.

      Delete
    3. 50% +1 works for me, however in such a tight contest that might not be the view of other. Specifically is the criteria 50% +1 of those that voted or 50% +1 of the elctorate,

      It's a bit of a grey area. Here's something I'm sure you will be interested in, when Montenegro voted for Indpendence in 2006 the EU imposed a threshold of 55% for Yes and a minimum turnout of 50%. Seem crazy to you, it did to me but it's a fact.

      Outside of the 1991–92 “Yugoslav independence package,” Montenegro opted for independence in 2006.

      Unlike the referenda held in the context of the dissolution of the SFRY, the referendum in Montenegro was legally binding and triggered a constitutional formula for secession. It was also an exception with regard to the prescribed majority.

      The opinion polls were suggesting a fifty-fifty split between the “unionists” and the “secessionists.” Given the recent history of armed conflict in the area as well as the proximity of Kosovo, which had not declared independence at the time, the EU feared a potential outburst of violence and a spill-over effect if Montenegro declared independence with virtually half of its population opposing this move.

      The “unionists” were also threatening a boycott of the referendum. This move would further delegitimize the vote. In response, the EU imposed the Act on Referendum on State-Legal Status of the Republic of Montenegro (Independence Referendum Act), which prescribed a minimum turnout and a higher burden on the “secessionists.”

      Under this formula, the constitutionally entrenched mechanism for secession would be triggered by 55 percent of all votes being cast for secession, with a turnout of at least 50 percent plus one of eligible voters. Such a majority was designed to give the “unionists” a reasonable hope of winning the referendum and thus averted their boycott.

      Greater legitimacy was also achieved by avoiding the prospect of Montenegro becoming independent by a close 50 percent vote. Independence was in the end supported by a narrow margin of 55.53 percent of all votes cast with a turnout of 86.49 percent of all those eligible to vote. The barely achieved threshold has been described as a political gamble, as it was quite possible that the result could have fallen in the “grey zone” between 50 and 55 percent.

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2410255

      In such a circumstance, Montenegro’s government would have been legally unable to declare independence. At the same time it would have viewed the referendum result as a mandate to further weaken the State Union. The unionists would have viewed the result as a victory and demanded immediate parliamentary elections and closer ties with Belgrade.

      The referendum rules in Montenegro demonstrate that an “unambiguous majority” is not a concept that can be universally quantified. It depends crucially on social and political factors specific to the society that is consulted on the future legal status of its territory. It should be noted, however, that in absolute terms, the independence of Montenegro was supported by 48 percent of all those eligible to vote.


      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2410255

      Delete
    4. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 15, 2020 at 4:47 PM

      "50% +1 works for me, however in such a tight contest that might not be the view of other."

      50% +1 is fine for a referendum, but I doubt that would enough for a Holyrood plebiscite on independence, where 55% might be closer to what's necessary.

      Here's a scenario the EU might find hard to ignore:

      1. Yes 10% ahead in the polls. 1.8 million have signed the Digital Covenant. https://digitalcovenant.co.uk/
      2. The SNP/Greens/Yes Alliance win big in the Holyrood election.
      3. That same election, unlikely to be boycotted by Unionists, also has a referendum question asking whether the Scottish govt has the right to call an indyref.
      4. Crushing victory on this question.
      5. Indyref campaign immediately afterwards, against an opposition demoralised and split by those Holyrood votes.
      6. Big Yes victory in an indyref validated by all the Unionists who particated in that first referendum.

      Delete
    5. I guess that if all those points became fact then Yes i'd agree that it's something the EU would find hard to ignore.

      A simpler solution is to have a referendum that gives a 50% +1 majority for Independence. that's it no other caveats at all. I know that Johnson believes he has ruled out a referendum, how long can that stance last? I've no idea obcviously but I will say this.

      The SNP are deadly serious when they say Johnson id deluded if he thinks that his refusal will be the end of the matter. We will have a referendum, there is no doubt about that other than when haha.

      Delete
    6. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 15, 2020 at 5:49 PM

      A simpler solution and a preferable one, I agree. But too easy for Johnson and the EU to ignore, unfortunately.

      The above approach, or something approximating it, is designed to pile the pressure on Scottish Unionists and WM and the EU to respect that final vote in the indyref.

      A better question for that first referendum, by the way, might be: if an independence referendum is held, should its result be respected?

      As I just said on Wings, a big win on that question, with plenty of Unionists participating, followed by another big win soon afterwards in the indyref — that would be pretty hard to ignore.

      Your Neil MacCormick quote on WGD is encouraging, and I still think that's the route the SNP will take, a referendum without an S30 rather than a Holyrood plebiscite election.

      Delete
  6. I think we can cut to the chase.... in course of WM not supporting indyref use Holyrood 2021 as mandate for independence. A proxy indyref on list vote.
    If YES wins and Tories refuse to negotiate then we take case to International Court of Justice. Even the thought of that might make Johnson negotiate.
    One thing for sure a confirmatory indyref after HR win is a complete no ! That is a green light for Johnson to be obstructive in negotiations and give the worst deal possible to indy scotland in hope voters reject it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better to use a YES vote to dissolve the Treaty of Union - no negotiating with the authors of the rapists consent clause. No confirmatory referendums - they did not do it for Brexit!!! Just apply international law.

      Delete
  7. "A referendum held without a Section 30 order might be boycotted by unionists"

    So what if it is? The main objective may not be to win a first (boycotted) referendum outfright, but to maintain momentum, which in the long run the British establishment will be unable to resist.

    Now does anyone think that a boycotted referendum (with a YES result) would in anyway reduce the momentum? Aye right. Keep the pressure on is the ket - no let up now. We have come to far to back pedal now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. At the end of the day, you either have the bottle or you don't. This is not going to be won by playing by Westminster rules. They are the original Humpty Dumpty who said "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean". They will keep changing the goalposts until they find a way of us not being able to score. We need to ignore them and chart our own course, diplomatically and politically, we have friends in the International community who are observing everything and will make their move when it is appropriate. The next move is for the SG to make and I'm hopeful it will be a doozie as its getting too late in the day to hold fire anymore. Westminster has shown its hand by saying NO, their next move will be to hamper the SG by severely curtailing the Block grant and/or diverting the monies to make Scottish institutions fail in the same way that they have done in England; hospital trolley for a bed anyone. They will then repeat the claims they have previously been making that the SNHS is failing, that Education is failing etc as a cover to further reduce Holyroods influence. They will then move to shut it down on the basis that it has failed to deliver the required service level.
    IMHO the SG can no longer afford to delay, we must go for it, or die trying. Going gently into the night is not an option.

    ReplyDelete
  9. can we not just bring the 2021 election forward to autumn 2020 and referendomise it?

    I remember there being some discussion a while back about the 'rules' allowing that the Government party with a majority can wangle the system to collapse the scot gov and then bring about an election?

    PS - is it really only my iPhone that wont allow comments to be posted on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The SNP didn't have a 'Plan A', and 'Plan B' is to have a hissy fit. It works very well for them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Previously, Scotland wasn't being dragged out of the EU against its will. It could choose indy.

    Now it is being dragged out.

    This changes everything on the doorsteps. It makes the SNP/Greens right about everything.

    The UK is not democratic = true
    England is racist towards Scots = true
    The unionists stuff the ballot boxes = true

    The SNP won the last e2 elections+, but the votes have been counted and it's majority for unionism.

    It's all true.

    I wouldn't go near Scots doorsteps if I was a unionist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This changes everything on the doorsteps. It makes the SNP/Greens right about everything.

      The UK is not democratic = true
      England is racist towards Scots = true
      The unionists stuff the ballot boxes = true"

      I'm not certain these are official SNP/Green positions

      Delete
  12. The exodus well underway now.

    https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/217778/total-to-shift-london-finance-hub-to-paris-due-to-brexit/

    Total shifting ‘finance hub’ to Paris from London ‘due to Brexit’

    Patrick Pouyanne told a financial conference in the French capital: “Total will bring its cash back to Paris”, following up with a tweet confirming the move.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As for parliamentary elections, was last year's GE solely about brexit mandates? Was it binding about something, under international law? Has James Kelly joined Stuart Campbell and Craig Murray as a one-mans-daft-opinion blogger who has lost the plot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. Johnson's wee letter to sturgeon has no weight internationally either. As you say, domestic law has no legal weight on the international stage, only international law does.

      With respect to law in self determination, the chagos islands ruling by the UN gives you a good idea of how these things work. Chagos islanders say they want to end British rule. UN stamps that as the islands don't belong historically to English people.

      Delete
    2. It just takes one party to produce one manifesto that includes things like public transport for an election to be not about one thing. That will definitely happen. The idea that a Holyrood election can solely be about one thing is really, really, really daft.

      Delete
  14. I feel like the response from the SNP/SG at the end of the month or whenever it's coming is going to be a very big moment.

    They've known this was coming, they've had plenty of time to think about their response, and if they don't have a good one I think large chunks of the Yes voting bloc are going to run out of patience. They might start looking at other options for their vote, such as new parties who say they would consider some of the options the current SNP do not (outwardly at least) appear to consider.

    "Give us another mandate to ask for a Section 30 in 2021" on its own is definitely not going to cut it with a lot of Yes voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't need to set a world record for election mandates. Each new one just devalues the previous one. Use the mandates!

      Delete
  15. Scottish unionist parties need to understand that Johnson has just ensured they will never win an election in Scotland again (as part of the union).

    Scots will react to what has happened by voting in majority for pro-indy parties / independence at every opportunity going forward (something the demographics will ensure too). Any party seen to be supporting the UK imprisoning Scotland in any way will lose seats every time. Even the Tories will feel it, surviving only on the rump hardcore British (not Scottish), which means a few seats at best.

    The only route out of this is independence for the other parties. Expect full splits very soon.

    I have always said the union will die forever in the hearts of Scots the day their consent for it is withdrawn. It has been withdrawn by Johnson.

    So, the union only survives through English aggression now. The question is how brutal they are willing to be before they cave in as they always do in the face of resistance from the natives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but there is not going to be another election as part of the Union is there? I thought the SNP were going to announce there super plan in a couple of weeks that was going to deliver indyref2020? That's what senior figures keep saying anyhow, are you saying they are lying?


      Delete
  16. Brexit wasn't actually being forced on Scots before because they had consented to the union and could withdraw that consent by the same route.

    Now it is because Johnson withdrew Scots consent for the union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Naw it was and is being forced on Scotland. 62% 32% Please don't give me that crap about a UK vote.

      Delete
    2. How's it crap?

      Delete
  17. I'm being asked by all the European folk I know whether England will use troops to keep Scotland subjugated.

    England is now seen as being in the early states of fascism. Brexit made people suspect it. The cancelling of elections in Scotland confirms their suspicions.

    They'd all understood Scotland was a member of the union by choice, as the UK had boasted about in 2014. Now they see brexit has meant an end to democracy in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People are saying they are cancelling business with the UK and are no longer going to travel to the UK because it is holding Scotland prisoner.

      Delete
    2. Can you give any more details about these people and circumstances?

      Delete
  18. Apologies if this has been already answered but would it not be better to wait to hear the SG's response at the end of the month then go ahead with the poll?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have a feeling that the most appealing thing about the idea of Scotland leaving the UK is that it hasn't happened. ie. It's a dream. I think it very much suits the SNP to keep it that way.

    It's a bit like the USSR Communist Party running a socialist country whilst dreaming about communism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comparison between the USSR and the UK is certainly apt after yesterday.

      Delete
    2. Were you talking about the bit where the FM asked the PM for an exception to the Scotland Act, he refused it, and she accepted his refusal (and wasn't shot)?

      The amount of idiotic hyperbole you get on blogs is offputting. Please desist. It's not even funny.

      Delete
    3. Of course as it all started to fall apart, with support for indy breaching the 50% Yes mark in satellite states, the iron fist attitude of the Kremlin just accelerated the eventual break-up.

      Delete
    4. No, I don't plan to desist. Not unless a Section 30 is forthcoming.

      Delete
    5. What will you do if I don't desist? Overrule election results in Scotland maybe?

      No, hold on...

      Delete
    6. Jeez oh....

      Anyways, when you manage to drag yourself away from someone's blog, are you into political self determination away from the EU, or is it the wrong flag for you? (That's a political organisation that spends half it's budget on giving money to rural land-owners for inexplicable reasons, and has as much interest in changing that as a horse).

      Anyway, enjoy yourself jumping up and down and shouting. Whatever. It least you have found your arena for your interest in statictacs. I'd just go to the library.

      Delete
    7. Scottish Skier is Irish. He has the same gene pool as the Irish pre Norman Invasion. A victim of inbreeding.

      Delete
    8. I know it's not polite but better if you know. Your breath has a whiff about it. Try flossing or use mothwash regularly. Just a tip, no thanks required.

      Delete
    9. I'm glad someone pointed it out.

      Delete
  20. Skier you Nat sis have overruled the last two referendums.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh and regular use of deoderant is always a good idea. You are trying to make an impression after all.

      Delete
    2. You overruled the 1975 referendum, WC.

      Delete
    3. Nah we accepted it and waited a few generations until the expected corruption and nepotism were well and truly exposed. You may recall Kinnock the Commissioner investigating the Commission.

      Delete
  21. I disagree with Craig Murray's timing, but I am sorry to say that I have come to think that a UDI is going to be the only way forward. Of course, Craig is right that recognition of a new state is a matter of international law and that the internal politics of the EU is rapidly changing. I just think he is jumping the gun a bit on his suggested timing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Herman Goering Fly Guy.January 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM

      The EU will go bankrupt and Germany has been stashing the Deutschmark for this event.

      Delete
    2. Craig Murray is right on some things and wrong on others but like Stuart Campbell on WOS they're both mainly in the self promotion business

      Delete
    3. Anonyomous

      My income on which my family live is about £300,000 less than the income of the Murrell family. And without the free housing etc.
      Yet I am the one who is in it for self promotion?
      I would love you to say that to my face. You can always find me on AUOB marches etc.

      Delete
  22. Unionists really don't understand the damage that Johnson has just done to them do they?

    How come the ulster unionists see the danger he is to the UK clear as day, but the Scottish unionists can't see it? Not even after he took out Ruth Davidson. Not even after he just took the vote away from their voters?

    His letter was stab through the heart of every Scottish unionist who used to argue to their husband/wife/son/daughter/mum/dad... that England was our friend and that we were a partnership of equals. That staying together was the right thing to do. Johnson just shat all over these people. They're now staring at the floor knowing it was all a lie. Most Scots unionists are not the raving hardcore nutters that come on here. They're Scots. They just thought the union was probably the best for now. Narrowly, in 2014.

    They've been betrayed, just like the N. Irish unionists are now watching as a border is drawn down the irish sea so the English can get a better brexit deal for themselves.

    How did that Tory friendship go for the DUP? If I recall rightly, Boris just gave the republicans their first ever UKGE victory. And exactly the same will happen here.

    They chewed up and spat out the Liberals. Did the same to Labour. Did the same to the DUP, and now all these fucking unionist mugs are smiling as boris pisses all over the soft Nos.

    He's a big sweaty thick racist hooligan of a wrecking ball for the UK. Only a fool blinded by a temporary hold on iref2 can't see that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dusk has arrived and Skier emerges from the coffin with the same old fiction.

      Delete
    2. I was at the gym if you must know.

      Delete
  23. And so the civil rights movement begins.

    https://twitter.com/OorDavey/status/1217245352090357760

    Candlelit vigil outside the Scottish office calling for a return to democracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is about civil rights now.

      Scots should have the same rights as English people. Anti-Scottish racism and English government repression must end.

      We need to get it on the telly across Europe and beyond. They all thought we were free to leave after watching 2014. They're utterly shocked at England's move to fascism.

      Delete
    2. You see, in Europe (and beyond), Boris isn't British, he's English. Anglais. They don't really have any concept of British over there. Only English, Scottish, Welsh. Nobody ever asks you if you are 'British'. British is almost entirely a concept confined to the UK and some former colonies.

      So they are watching an aggressive, racist English PM overruling the result of an election which he lost in Scotland so that England can keep control of it. The Scots are a people they know; a team they've played at football. A country they've visited...

      And their interpretation is spot on.

      Delete
    3. You have to love those middle class lot who have time to light candles and lay flowers followed by a sing song and mutual back slapping. Kind of religious!

      Delete
    4. Or spend all day, ever day, for years, trolling on the internet.

      I can't believe you actually are on here so much, you even notice when I go out to the gym.

      Christ man, get a life.

      Delete
    5. I did not notice you went with Jim, you told the World.

      Delete
    6. Skier you made an erse of yourself with the previous so move on with constructive policies for helping the poor in society.

      Delete
    7. Why don't you give us one constructive policy for helping the poor in society. You first.

      Delete
    8. "Dusk has arrived and Skier emerges"

      Refresh...refresh...refresh...

      No posts for 30 mins now. Seems I'm alone in here.

      Refresh...refresh...refresh...

      45 mins now. Skier hasn't posted since 3 pm. Last post from Thepnr at 5:27. I'll post just a quick racist one liner to see if anyone's there.

      Refresh...refresh...refresh...

      No, nobody. I'm alone. As always.

      - Tear runs down cheek -

      ....



      Delete
    9. It's strange that GWC posts messages calling herself "Scottish Skier" then replies to them?
      Wouldn't it be easier to reply to posts written by other people rather than yourself under yet another alias?

      Delete
    10. Not me Sherlock must be the resident impersonator.

      Delete
  24. All this post election re-writing of what the parties stood for at the GE by the Tories. Re-watch the Christmas Carol election broadcast. It's clear as day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RjgDZE9mpM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can make funny sounds with my teeth.

      Delete
  25. James,

    After donating to your crowdfunder for the poll am a bit disappointed to discover that the results for it will be exclusively released in The National, something that was not mentioned on the funding page.

    I am assuming that you have assurances that the results will not be behind any form of paywall?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Big Eater From PerthJanuary 16, 2020 at 11:07 AM

    I feel compelled to give credit where it is due and support the imminent privately-funded poll. It is a splendid initiative.
    Nevertheless it can only be a single component in a strategy which allows us to return to our pre-Treaty status. Just as Athens did not realise its destiny without the mining of silver and the construction of a fleet so we must be diligent in the construction of a new consciousness.
    It behoves all supporters of independence to be guided by those with a firm grasp of political strategy and a mastery of rhetoric.
    Let those who fail to rise above small-minded number-crunching depart!

    #Dissolve False Presumptions

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Northern" SoullessJanuary 16, 2020 at 11:35 AM

    I'm glad to see that the Liberal influence of Granda Baron Byers is shining through in the burblings of Lisa Nandy.
    Keep the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Plan B for Scottish Independence

    1. Follow the Road Map to Scottish Independence (explained below).

    2. Win home rule of broadcasting, set up a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation.

    3. Finally hold indyref2 with the level playing field of fair broadcasting coverage of the strongest arguments for independence that the BBC would never broadcast – all the many arguments against Queen, Kingdom and Empire, explaining how and why an independent Scotland governed democratically as a Scottish republic with an elected president would make all the difference to Scottish independence and to dealing with the problems of the incompetence of royalist misgovernment and mismanagement.

    The Road Map to Scottish Independence
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    We march for independence raising our own Scottish flags in defiance of the tyranny of the United Kingdom.

    We note the unjustified arrests in Scotland by the United Kingdom police force styled as “Police Scotland”.

    We note the unjustified imprisonments in United Kingdom prisons styled as “Her Majesty’s Prisons”.

    We are offended by these UK violations of the constitutional rights and freedoms of the People of Scotland.

    We assert and act in defence of the constitutional sovereignty of the People of Scotland.

    We overthrow the misrule of the United Kingdom and its monarch, Queen Elizabeth.

    We ban Queen Elizabeth and her family from Scotland!

    We call on any military to enforce our ban by using all means necessary!

    We unilaterally declare that Scotland is an independent country!

    We call on the Scottish Parliament to agree a motion in similar terms.


    The “Gold Standard” for Scottish Independence
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    The BBC broadcast Ian Blackford at the SNP conference, claiming that his Plan A is the “gold standard”.

    I beg to differ.

    In my opinion, Plan A, straight from the Alex Salmond playbook, is not the “gold standard”, not with the BBC rigging politics coverage, giving the Queen and her ministers a get-out-of-jail-free card every time.

    The 2014 indyref with biased, unionist BBC politics coverage and censorship of the best arguments for independence was the wooden-spoon standard of independence referendum and a unionist trap that the UK puppet Alex Salmond fell right into.

    So thanks but no thanks. No more wooden-spoon indyrefs for Scotland.

    Scots deserve the true gold standard – a first-ever free-and-fair independence campaign, with fair broadcasting which broadcasts ALL the arguments for independence, broadcasts ALL the arguments against the union of Scotland with a United Kingdom, Queen, monarchy and empire.

    The Treachery of Plan A royalists
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Sturgeon Betrays Scotland: Standing to sing “God Save the Queen”, the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, seeks to make Scots subjects of the Queen of England, contrary to the Sovereignty of the People of Scotland, as enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320.

    Blair Jenkins, Order of the British Empire, was the Chief Executive of the YES-Scotland campaign in 2014, is shown in a picture with Prince Charles pinning his OBE onto his jacket.

    Plan A royalists, like Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and Blair Jenkins are saying “YES” to monarchy, the most iniquitous form of government, “YES” to inequality, “NO” to a Scottish republic and “NO” to the democratic election of a Scottish President, duty bound to defend the rights of all Scots as equal citizens.

    Plan A royalists are traitors against the people of Scotland and that’s why their Plan A campaigns ring hollow with many and will collapse like a house of cards whenever the BBC broadcasts the Queen telling Scots to “think carefully” etc.

    The movement for Scottish independence cannot allow the SNP’s Plan A to wreck our chances of winning our freedom once again.

    Now we have this Plan B for Scottish independence and I propose that we put this Plan B into effect without further delay.

    https://peterdow.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/plan-b-for-scottish-independence/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big Eater From PerthJanuary 16, 2020 at 3:00 PM

      As you are merely a small eater from Aberdeen I must inform you that your communique will have to take its place behind other, weightier contributions.

      Aux fourchettes, citroyens!

      #IndyOnThe Menu
      #DissolveAnAlkaSeltzer

      Delete
    2. Set up armed Workers Committees. Disband the standing army. Get rid of most politicians especially Scottish Yellow Tory Capitalist Nationalists. International solidarity with the working classes. End the EU capitalist project.

      Delete
    3. Yes we're all for internationalism, WC. As long as it stops at Dover.

      Delete
  29. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/5177764/top-lawyer-indyref-scotland-referendum/

    QC hired by Yes activists says ‘good arguments’ for Holyrood ALREADY having power to hold IndyRef2

    A TOP brief has claimed there are “good arguments” for Holyrood having the power to go it alone and legally hold IndyRef2 - despite Boris Johnson’s refusal...

    ...And the lawyer - who helped win the Supreme Court case over the PM's unlawful suspension of parliament - said: “I consider there to be good arguments to the effect that the Scottish Parliament have the power, under the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 as they currently stand, to legislate for the holding of a referendum on Scottish independence.”


    This is why Johnson is a total liability for unionists. He's utterly destroying the union.

    If he granted a Section 30, it would be a vote winner for unionists, or at least not a vote loser, which a slimy racist rich turd from England telling the sweaty socks what to do certainly is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what I've been saying. A Scottish iref doesn't change the law in the rUK, nor even does it change Scots law. It has nothing to do with the union. All it does is, as per the 2014 indy or 2016 EU referendums, consult the electorate to assess their sovereign opinion.

      It's not a matter of the union. In fact, even as long as any law change in Scotland only ends the union rather than attempting to unilaterally change the nature of it, then again its not a union matter.

      And of course any law change comes after the vote. If it's a Yes, that law change has an electoral mandate.

      But Mr O'Neill's opinion said: "There are good arguments to the effect that legislation from the Scottish Parliament providing for a further referendum on Scottish independence does not, for the purposes of Section 29(2)(b) SA, “relate to” the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England."

      Delete
    2. Excellent news. So no reason why the Scot Gov does not get indy ref 2 started then. As you say nothing stopping them from doing so. If they don't however, of course they are fascists, stopping the Scottish electorate from having a choice on their future.

      Delete
    3. Really, the Scot Gov have started the process of Indy Ref2 (without a section 30 order as you saying they don't need one). Must of missed that, when was that announced.

      Delete
    4. Christ you don't get out much do you.

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/111844.aspx

      Delete
    5. And I honestly fail to see how you think the English Tories being unable to stop a Scottish iref would make then not fascists. This is just unhinged nonsense.

      It is the attempt at stopping it that makes them fascists, kinda obviously.

      A fascist doesn't become a friendly democratic neighbor because e.g. a court rules he's not actually allowed to cancel people voting, much as he wanted to.

      It's also comically unhinged to think that Scots are going to go 'Hey, Johnson tried to stop our iref, so that makes Sturgeon a fascist!'. Which seems to your other main premise.

      Well, okey dokey, but forgive me if I think you'd struggle as the office junior in a political strategy department.

      The SNP really wanted Cameron to refuse a Section 30 back in 2014. Cameron put the on the back foot though and offered one. It cause indy support to collapse to below 30%, and it was an uphill struggle from there.

      Cameron won 2014 by giving the Section 30. I thought this was well understood.

      Delete
    6. Erm, thats not indy ref legislation, thats legislation for any referendum:
      The Referendums (Scotland) Bill provides a legislative framework for the holding of all future referendums on devolved issues in Scotland.

      https://www.gov.scot/news/approval-for-referendums-bill/

      Secondary legislation specific to a indy ref would have to be passed for an indy ref to be held, you would have to be thick not to know this.

      But as you keep saying there is nothing legally stopping this from happening, therefore if the Scot Gov does not put forward the secondary legislation, they are fascist because they are stopping the Scottish electorate from having a vote on their future, they will be no different to the Tories. Stopping a vote is fascist what ever Government stops it. Anyone who calls the 'English' Government fascist for stopping a vote by refusing a section 30 has to also call the Scottish Government fascist if they block a vote by not passing the legislation needed for a second indyref vote.

      English Borris stops vote = Fascist
      Scottish Nichola stops vote = Fascist.

      Only a racist would try and make a distinction between the two

      Delete
  30. Just completed a Panelbase poll.
    Questions on Indy vote in future, and my opinion on Johnsons sec30 refusal amongst others.

    ReplyDelete
  31. James one day you and I will agree, it just wont be today.
    First, what McHarg and McCorkindale (M&M) are pointing out is that there is no law that says "a mandate is necessary for there to be a referendum". HOWEVER, and this is their point, the precedent is that for the last referendum (2014) there was a mandate - at least one that London would buy into.
    I am certain you will remember that the run up to this saw Unionist parties demanding the SNP hold a referendum - at least while they were a minority govt. You might remember Wendy Alexander's "bring it on". Then in 2011 the SNP got the previously considered majority, with a referendum in the manifesto, and it all began to change. It particularly changed when Cameron decided to cooperate by signing up to the Edinburgh Agreement because he thought it would be a walk in the park. However, you need to observe the sequence of events - referendum in manifesto, majority achieved in the Parliament confirming the referendum, followed by the referendum. So, in practical terms - as they say themselves M&M are right.
    Moreover, it put the achievement of independence firmly on the referendum road. I'm not sure what other means might be open - if a majority in Parliament was going to be the means then anyone who thinks Cameron would have entered into negotiation in 2011 is kidding themselves.
    Yes they could preemptively pass legislation to make a S30 Order a matter for WM, but it is better to know what you are aiming at - rather like their legislative changes to stymie the continuity Bill.
    The unofficial referendum, you are right, could get the votes needed to make a Unionist boycott irrelevant, but on the other hand it might not. And what then? In some ways it would re-enact the 40% rule for anyone who didnt vote would be, in effect voting against.
    For your last objection, of course the key is "if the UK govt were on board". But then if the UK govt had no problem with Scottish independence, then much of this just melts away. What do you think are the chances of this happening any time soon? For the record, I would not rule it out - I have long held that the example of Czechoslovakia is a good one. But I'm not holding my breath
    You conclude by asking the question "how do you get the UK government to respect a mandate?" There are two problems with this. Just what ia a mandate? OK we all know, we all have our own ideas, but how much consensus is there? For instance it would be open to Unionists to challenge how much SNP support is not for independence - I think it's said 20% of their voters dont support independence. Weird, but ......
    Secondly you assume that the UK govt really is concerned about mandates, and that it's not just a matter of a justification no matter how thin, to say "you've had your referendum".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 16, 2020 at 8:05 PM

      This is a well thought-out post that gets to the heart of things.

      "how do you get the UK government to respect a mandate?"

      We need to ask how ridiculous they'd be prepared to look internationally. If there was a referendum without an S30 that somehow had an 85% turnout again and Yes won 57-43%, would WM agree to negotiate independence? If the answer's no then long-term we're probably looking at UDI. If the answer's yes then our plan should be to get as near to that outcome as possible.

      That 57% is attainable. Ashcroft had us at the equivalent of 54% last year and that was before the Tory and SNP landslides and before Brexit and its recession kick in.

      So the key question is turnout and the possibility of a Yoon boycott. Did you see Thepnr's comment above about how the issue was resolved by the EU in Montenegro with 55% support required on a turnout of 50%?

      In the buildup to the Catalonian referendum in 2017 Yes and No were neck and neck in the polls. Turnout was 43% and that was against the risk of being battered by the police. The Catalan govt claimed that an additional 14% were unable to vote because their polling stations were shut down. So in Scotland if Yes went into the referendum 57-43 ahead in polls, 60% should be the minimal turnout achievable, with closer to 70% possible, i.e. GE turnout. (See upthread for why a Yoon media boycott might not hold. Plus we’ve had quotes from Tory politicians saying they couldn’t leave the field wide open for Yes).

      In such circumstances – let me dream -- the Yes movement could use the example of Montenegro and claim before the referendum that 55% Yes on a 50% turnout would be enough to start negotiating independence. When Yes then wins 70-30 (due to a partial Yoon boycott) on a GE-level turnout, or 90-10 on a 50% turnout…

      Lots of moving parts there, obviously, but it should be doable. As with every other strategy the key is Yes polling as high as possible, which is why I’m fine with the SNP focus on Brexit.

      Delete
    2. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 16, 2020 at 8:15 PM

      As for the Orange Order & co's conduct in the early years of an indy Scotland, I'd take 70-30 on a GE turnout over 50%+1 in a WM-blessed referendum.

      Delete
    3. thanks for the comment. I think for me the key is "lots of moving parts". James' point was that there is little certainty here about anything much at all - sort of mibbes aye, mibbbes naw. The upside is that we get 50% +1 min in an unofficial vote. The downside is that we dont, or WM just says "how nice" and moves on. I am optimistic about the support of the international community if we get past the finish line - an agreement on independence - but not beforehand when it would mean taking on the UK govt.

      Delete
    4. Why, if the Scottish Parliament pass the legislation, and the Lord Advocate says it's legal.. would a Yoon boycott of an indyref matter ? And why would it be an unoffical referendum if it was legal in Scots law and legislated for in the Scottish parliament ?

      Delete
  32. In tomorrows episode, we get 'Scottish Skier' and 'GWC' wigging out about the same old shit. In real life, the seats on buses in Aberdeen are stitched up with bailing twine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget anon. She posts more than GWC.

      Delete
    2. My shit is Scottish shit, Skier is an Irish bullshiter.

      Delete
  33. Genuine question, but do people really think Scots will vote for the unionists in a referendum the unionist refused to give them when it was ask for?

    The first rule of winning referendums is don't be the side that tried do stop it. How on earth do you hope to ask people to vote for you after you tried to stop them voting in the first place, particularly after they specifically request to. That's hopeless; you're fucked.

    Cameron understood this. He played a masterstroke with the Edinburgh Agreement. He caught Salmond completely unawares and knocked a huge chunk of the post-2011 win honeymoon yes vote. It was in the mid 40's, but fell to lower than 30%. Yes spent the rest of the campaign winning back what they'd had to start with but lost due to the Section 30.

    Cameron was British though. He understood Scotland somewhat.

    Johnson's a clueless English nationalist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salmond and his Nat si party were totally responsible for losing the referendum. They were incoherent and most people did not believe their propaganda. People really needed to know what the currency would be. If their pensions would be in the bank. If they would have a job. Just he basics. The Nat sis were not trusted. The Nat sis need to turn away from the corrupt EU. Independence means independence.

      Delete
    2. Lol.

      Salmond and co were responsible for the Yes surge you see here ending in 2011. The Holyrood majority honeymoon.

      Cameron and his Section 30 were responsible for sending Yes from 49% to 37% (ex DK). Scots thought 'Wow, the UK is an equal partnership and England really respects us!'.

      BetterTogether then took over after 2012 and, well, they trashed the No lead and it ended up 45%.

      https://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/12/polling-observatory-scottish-referendum-special-who-is-ahead-and-how-close-is-it/

      Cameron was genius compared to Johnson.

      Delete
    3. You are missing my point. The people who voted did not entirely trust Salmond therefore his failure. If you do not raise your game and have policies that are honest and trusted then you will lose again if indeed there is another referendum.

      Delete
    4. How come Yes gained votes at steady pace while unionists lost these over the course of the campaign then?

      It's in the graph in the link. The trust from the Section 30 turned lots of yes voters back to the union. Once the official campaigns began though, Yes won most of these back.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Very shortly after the 2011 win, when Salmond was ready to wield his claymore in the courts to win the Scots their freedom from the 'hated English', the latter promptly politely said an iref was absolutely fine for their great Scottish friends. Salmond was gobsmacked. The Yes vote fell off a cliff.

      But rather than Boris learning from that very obviously clever move by Cameron, he's just given Sturgeon the gift that Salmond would have died for.

      Jesus, imagine the EU had taken the UK to court to prevent the brexit referendum!

      Leave would have been a landslide of earth shattering proportions. I'd have been there in George square with you burning the EU flag GWC!

      Junker would have been getting the same language I'm giving Boris.

      Delete
    7. The sensible Unionists were not listening to make believe and you lost. LOST.

      Delete
    8. I was worried that BJ would be tempted to throw a curveball and offer a conditional S30. Luckily for us, he bottled it. Either that or he is no as smart as he thinks.

      I do think this could have created problems, cos we are no quite ready for indref. Almost, but no quite. :)

      Delete
    9. If you refuse an indyref, then you set yourself up for losing it when, inevitably, it will come, in a large part encouraged by your refusal. If it was 25% Yes, then ok, you might not lose, but when it's 50% (MORI, the most accurate GE pollster)?

      Cameron was quite an intelligent man. John is a thick as fuck racist oaf. Ergo, the UK economy is utterly screwed, as is the constitution.

      Unionists right now remind me of remainers when pro-remain MPs 'dealt another legal blow' to brexit in the commons; one that was going to 'ensure a massive remain landslide in the GE and cancel the whole thing'. How'd that work out guys?

      You'd have thought Johnson would have understood this, but my guess is the little Scottish hating racist shit he gets advice from is kind thick too. If the guy was any good, he would not have advised the Tories to campaign on a 'SNP vote = independence and Tory vote = for the union' and lose them half their seats. Jesus, 2017 was a miracle for the Tories, and Johnson lost half of them while handing a landslide to the SNP and a UK breaking win to SF/SDLP in NI. The man's an utter liability for unionism, they're all cheering him on the same way the remainers did Swindon and corbyn.

      Delete
  34. Has boris gone to die in a ditch yet?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Skier, Salmond promised to restore the Scottish Regiments and nationalise the Scottish side of the Post Office. He knew it would never happen but played to the gallery. People are not stupid Skier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a pity Salmond never promised to flush down the lavvy that Britnat turd GWC.

      Delete
  36. Why isn't Boris Johnson dead yet, he made a promise if he didn't deliver his deal on time he'd be *dead in a ditch* he didn't so why am I not hearing of his death when he promised

    Was it just a figure of speech then that English politicians can use without having to fulfill their promises but in Scotland where every single word that Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon was derided night after night as lies on the English news, but the once in a generation thing was the only thing they said that was right, is that it, is that the political argument from Yoonsville

    Labours Lisa Nandy just did the same thing but it's all OK because she's English and a Unionist so it's all good, Yoonsville doesn't have to fulfill a word of any of their promises because they're all just figures of speech

    ReplyDelete
  37. Boris should actually be popular in Scotland. He is far more to the left than the Scottish Nat si Tartan Tories who take donations from strange ex Tories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GWC/Scottish Skier/Anonymous us a busy lady posting all the messages then arguing with herself very heatedly. Great fun

      Delete
    2. Oh you're absolutely wrong on that, GWC is a mental bigoted racist sectarianist of the worst kind, the Orange Lodge Rangers kind,and once you've been indoctrinated into that order it's your duty to aspire to be accepted as an honoured serf to your grand masters no matter who or what they are or decide

      Fealty is all to the GWC types while the rest of us prefer to be in charge of ourselves y'know like normal people in normal countries as GWC and his diminishing band of bigots are soon to find out

      Delete
    3. It is good to be normal and agree with normal people who think they are normal and expect everyone else to toe the normal line.

      Delete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/brexit-will-soon-have-cost-the-uk-more-than-all-of-its-payments-to-the-eu-over-the-last-47-years-put-together/ar-BBYWF39?ocid=sf

    Brexit will soon have cost the UK more than all of its payments to the EU over the last 47 years put together

    I think we can safely deduct that from any independence exit bill.

    Oh, and remember, as Scotland currently can't leave freely via Section 30, we'll be debt free come indy day.

    We're either a partner and England never stands in the way of us leaving, or we're not, but some sort of colony with Section 30s refused, ergo we walk away debt free.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The great brecession just around the corner now. Retail sales collapsing; the classic bellwether.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51147634

    Retail sales fall sharply in December

    Retail sales fell again in December as a Christmas shopping spree failed to materialise.

    Sales volumes fell by 0.6% from November, the fifth month in a row without growth, the Office for National Statistics said...

    ...The December 2019 figures, unlike those for the same month in 2018, include Black Friday sales...

    ...Last week, the British Retail Consortium said 2019 had been the worst year for retailers since 1995.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Three suggestions for questions for the poll.

    1. Do you support an Indepedenece referendum being held in the next year?

    2. Do you agree with the statement "It is the right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their need?"

    3. The power to legislate for an Indepnedence referendum for Scotland should belong to the Scottish government.

    Something like that anyway!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Four questions! Do you accept the result of a ballot when you lose.

      Delete
    2. You mean like unionists lost the last 5 major elections in Scotland, but don't accept results?

      Delete
    3. Five questions. When did you last have a bath?

      Delete
    4. Before anyone corrects me, it's actually the last nine major elections. It's 5 since 2014, including 4 national/general elections.

      Delete
    5. Unionists have not lost a referendum. I have a shower.

      Delete
    6. Honk for Brexit and Scottish freedom on 31 January 2020.

      Delete
    7. You lost the 2016 referendum. Unionists were desperate to get Scotland to vote the same way as England, but failed.

      2014 is ancient history. Nnionists beaten in 5 major elections since and many voters were still in primary school in 2014. It's a fading memory now. You can't keep living on past glories.

      In any event, Johnson just cancelled the 2014 result by refusing Section 30. That ends the consent Scots gave for the union in 2014 as they are unable withdraw it themselves freely by the same means.

      Your wife's consent for your marriage no longer stands if you lock her in the basement when she says she might want to leave you.

      Delete
    8. The Scots (not all) thought the EU were their paymasters. They were not aware that the EU only gives a rebate like the gasman used to do. The British taxpayer is the paymaster.

      Delete
  42. Scotland are *allowed* a say it's just that England refuses to listen to it,
    this is the part where Unionists say "I *beg* to differ
    Boris Johnson believes all Scots are vermin so it's obvious that Unionists don't consider themselves Scots so are happy to have their countrymen insulted as long as they *think* it doesn't mean them, that makes them cowards as well as serfs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We Tories got you dependent Scots of your benefit culture and back to work. A hard days work for your days pay.

      Delete
    2. It's only unionists that can be 'dependent', obviously.

      Yes voters clearly are not.

      Delete
    3. @Boris 7:21pm

      We Scots taught you how to spell in between inventing the modern world but you must have been a no show because you were hammering a nail into you heads

      Delete
  43. Scottish Nationalists are petty bourgeoisie in the hands of their rulers. Give them tattie scones and whisky and they will suck any boaby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the good thing about being Independent there are no rulers in a democracy but can you spell Rangers without counting your knuckles or referring to your tattoo

      Delete
    2. John Knox DeceasedJanuary 18, 2020 at 1:12 AM

      The Scottish Nationalist movement is clearly sectarian. Anti Protestant and promotes sectarian Catholic schools funded by non Catholics. A dictatorship.

      Delete
    3. Nobody cares anymore what school you went to. Things have moved on since you crawled out of the sewer.

      Hopefully you'll join John Knox soon, your views are just as relevant to the 21st century as his.

      Delete
  44. Fantasy role playing

    What if Brexit leads to a Civil war? Scotland and N. Ireland fight for independence

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKej2FYrKSA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If NI fight for independence then they would be free from ROI and the EU. Who would fund them!

      Delete
    2. Aye, the British unionists like their subsudies, hence voting for the union.

      Delete
  45. The Northern Irish have borne the stupidity of sectariansim for too long and now have the right to join the Republic, and pragmatism and good sense will see them take their freedom from England at last as their friends and neighbours in the south had the good sense to do and the EU will support them in that decision

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Republic could join the North where religious freedom is guaranteed and the EU is non existent. The Queen would be head of State.

      Delete
    2. You're a scream Yoonboy, imagine you bigots offering religious freedom to anybody, and just for the Historical Record your Queen is not actual head of state anywhere, she is the titular head of state of England which means in small words you people can hopefully understand, she has no authority whatsoever except over how many sugars she has in her tea

      Your Queen signs what she is told to sign and says what she is told to say, failure to do so results in instant abdication for the next in bred German to sit in the chair

      Also FYI the Queen is not Queen of Scotland either, her title in Scotland is Queen of Scots, which carries a job description, in that because the Scottish people are the only country in the UK where the people are sovereign her job is defender of Scots and in Scottish constitutional terms means she can be replaced by another of Scotlands choice if we so wish

      In England the Parliament is sovereign, not the people since Cromwell took all power from the Monarchy, I'm afraid Yoonboy you've been worshipping something akin to graven images of a German family whose only interest is in the preservation of themselves

      The Sax Coburgs to give them their real name would have just reverted to that name had Germany won WW2 why do you think the Royals were courting both sides before the war even started

      You Yoonboys really just didn't bother with any school work whatsoever did you, still as long as you've got Ibrox your world is happy eh

      I feel for Stephen Gerrard if he ever loses a couple of games and you lot lose it and the bigotry comes pouring out of you, and it would be worse if he was a person of colour, because you hate those folks too

      Delete
    3. The North of Ireland is full of British subsidy junkies though. According to unionists that is.

      Delete
  46. Meanwhile £200,000 has been raised to bring back Big Ben's Bongs.
    How many meals would that pay for at a food bank.
    Get me out of here I'M SCOTTISH!!
    They're planning a 'national' celebration also on Brexit day.
    FFS! Next they'll be burning books.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Brexit has cost the UK £130 billion in lost growth since 2016
    that's more than the UK have paid in to the EU in the last 47 years

    These finding were published by Bloomberg the worlds leading economic expert body

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your rant at 2:31am is proof you are harbouring deep routed bigotry again Unionists the English and non Catholics. You even mention soccer. Away back tae Athenry and peel some spuds.

      Delete
  48. Actually I'm Protestant and a Rangers supporter and half English on my mothers side, but a football team is not my religion and self determination has nothing to do with where anyone is born

    You bigots alsways cry that other people are bigots to mask your own vile behaviour

    ReplyDelete
  49. terry, can i ask you to include a question in your poll wrt voting intention in 2021 at he?

    ReplyDelete