Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Let's get behind Shetland Council's audacious bid to BREAK UP THE UNITED KINGDOM

A reader emailed me the other day to ask whether there had been any polling done in Shetland or Orkney to test whether there is support for the type of 'breakaway' mooted in the motion passed by Shetland Council.  As far as I'm aware, the answer is no - full-scale polls would be hard to reliably conduct because of the small population size, so the likelihood is that any polls on the subject would be unscientific self-selecting polls.  I must say that, anecdotally, my impression is that people from Shetland and Orkney do identify as Scottish - perhaps not as fiercely as those from elsewhere, but the ultimate Spectator fantasy of Shetland remaining in the UK if Scotland becomes an independent country seems to me to be a complete non-starter.

One of the ideas apparently floated by the council, though, is that Shetland should instead become a self-governing crown dependency along the lines of Jersey or Guernsey.  I'm sure whoever dreamt that up thought it was a brilliant unionist wheeze that would put the SNP on the spot (ie. "an independent Scotland isn't viable without Shetland's natural resources"), but actually we should be heartily encouraging it, because crown dependency status would by definition mean that Shetland has become the first part of Scotland to leave the United Kingdom.  If unionists are championing Shetland's right to make that decision, how can they deny the rest of Scotland the same opportunity?

*  *  *

Douglas Ross' craven decision to vote in favour of a bill that both destroys the Scottish devolution settlement and breaches international law was roughly as predictable as David Mundell's failure to resign every single time he threatened to.  But this episode does bring home that Ross' position is rather different from Alex Salmond's when leading the SNP from Westminster in 2004-7.  As a Tory MP, Ross is not his own boss - he's subject to the Tory whip, and in theory to disciplinary action if he breaches the whip.  If, for example, Tory MPs were to be told they would automatically lose the whip if they don't vote with the government, what discretion does Ross actually have?  Could he credibly remain Scottish Tory leader if he has the whip withdrawn, which under the rules would automatically bar him from standing for Westminster as a Tory candidate?  Doubtless none of this will ever be put to the test, because any rare show of resistance would be a carefully choreographed abstention - he'd probably be given special dispensation by the whips to miss the vote because he has to run the line at yet another all-important East Fife v Forfar match.

*  *  *

I can neither confirm nor deny rumours that the individual known in certain quarters as "the Random Totty From Freedom Square" drew the below picture of Jackson Carlaw and tucked it under the door of his office earlier today.  




66 comments:

  1. Controversially I think that most people in Scotland would settle for the kind of autonomy that a Crown Dependemcy would offer. Either that or something a bit like Dominion status that Canada and NZ had for some time. A final stepping stone before independence.

    That gap could be filled by Labkur and it is one which would provide them with a clearly different policy from either the Tories or SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Scots *would have* settled for that six years ago or even four years ago. Scots how know that they cannot trust the UK gov't not to break or overturn any agreement.

      Delete
    2. Jacob72

      You mean they would stick to the agreement like they did with the infamous VOW.

      Westminster does not do honest, fair and reasonable. It does lies, deceit and misrepresentation. I wouldn't trust them with 50p never mind any agreement.

      Delete
  2. You just do not get it. The IMB has just put the final nail in the coffin of the Union. Shetland may want independence but being in Scottish waters they would only have a 12 mile maritime jurisdiction ( if that is the correct term) and hence no oil fields.When they realize this they will want to remain a part of Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to clarify that my above comment was to Jacob72

      Delete
  3. Orkney and Shetland are essentially identical to mainland Scotland in national identity.

    Shetland slightly less, but it has a lot of temporary resident oil workers that come and go.

    Shetland:
    60% Scottish only
    2% Scottish & other
    16% Scottish & British
    12% British only
    5% English only
    6% Other

    Orkney:
    62% Scottish only
    2% Scottish & other
    14% Scottish & British
    11% British only
    6% English only
    6% Other

    Scotland:
    62% Scottish only
    2% Scottish & other
    18% Scottish & British
    8% British only
    2% English only
    5% Other

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where d'you get your figures from, Scottish Skier? Always quote sources.

      Delete
    2. 2011 census.

      https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/

      Delete
    3. It'll be really interesting to compare next year's figures with those from 2011 considering everything that's happened during the last 10 years. I imagine the Scottish only and Scottish & other figures which are now at together 64% will go well over 75%.

      Delete
    4. I would imagine we will see a decline in British and increase in Scottish, if simply due to demographics.

      British identity is strongest in those born just after the war, and declines from then on. Young Scots are the most Scottish identifying of any generation, at ~70% 'Scots only' by 2011. This group is of course growing, with the post war generation declining in number as each year passes.

      It's a reflection of the decline of Britain / the British empire and Scotland's move to indy.

      Both symptom and cause.

      Delete
    5. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://sites.google.com/site/scotsthreip/magnus-s-opium/identity&ved=2ahUKEwiw_tnX0O3rAhUHTxUIHQ0fBK8QFjAMegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3UnnRug3Fdiw5IVrpRL-pw

      Delete
    6. There is another Scottish Skier? I thought I was the only one :-)

      Certainly, for clarity, I've never tried to 'drum up support for the SNP on Shetland', just noted the islanders gave essentially identical answers to the national identity question (Scots? British? English? both? etc) to mainlanders in the 2011 census.

      I am never one to put views in the mouths of others; the 2011 census answers are of course the answers of people themselves. The identity one is really interesting as respondents were offere the choice, including to freely put Scottish and British, yet a large majority across the country put Scottish alone. They may recognise Scotland is part of the UK politically, ergo they are legally brits, but don't identify as British in any personal sense.

      That aside, thanks for a very interesting read, including the section in Shetland dialect, which I am pleased to fine I can read without problems. I'm originally from the NE highlands myself, and can even understand Doric!

      Delete
    7. The census is too blunt an instrument to pick up the Orkney & Shetland identity.

      There is a strong feeling for being Orcadian or Shetlander as a distinct identity that is not typical Scots or British (and definitely not the other Island group)

      Over many years the idea of autonomy has been floated but has very much been a minority interest. Trumpeting it now is mostly British mischief.

      There would be interest in exploring greater autonomy, possibly even as far as a Faroe style set up. Very much doubt if there would be much support for increased centralisation on London or Edinburgh.

      Delete
    8. Agreed. Yes, the census just asked what which country people felt they nationally identified with. So that's what people answered. Orcadians and Shetlanders mainly replied 'Scots', just as all Scotland did. Sub-national identities were not asked about / explored.

      Obviously people were free to put Shetland as their national identity, e.g. because they supported an indy Shetland. That's what I did for Scotland even though it's not an actual sovereign state / 'country', but technically a region of the UK (for many Brit Scots, Scottish is a just a regional identity, not a national one). However, it seems almost nobody did for Shetland, which ties in with what you say. The Faroe Islands by contrast strongly nationally identify as Faroese rather than Danish; hence the international teams and almost complete indy etc.

      I strongly identify with the NE Highlands; it is my distinct sub-national identity. I personally have never seen 'Scottish' as a single identity. Scotland is a diverse nation with many regional cultures which are variably distinct in culture, language/dialects etc. It is more unionists that see all scots as one monocultural haggis eating people; a regional identity like Yorkshire or something.

      As someone of liberal democratic beliefs (ergo would never vote for the lib dems), I have always been supportive of more regional decision making. There's not need to confined such things to one part of Scotland.

      Delete
  4. Anyway, Johnson is setting the precedent that you can break international law to keep your country intact, even if the bit you are trying to hold onto doesn't want to stay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Shetland decided that it did not want to be part of an independent Scottish state, it would be far more logical and likely that it would choose to rejoin Norway which it was historically part of, with which it has historical ties, which is not nearly so far away, and has to put it mildly a better reputation as a state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which would end in further tears for the Westminster tyranny.

      Delete
  6. US Irish lobby helping out again.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54171571

    ...Some US politicians are concerned about the UK government's plan to override parts of the Brexit divorce deal.

    Mr Raab will meet US Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who last week said there would be no UK-US trade deal if the Northern Ireland peace agreement was undermined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not that some US politicians are concerned - more or less every US politician (including Trump) that has to go to any kind of elections in US is concerned considering the significance of the Irish vote. That's really why this breaking the international law thing at the moment is just a piece of theatre for English audience. No US Congress (no matter who controls it - Republicans or Democrats) will ever ratify anything that puts a border across Ireland. EU parliament will never ratify anything that puts a border across Ireland.
      I'm just can't wait to see the amount of arse-licking Johnson will have to do if Biden wins in November.

      Delete
  7. Out of interest, where would Shetland Islands Council get it's 'Section 30' from or is this sort of thing not needed for independence?

    Also, can all councils which back Scottish independence vote to become independent states, forming an an embryonic indy Scotland?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Presumably those councils wishing to remain in the EU can become EU/EEA/EFTA dependencies of some form?

      Delete
  8. Also from the 2011 census. Both Orkney and Shetland have the highest incidence of ability to speak Scots at 50%.
    Anybody trying to split the Northern Isles off to England/UK would get a swift kick up the Up Helly Aa.
    They were never apart of England and they dinna want tae be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait. People can actually speak " Scots"? Really?.my father spoke fluent Scotch every night from 9:30 pm on. Sadly, this gift was not functioning in the morning !

      Delete
    2. Yes, about 60% of the 'native' (born in Scotland) population of the islands speak Scots.

      It's the primary native language of the locals, with Scottish English in second place.

      Delete
    3. To be honest, the northern islanders put us mainlanders somewhat to shame in how proud of their Scots culture and language they are.

      Delete
  9. I can confirm, that East Fife v Forfar game which Dross was given dispensation to work on was the one which finished East Fife five, Fofar four. All nine goals were from disputed offside decisions not given down Dross's wing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm originally from the shetlands and its definitely a unique place...100% wouldn't want to remain part of the UK but also reticent about Edinburgh a little as well...partly because of its own unique culture which seems different to the western Isles...partly because of the noise history...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shetland/Orkney are not any more or less unique than other parts of Scotland. They are distinct in their own ways, but so are the Western Isles...Doric NE...Borders... Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen...all uniquely different in historical culture, dialects, wee quirks etc. I think it would be wrong for any particular regional culture to claim it is somehow 'superior' in its distinctness. I certainly would never claim that for the NE highlands which is where my heart will always be.

      I am a highlander born of West Coasters / Weegies who has lived in the NE highlands, the Northern Isles, East Lothian, Edinburgh and currently the borders.

      What unites Scotland's peoples is they all answer predominately 'Scottish' when ask what country they most identify with / what their national identity is, and that is even with Scotland not being an actual independent state. The reason Scotland continues to exist legally and socially after 300 years of union is because its peoples feel it is a country and it's their country. In the end, that is what makes a nation.

      Unionists of course like to pick out bits of Scotland and try to tell everyone that they are unique and want to become independent, not out of respect for the people there - quite the opposite - but to try and 'carve up' Scotland out of spite. Their are countless examples of this in the former empire. Divide and conquer.

      In the end, all parts of Scotland in theory have the potential right to independence if they satisfied the global community of that right. East Lothian has as much right as Shetland; neither is special / both are equals. If the people of any region became so distinct as to see themselves as a completely different nation, sufficiently so that they could justify that to the international community satisfactorily, then they'd have their case for independence. Brittany would end up Brittany again if that was what people there deep down wanted and kept voting for. But they don't, so it remains part of France.

      Personally, I know folk from the northern isles who identify strongly with NI culture but, rightly, find it very racist the way unionists constantly say they are 'not really Scottish / not proper Scots' and even 'not British (more norse)'. It is grossly racist when you think about it; othering people in such a way is very unpleasant, especially when it's for your own political gain.

      Delete
    2. don't get me wrong, I'm a strong independence supporter and I'm not saying that its unique, only that its remoteness does tend to lead to a slightly different view with respect how it likes to be ruled...

      I think the oil does influence views a little as they feel they don't get as much support as the western Isles due to the fact they have the oil fund to rely on...

      its not to say they don't feel scottish, they certainly do, but the views on independence aren't strong as elsewhere...hopefully that will change

      Delete
    3. For sure. Each area of Scotland is unique; just equally so.

      As for indy support...

      I live in the borders which, if we are to base things on 2014 results, is at measurably greater risk of 'breaking away from Scotland' than Shetland. Dumfries and Galloway may join it. Hell, even east Renfrewshire is within a whisker of being an enclave of this brave new north britainshire.

      At the same time, if Scotland remains in the union, it is at risk of losing Glasgow, Dundee, East Dumbartonshire and lanarkshire! All voted for indy in 2014.

      Certainly, if we are looking for areas of Scotland that stand out as distinct in their independence of mind, then it's these three and not the Northern Isles. The latter voted No like everywhere else! Hardly very distinct...

      :-)

      Delete
    4. that is true...maybe being an islander I always assumed some of those other areas you mentioned had similar characteristics to areas that are more yes leaning and so could be persuaded...however I am guilty of the same that others apply to the sheltand in seeing it as the same 🙂

      the borders on the other hand...

      Delete
    5. I grew up in the Highlands, then moved down to East Lothian. People in both places watch orange marches in Glasgow and think 'What the hell is all that about?'. It's just not part of life in Scotland for most Scots, yet for some Brit Scot areas, it very much is.

      Here in the borders, rugby is very central to the culture. Yet in the highlands, it's not really, with e.g. shinty very popular.

      No two areas of Scotland are the same geographically, culturally or linguistically. They all have their unique aspects and identities.

      As Adam says elsewhere, unionists have just picked out the distinctions where it suits to try and divide. They simultaneously so the same with sweeping generations that 'we jocks are all the same'.

      Remember, Scotland is horrifically divided along sectarian lines right? All of Scotland, Shetland included. It's not just a minority pursuit, very culturally British thing confined to small areas of the western central belt...

      I loved my time on Orkney when I was young. It was a magical place.

      Delete
  11. When even the most rabid of unionists like Lord Keen are quitting, you know we're living in the last days of Rome.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54179745

    Lord Keen: Senior law officer quits over Brexit bill row

    The UK government's law officer for Scotland, Lord Keen, has resigned amid a legal row over Brexit legislation.

    The advocate general said he had "found it increasingly difficult to reconcile" his obligations as a lawyer with provisions in the Internal Market Bill.

    Ministers have admitted that their plans could "break international law".

    Lord Keen's resignation was initially not accepted by Downing Street, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying that conversations were ongoing.

    However it was later confirmed that he had left his post.

    The government's most senior lawyer - Sir Jonathan Jones, permanent secretary to the government legal department - had already resigned over the bill, which passed its first parliamentary test on Monday.


    Lord Keen would have been the one fighting Westminster's case should Bozo have challenged iref2...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s beginning to feel though that it doesn’t matter who says what, they will just keep on keeping on. My head is spinning with the wilful chaos of it all. Let’s hope we take advantage of it rather than just gawping from the sidelines.

      Delete
    2. Reporting Scotland just now. Into story 3 and not a mention of keens resignation.

      Delete
    3. Story 4. Sounds like it’s Keens fault for not getting his brain around the weirdness of the bill. And mr Ross just says it will be alright as it can be changed.

      Delete
    4. Scottish Legal News. These are the people that would be e.g. deciding whether the UK government can legally challenge iref2.

      Editorial: Lord Keen is in an impossible position for a man of integrity

      Richard Keen is widely respected in Scotland for possessing one of the sharpest legal minds of his generation. A brilliant career at the bar led to his election as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and ultimately to his appointment as Advocate General for Scotland in the UK government.

      But he now finds himself in a situation that is impossible for any man of integrity and honour. The conspirators who surround the hapless and out-of-his-depth Johnson are now openly attacking, and breaking the rule of law.

      Delete
  12. I suppose the first thing on this subject is that neither Shetland/Orkney are proposing becoming separate states in the short term. They just want more fiscal and political control. This is nothing unusual, speak to local government officials all over Scotland and the UK and they will want the same. Despite running a large number of services that people rely on (refuse collection, schools, libraries, leisure facilities etc) they have very limited scope on how they raise money and were they can spend it. That's why England introduced elected city mayors - a way of trying to give the myth of more powers at a local level. I say a myth because in reality they again have very little to no control.

    The only difference is if the council in Shetland says we want more autonomy it makes headlines (Shetland wants Independence!!) if the council in Glasgow said exactly the same thing it would probably not even get reported in the local press.

    Nor is this about feeling less or more Scottish, its just that people in certain parts of a country feel let down. This is not unique to Scotland its just a normal consequence of one size fits all systems. Independence will not change this, in actual fact for a time it might accentuate divisions in the country both at a national and regional level - again this is not unusual, countries having a turbulant start once they become independent is not uncommon as the divisions and divisions become not if a country should be independent or not change to divisions about the path the country should take.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure I tptally agree with you, I can't think of any mainland council that has floated the idea of leaving the UK and becoming a crown dependency.

      Delete
    2. There looking at ways of achieving “financial and political self-determination”. That's a pretty woolly and broad statement that could be rectified in numerous ways. Its a long way from signalling that they want to be a crown dependency.

      Delete
    3. As a modest left of centre 'liberal democrat' (hence I would never vote Lib Dem because they are neither), I am supportive of 'more autonomy' for regional/local governance, but on two conditions...

      (1) that the population actually wants it, so e.g. should be fully consulted, even through a referendum if needed (for very radical changes), and
      (2) That all areas are treated equally with all getting the same autonomy / powers. How they use these differently though is up to them.

      Giving special treatment to one area is what creates division. All councils should have the same powers; that is the only fair approach to such things.

      One of the problems of e.g. UK devolution is that it's asymmetric. If unionists were clever, they should have given England it's own parliament too, with Westminster becoming a UK one nation one vote senate. But they are fools and instead, when trying to just give a sop to the nats, made the UK nations all different to one another, dividing it, and so pushing it closer to break up long term.

      The fact that all the devolved packages were different (the minimum London thought it could locally get away with) just resulted in parliaments chasing more powers so they could 'have what Scotland has' etc, i.e constant conflict and calls for more independence. The same pressure led to EVEL. Foolishly, the UK has seen regional autonomy as a threat to the UK when it could have been used to create the opposite.

      But I don't mind of course, as independence is now on its way as a result.

      Delete
    4. " countries having a turbulent start once they become independent is not uncommon"

      Yes, when you lack thing like a parliament, electoral system, established parties, your own independent healthcare systems, police, legal systems and courts etc, starting out as an independent country can be problematic. If the bulk of these are in place, the transition should be fairly trouble free.

      Brexit is an example of what you say. The fact the UK isn't a single country is a huge problem for its 'independence' from the EU. It's devolved power structures, including the GFA, were built around EU membership. The need to rapidly agree pan UK trade deals is a nightmare as it needs devolved agreement or for these to be trodden over by English controlled centralisation. This is causing rebellions in the devolved nations and will lead to UK break-up.

      It was of course all predicted. The vote for brexit itself would not break the UK, but rather the mother of the constitutional crisis it would create for the fragile, hotchpoch UK constitution.

      Delete
    5. I don't disagree with you about all areas getting the same powers, but you have to ensure powers that are given benifit all areas. A city council and a rural council are going to have differing priorities - if the only powers you give are only ones that the city councils find a priority then the rural councils are going to feel left out and vica versa.

      I wasn't talking about the transition. I was talking about post independence:

      EU or EFTA
      Monarchy or Republic
      NATO or not

      Thats just off the top of my head. All divisive issues that have to be resolved relatively quickly.

      Delete
  13. Time for Scotland's MP's to disrupt this ongoing bourach.
    The Brit establishment are hell-bent on
    a hard Brexit coupled with a claw back of devolution powers from the nations to London.
    Protesting won't hack it.
    We need action not verbal protest.
    Salmond and Sillers famously disrupted the UK budget.
    Selected walk-outs work guerrilla style. It's the only thing they understand. Sheer numbers mean we'll never outvoted proposals that are aimed at undermining our Scottish Parliament.
    But we are most certainly not helpless.
    Scots voters are angry and want action.
    The more militant the better.
    Piss or get off the pot, as the yanks would say.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Doesn't England realise the special relationship is actually with Ireland?

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu/biden-warns-uk-on-brexit-no-trade-deal-unless-you-respect-northern-irish-peace-deal-idUKKBN2680R8

    Biden warns UK on Brexit: No trade deal unless you respect Northern Irish peace deal

    ...Biden, who has talked about the importance of his Irish heritage, retweeted a letter from Eliot Engel, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, to Johnson calling on the British leader to honour the 1998 Good Friday peace deal.

    Engel urged Johnson to “abandon any and all legally questionable and unfair efforts to flout the Northern Ireland protocol of the Withdrawal Agreement.”

    He called on Johnson to “ensure that Brexit negotiations do not undermine the decades of progress to bring peace to Northern Ireland and future options for the bilateral relationship between our two countries.”

    Engel said Congress would not support a free trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom if Britain failed to uphold its commitments with Northern Ireland.


    If Biden wins, Johnson will be doing a lot of erse kissing. Even if he doesn't, congress will block any trade deal that doesn't keep N. Ireland all but in the EU.

    ReplyDelete
  15. For lawyers, the law is everything.

    We may soon be in the situation that the UK government doesn't have a Scots legal team. It is currently completely at odds with the Scots bar over the illegal English brexit bill.

    Interesting ahead of a possible UK government Scots court challenge to iref2.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54190183

    Lord Keen quit as advocate general on Wednesday over new post-Brexit legislation which ministers admit would break international law.

    There have been claims that the government may struggle to find anyone willing to replace him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is the FM responsible for the actions of her husband who is also Chief Exec of the SNP or is he responsible for her actions or is it both or neither. What a mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't know what the story is.

      https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/mp-demands-probe-nicola-sturgeons-22696185

      Just like Murrell, I supported the police investigation into Salmond. He was accused of multiple sexual assaults and even attempted rape. Who in their right mind would not support a police investigation?

      It's unionists that try to brush such things under the carpet, e.g. the Westminster pedophile scandal.

      Good to see Salmond cleared of all charges. If it had not proceeded to trial, I'd be still wondering if there was any truth to the allegations. I honestly didn't know what to believe. Now I do. Crap that he had to suffer this, but the trial was the only way to put it to rest.

      Delete
    2. I am really uncomfortable right now with those saying attempted rape shouldn't have been investigated, and that Sturgeon/Murrell should have brushed the Salmond accusations under the carpet.

      This appears to be what WoS is arguing for example.

      I support Scottish indy, but I would never support such cover ups.

      I have waited all my voting life for Salmond to be accused of sexual misdemeanors, so was not surprised when this happened. It's a classic MI5 approach.

      However, I don't know the man and maybe it was true? It smelled bad to me, but I would never have agreed to try and stop it going to court. I needed to know the truth and if Salmond had attempted to rape someone, he needed to suffer the consequences of that.

      I would hope Sturgeon would act in the same way. Hell, even if she was 100% sure it was a set-up, it was must that she support a full investigation, including by the police.

      The indy movement would be in a really dark place right now if Sturgeon had gone out her way to protect Salmond and stop any investigation into the allegations. Indy movement would be taking bits hits in the polls.

      In the end, Salmond has walked free, the unionists are furious, the SNP are heading for another win and Yes is in majority.

      Some English bloggers seem unhappy with this outcome.

      Delete
    3. Skier - are you really that ignorant as to what has been going on. If you are then you have damaged your credibility. If you do know what has been going on and who the alphabet women are then shame on you.

      Delete
    4. As I was not in court, and they remain legally anonymous, I don't know who they accusers were. Nobody but those who attended court should legally know. If I found out, and knew the names to be truthful, I would have discovered this by illegal means. If some random on the internet told me, I have no way of knowing whether they were talking rubbish or not.

      I fail to see how that's shameful. If it's so, then pretty much everyone in Scotland is acting shamefully by sticking to the law. They only know what I know.

      What I certainly can't believe is e.g. WoS. That site and it's author lie to me regularly, ergo, I can't trust it. I used to trust it; I was one of the very early readers. But Wings has lied directly to me too many times now. I don't know what his motives are, but I don't trust them, that's for sure.

      What I do know is that Alex Salmond is completely innocent; something I hoped was true, but could not be sure of as I don't know the man personally. I also know that he was, it seems, the victim of a conspiracy by a number of people in this regard.

      I don't know who these people are, and no internet rumours or lawbreakers will be able to reliably inform me of this.

      Siren voices told me Salmond was a sex pest. I ignored these. The same siren voices are now telling me Sturgeon is a unionist who set up Salmond and I should not vote for the SNP, but some new party being promoted from the south of England by someone who loves that country/its people/culture (which is fair enough) and insults Scots (which isn't).

      The same voices are telling me to give up on a Section 30 / a referendum that London agrees to respect without even trying. To give up at the very first hurdle. Forgive me, but I am not doing what Johnson is desperate for me to. He really wants Scotland to forget a Section 30 and stop pushing him for one. I refuse to do what he wants.

      I don't thing my position is shameful.

      Delete
    5. My local MSP is Christine Grahame. My local SNP MP candidate / former SNP MP was Calumn Kerr.

      I really like the former and have a very good impression of the latter. Two groups are telling me not to vote for / trust these and the SNP: (1) unionists and (2) Wings.

      Am I seriously to believe I should not trust the above candidates with Scotland's future because some bloke who doesn't want to live in Scotland because 'he prefers to live with the brave English rather than the cowardly Scots' tell me to in a siren voice? I'm not a fucking idiot.

      Delete
    6. Sorry, that was just a general rant, not directed at you IfS; the current chat just promoted it to come out :-)

      Delete
    7. Skier - your credibility is rock bottom. Why do you keep raising WOS? You just deflect.

      "Nobody but those who attended court should legally know" - what a silly and inaccurate comment.

      If you couldn't work out what was going on after the first Salmond judicial review trial then you ain't that smart .


      Gradualism = never.

      Delete
    8. So now you insult most Scots voters the same way Wings does.

      No, I don't know who the accusers were because they remain legally anonymous. Likewise, I'm not sure exactly sure what was going on with Salmond, but it stinks of MI5. So, I'm in the same position as most Scots. To insult me for this is to insult most Scots, many of whom are reading.

      However, I'm not going to try to guess or be 'reliably informed' by randoms on the internet or folk that lie to me (e.g. sadly these days, WoS). And I'm definitely not going to believe stories in unionist rags such as the Telegraph and Record. WoS used to tell me not to trust these on the SNP, but now tells me they are reliable sources for news on the secret workings of the latter. I mean what?

      As for my 'credibility'; I don't recall saying I had any. I'm certainly not anyone of importance. And if I do, it's not you that decides on that; individual readers will decide that for themselves.

      Delete
    9. Yeah, you've no credibility whatsoever, and you are, being 'some random off the internet', of absolutely no importance.

      Delete
  17. Ye have tae feel sorry for Mi5.
    Just when ye have a scandal all set up to hole the Indy ship below the waterline along comes a pandemic to take it off the front pages.
    Then a bloody scottish jury of mainly lassies goes and clears the man.
    Back to the drawing board.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Scotland may actually be able to win a game of football against Shetland, although I wouldn't put it past them to fuck it up!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Scottish numbers: 17 September 2020
    290 new cases of COVID-19 reported; this is 4.0% of newly tested individuals.

    But don't worry coz Skier says it's all under control. WTF

    ReplyDelete
  20. The World Health Organization has warned of “alarming” transmission rates of Covid-19 in Europe, saying weekly reported cases were now higher than during the pandemic’s peak and “a very serious situation” was unfolding across the continent.

    Reinforcing the WHO’s concerns, the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) said the 14-day case notification rate for the region had risen for more than 50 days and its projections showed “potential for a larger upsurge of cases” later in the year.

    But don't listen to them, listen to Skier, who says it's all OK coz we're under 5% positive.

    ReplyDelete