Nicola Sturgeon is 49 years old. Even without a boost in life expectancy, she could plausibly live for another half-century. This is no longer about the Tories suspending democracy for "a generation", they now essentially want to abolish democracy.https://t.co/kEagoWUSlG— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) January 12, 2020
December 2019: "Nicola Sturgeon has lost the plot in saying the UK is a prison."— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) January 12, 2020
January 2020: "Scotland will not be allowed to vote on independence until Nicola Sturgeon is DEAD. This is a life sentence without parole. You will DIE in Our Precious Union."
A pro-indy majority at Holyrood? "Not enough."— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) January 13, 2020
The SNP winning 80% of Scottish seats at Westminster? "Not enough."
The SNP winning a majority of the popular vote? "Not enough."
So what would be enough, Mr Jack?
"NICOLA STURGEON DYING OF OLD AGE AND EVEN THEN NO PROMISES."
There's certainly been a sea-change. Twelve months ago, it was: "Whisper it gently, but Ruth genuinely thinks she's going to be First Minister. This is happening, guys." Now it's: "Yeah, the SNP will win, but what of it? We'll just overrule the result."https://t.co/6HS5iqUUyD— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) January 13, 2020
I do think something good may come out of this Tory extremism, because the well-meaning but misguided "caution" faction within the SNP really needed the UK government to offer a slight glimmer of hope on an independence referendum, or at least some kind of creative ambiguity, to hold the line. After Mr Jack's latest Francoesque pronouncement, it'll be faintly ludicrous for the likes of Mhairi Hunter to carry on pretending that they can prick the Tories' conscience with just a bit more campaigning or just one more election victory. The SNP leadership will now need to provide an open and transparent route-map towards circumventing the Westminster veto if they're going to persuade the rank-and-file that they're serious about actually holding an independence referendum, because it's plain for all to see that the brick wall of obstructionism won't be going away at any point before May 2024, and in all probability before May 2029. Yes, by all means let's wait a little while to see if Boris Johnson ever bothers to respond to the Section 30 request, but we really do need that route-map within a matter of weeks at the absolute most.
So, unionists now promising to use violence to keep Scots in the union.
ReplyDeleteThat is what no democratic route means. You have peace and democracy or totalitarian violent iron fist. There is no peaceful totalitarian iron fist.
There is not a single case in history where an aggressive foreign power (England in this case) subjugated a people / nation 'peacefully'.
Just dwell on that; the SoS threatening to overrule all recent election results in Scotland and enforce brutal democratic repression, with voting declared illegal.
The ugly, racist, Scottish people hating face of British/English unionist is become clear for all to see.
Some Scots would use violence to keep the majority Unionists out of the Union. Knickerless would probably obtain more shag me shoes than Emelda if she hangs oan tae her salary. And those Catholic nutters trying to hold up the A9 road expansion in the name of the Vatican pawn charlie. Fuckin dinasaurs.
DeleteNo, it's unionists threatening violence. You can't take away people's vote without using violence on them; there is no case in history where brownshirts have not been used to enforce such a policy because naturally, people get a bit upset about their country becoming a dictatorship. They tend to protest, march, strike etc, even hold their own votes anyway. So, you need to go in and beat them up to keep them in line; that is what Alistair Jack says the UK will do, rather than just respecting election results.
DeleteAlistair jack is threatening brutal dictatorship, the opposite of peaceful democracy.
As you write Skier English regiments with Scottish officers in charge are gathering at the Gretna Outlet Centre buying cheap clothing before the invasion.
DeleteGWC you truly are a disgusting Britnat turd who stinks out this site. Who would want to be like you?
DeleteWhy would you expect the UK, or any country, to pander to a minority separatist view and assist in its own fragmentation?
ReplyDeleteNationalists don't want a referendum to measure public opinion. Nationalists wants a referendum as a political tool, hoping that during the campaign enough voters can be brought on side to get it over the line. There's nothing subtle about this tactic.
The referendum in 2014, the votes in the last election and polling all points to the majority preferring Scotland to stay in the UK, yet you demand the UK government assists in the breakup of its own country.
Expecting this is lunacy. There's only one path to independence: actually make the country want it.
Until that happens, and a referendum is a confirmation of the majority will rather than a clumsy tool to change it, nationalists don't deserve another referendum and it's right to be blocked, and there's no injustice that the supreme parliament of the country don't pander to separatist desires.
Scotland is the country. Scots already voted yes. You are a dead little soldier if you think you can impose your fascist regime on me.
DeleteIn other words you recognise that with Boris Johnson as PM and Brexit chances are you will lose Indyref2.
DeleteAlso since Johnson landslide the mood music has changed I expect that Independence is the majority opinion now .
Anyway if Unionists were confident of victory with reference to the experience in Quebec they would know winning a second referendum would certainly kill Independence for generations .
Everyone even the dogs on the street know the real reason for refusing a sect 30 it's because Unionists are feart
You are advocating violent suppression of democracy. You are scum, and dangerous scum.
DeleteIf you don't respect the ballot box, then you support the opposite, i.e. violent dictatorship.
'If unionists win, the result is respect and unionism is maintained! If nationalists win, the result is overturned and unionism is maintained!'
You are unhinged and dangerous.
We nationalists support the democratic right of unionists not to hold a indyref if they win. We only ask the same in return. Our country's future decided peacefully at the ballot box. If folks don't want consulted on indy, they can vote for unionist parties.
Those on the so called rally in my town Glesga were a wierd looking pale lot who escaped a Convent work house and resembled pale looking Mormons who wanted to be Jehovah Witnesses. Thank Allah for the Orange Ludge.
DeleteLots of the usual angry rhetoric but none addressing the point.
DeleteWhile independence is demonstrably not a majority preference why would you expect the UK - or any country - to assist separatism within it?
To expect it is absurd. To cry injustice when it doesn't happen is just shrieking histronics.
Stop whining, start persuading people of the benefits of independence. And if you can't do that, you don't deserve it.
"While independence is demonstrably not a majority preference"
DeleteThere is of course only ONE way to prove this statement is true, and that is to hold another IndyRef. Using polls, extrapolating from the % SNP vote in the recent election of any other method PROVESaabsolutely nothing. Asking the electorate the question is the only way, otherwise why do we ever bother to vote in any election? By your logic we'd be as well not bothering with a Scottish Parliament election next year, just hand it to the SNP as on current form they are the only likely winners.
Not sure that's likely as they didn't win a majority last time, on the back of a better performance in a UK general election.
DeleteBesides, parliamentary elections are not referendums.
Once again: while nationalists want a referendum to change public opinion, not to measure it, there shouldn't be one and anybody demanding one ignored.
Spoken like a true brownshirt anon.
Delete'There should not be a referendum because I don't want one. Elections results only matter if my party wins.'
Amusingly Nazis were very keen on referendums and in modern Germany they're virtually illegal.
DeleteOf course the SNP itself was quite keen on Nazism at the time.
The Nazis didn't respect election results.
DeleteHitler never did get his majority, so, like the Brits for Scotland, he just cancelled elections.
The Nazis kept going to the polls until they got the result they wanted.
DeleteSound familiar?
I can imagine you at Nuremberg denouncing anybody who complained as 'anti democratic'. Probably spouting something about the will of the German race while saving a little flag.
Nationalism is nationalism.
You really are unhinged.
DeleteYes, Hitler loved elections. He held them all over Europe. He brought free democracy to Europe!
He cancelled elections and refused a Section 30 to all countries the Nazis occupied.
Scottish nationalists reaction to losing a vote = Accept the result, dust themselves off, and start campaigning for another shot as soon as they can.
ReplyDeleteBritish fascist reaction to losing 9 elections in a row = overrule election results and declare voting illegal for 30 years (unless its for unionism).
British nationalists are dangerously unhinged people.
While not recanting on my firmly held view of the Salzburger Festspiele as an event which has succumbed to a rather too popular (possibly populist) menu, I would be wounded should any of your readers feel I was expressing a dismissive opinion on their limited range of tastes.
DeleteThe treaty of the union is illegal anyway, only a few people in isolation from the rest of Scotland’s sovereign people signed it, no way should anyone be saying don,t bother checking, you have no legal avenue but a referendum, not even Alyn smith.
ReplyDeleteYou should tell the police the union is illegal because it wasn't 'signed' by everybody in Scotland.
DeleteThis is not about Ireland or religion or football, or England, and I take my hat of to those who are successfully snaring anyone willing to take the bait, encoraging them to squabble and keeping them occupied, while the reality lies else where for the Sovereign Scottish people alone to choose who governs them ( 4th July 2018 ) Westminster.
ReplyDeleteThe pro-indy parties hold a majority of seats under PR in Scotland's parliament. Based on this, they can legislate to consult the Scottish people on independence by means of a referendum. A simple process of voting as we do on a regular basis, such as in 1997, 2014 and 2016.
ReplyDeleteIf Scottish people say Yes, then the Scottish Government has a mandate to withdraw Scotland from the Treaty of union and so can open negotiations with the English government on this (it would no longer be the UK government as Scotland would not be involved).
England can accept this, or send in jackboots.
Simply ignoring things doesn't work, otherwise Spain would have done exactly that to Catalonia. Nope, if you want to overrule a peaceful, free and fair referendum to take back control, you need to send in the brownshirts to start beating up and arresting people.
You mean Catalonia which had a referendum against the will of Madrid, voted Yes and isnt independent?
ReplyDeleteI do love it when Scottish nationalists end up advocating for UDI because it means they've run out of political and legal arguments. It's just foot stamping.
Spain in sent in brownshirts to beat people up, disband the parliament / police forces etc. That's why Catalonia isn't independent.
DeleteIf Spain could simply have ignored the referendum, it would have. But that doesn't work. You need to send in the brownshirts to take back control.
The UK will need to do the same if it plans to dispute a non-Section 30'd referendum. If you are going to block a free and fair vote, you need to disrupt it, and start arresting people. Otherwise, if it is free and fair, it represents the will of the people, which puts you in a really difficult position. Voting is never realistically illegal. Not in democracies. Only things that make votes unfair are illegal. So you need to disrupt the vote to make it invalid, while trying to prevent it being held again. That requires brownshirts and show trials.
'UDI' works perfectly well unless the colonial power sends in the brownshirts. If it's not prepared to do that, then that's that, and a new country is born. You can't rule a country simply by saying you do; you need to enforce that with troops etc. If you don't, it becomes independent.
DeleteFollowing a UDI announcement, the world watches to see what happens. If the colonial power doesn't crush the rebellion, then the recognitions begin.
How did you think it worked?
I thought the UK understood all this. It's lost more colonies than most after all.
1000 chagos islanders will soon have the UK kicked out of their islands. Sanctions and kicked off the UKSC for starters if that doesn't happen.
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/05/uk-forfeit-security-council-chagos-islands-dispute
I think we have wee bit more of a voice, particularly as England is disliked the world over.
Anonymous if you had a clue what you were talking about you would know that by definition Scotland cannot do UDI. Scotland was a sovereign nation when it signed the Treaty of Union and as a sovereign nation it can terminate the Treaty of Union.
DeleteSpain did ignore the referendum. That's why Catalonia isn't independent.
ReplyDeleteBut good luck persuading the world you're oppressed so soon after the majority of Scots democratically rejected the snake oil you're selling.
No, it sent in federal police to disrupt the referendum and arrest the organisers. It then suspended the parliament and the independent Catalan police force. The politicians who organised the vote were then arrested and tried in a show trial.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_referendum#Aftermath
That's not ignoring the result, that's sending in the jackboots like i said.
Spain ignored the result.
DeleteThe UK wouldn't have to send in anybody to disrupt an illegal Scottish referendum. Most Scots would refuse to take part, and councils wouldn't cooperate. It would be a glorified petition.
If Spain could have simply ignored the result and got on with life, it would have done. But it had no choice; if you want to overrule votes, that's what's needed.
DeleteIn the UK, similar action would involve Police Scotland being suspended and English police + Army units being sent in to disrupt the vote. Holyrood would be closed and England would impose direct rule. SNP politicians would be arrested and tried in English courts.
If you want to dispense with the ballot box, you need to be prepared to do that sort of thing to maintain control. You can't simply say 'you are not allowed to vote!'.
Anonymous what law is being broken to make it illegal and who decides and where is the punishment documented?
DeleteHe doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. This isn't Spain - there's no such thing as an "illegal referendum" in the UK.
DeleteExactly James, so the result would stand if one was held by the Scottish government.
DeleteErgo, if the English government really wasn't happy with the outcome, it would need to do a Spain to be sure of overruling it, at least temporarily.
The fact that Spain could not simply declare the referendum illegal and go for a sangria highlights my point exactly. That would not have stopped Catalonia effectively taking control of itself.
The longer Catalonia was in control of itself, the more difficult it would become to stop that leading to full independence.
So in went the brownshirts. Troops on the ground puts you back in control. For a while at least. If you need troops, you've utterly lost hearts and minds, even before you sent them in. That's why you lost the vote and control of the place.
There's a couple of weeks to go yet before Johnson decides to formally reply to the Scottish government, if he doesn't he's in breach of International law and if he does but answers in the negative he's in breach of International law declaring England a dictatorship in International law
ReplyDeleteThis will then be a matter for the courts but it's up to the Scottish government to do it, if they don't then hell mend what they will have unleashed
Skier the best time for Revolution is when the skiving politicians are on holiday spending taxpayers money. A Nat si Coo is possible if timed.
ReplyDeleteThis is not about Ireland or religion or football, or England, and I take my hat of to those who are successfully snaring anyone willing to take the bait, encoraging them to squabble and keeping them occupied, while the reality lies else where for the Sovereign Scottish people alone to choose who governs them ( 4th July 2018 ) Westminster.
ReplyDeleteGet up off your Paddy knees and slap your bishop with your rosary. King Billy will sort you nat sis out again. Pervs.
DeleteI note that your man crush, Dan Jarvis, never stood for the leadership. Perhaps appealing to lonely weirdos isn't the best strategy.
DeleteNever mind, you can get over your disappointment by posting disjointed garbage on this blog.
Alister Jackboot what a Britnat turd. A greater turd than this sites resident Britnat turd GWC.
ReplyDeleteJackboot thinks this is 1320 not 2020. Well like 1320 we will have our own Declaration in 2020.
Unionists seem to think we're back in the heyday of the empire when democracy didn't matter and the brits could just put the natives in concentration camps and slaughter them like they did in Kenya.
DeleteI note you use the term Unionist when it suits. Kind of denies Scottish involvement. Without Jock and the bayonet there would not have been an Empire. Lots of little expendable poisoned dwarfs.
DeleteYou are just doing the typical British Andy Murray thing.
DeleteBritannia Rules the waves and we are all British! But when it comes to Bayoneting the natives, we're suddenly Scots again.
Sorry, but military matters are reserved and always have been, so the responsibility for lies with the British.
Remember, the constitution, including the Scottish constitution, is not reserved to London. That's a common misreading of the Scotland Act.
ReplyDeleteYou have Section on what's reserved, which is broken down into different areas, each with their own headings, one of which details what matters of the constitution are reserved. It does not say 'The constitution is reserved', but 'the following matters [some of which fall under the heading 'constitution'] - are reserved'.
Then the union between Scotland and English is, rightly, noted as reserved. Scotland can't alter the union unilaterally. Devolved powers are ultimately retained etc.
Scottish independence is however not mentioned as it's not a union matter, but one for Scots alone. Scotland't can only make itself independent. It can't force anything upon the rUK, nor does the UK claim control over Scottish independence, which would be into chagos islands rulings.
The act is also very clear what type of votes are reserved. These are listed in detail. General referendums, including those in independence, are not listed as reserved, so are devolved under the general terms of the act (what is not reserved is devolved).
The reasons for the section 30 were twofold. You could try to argue that maybe indepednence was reserved because of the union matters line. This could have ended up in court, not due to the UK government, but by a Gina Miller type case. The Section 30 resolved that. Secondly, the Section 30 broadly committed England to respect the outcome.
So, a non-Section 30's iref is a legal as the last one we had. However, it's more readily open to challenge. If not challenged, it would stand and be as valid as 2014. If challenged, there is no guarantees it that would succeed. It would also be a PR disaster for English MPs to attempt that, lose or win. Even if it was challenged successfully, the court would likely conclude that Scots still have the right to self determination under UK and international law, it's just the current referendum bill is outwith Holyrood's powers.
So London is really not keep to challenge this.
It's like the Tory guy on Hardtalk said: 'Johnson will need to give a Section 30 at some point, because if we don't they'll hold a referendum anyway and we'll have no control over it. We won't be able to put our case for the union. We'll try to delay it until we have a brexit deal to present to Scots though'. Or largely to that effect.
If BJ continues to drag his feet and refuses to answer the S30 request, the FM should send another formal request every month, and continue doing so until she gets a reply. And of course, each time the written request goes in, the SG make a meal of it and makes sure everyone knows about it.
ReplyDeleteThey do not have much to do anyway so writing letters will pass the time.
DeleteIt's official, the UK is a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy comes to an end.
England is now an aggressive enemy state occupying Scotland.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1217039173347168257
Anyone who collaborates is a traitor and quisling.
DeleteThat's me I will wear a yellow armband and you can send a truck for me. Bing Bong Big Ben.
DeleteNaw GWC you are and always will be a lowlife Britnat turd. Lower than a quisling.
DeleteJust like that piece of horseshit on the road at the march with a tiny Union flag attached to it.
So, we are now formally a colony of England, with it's government and those who support that our enemies.
ReplyDeleteThey have made it clear they support using violence against us, including arbitrary detention. This applies because there is no consent anymore for any British laws in Scotland. That no longer applies. To give consent you must be able to withdraw it at any moment.
The 2014 result has been cancelled as it cannot be freely overturned. That invalidates it. The Smith commission has likewise been torn up.
Johnson is not a British PM, but an English one as he has no consent to rule Scotland. There is no union now.
The English regime are now your enemy and you must consider them as such.
I warned of the consequences of this, well that is what these are.
Scotland is an occupied state and the union is over.
There are no longer nationalists and unionists, but democrats fighting for free democracy and traitors / quislings.
The union died today.
Mark my words, the UK is over, and things are going to get very ugly.
You cannot dispense with the ballot box and subjugate a people without them turning on you, and all that entails.
It seems the English have learned nothing from the empire. They have just killed the union. Sorry Scottish unionists, but you have been betrayed. You were never their partners. Time to stand with your country folk and bring back democracy.
This will ensure that unionist parties will never win an election in Scotland again. Ergo, going forward, there is no union, and it will only exist by forced democratic suppression. It's just a question of how long England is prepared to keep overturning election results, because it can never win them now. The line has been crossed. The swastika armband is on. The friendly union partners days are gone forever.
ReplyDeleteWe all saw what happens if a government tries to overturn the will of the people. You've have thought lessons would be learned. But no it seems.
I said the English nationalists would stab Scottish unionists just like they did the NI unionists, killing the union. Well, I was spot on.
Indeed. The first thing that has to be done is show this letter to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, we cannot depend on the BBC to ......well we can depend on the BBC to either down play it or hush it as much as they can. This should be headline news but don;t hold your breath. It's up to the SNP (and us) now - a big story that has to be told. Nobody will do it for us. Go on SNP, start a real barmy about it.
DeleteThere will be lots of murders reported and squirels seen in Scotland tonight - following further exciting in-depth discussions on Harry and Meghan, of course!
ReplyDelete