Monday, July 20, 2020

For the Yes movement to stay behind them, the SNP must have a crystal-clear manifesto commitment to an early referendum - with no caveats or get-out clauses

I've been having a look at Robin McAlpine's attack on the SNP leadership, and there are parts I strongly disagree with, but also parts about which I just have to throw my hands up in the air and say "it's too soon to tell".  He's convinced that the SNP have no intention of delivering an independence referendum in the next five-year Holyrood term - well, that's a concern that I have, but I'm not sure how either I or Robin are in any position to say that it's a certainty.

The most despicable part of Tony Blair's tactics in engineering an illegal war in Iraq was the way he managed dissent within the Labour party.  In the autumn of 2002, many Labour MPs wanted to debate the prospect of invasion, but they were told that "it's far, far too early to think about that, nothing is even remotely imminent, there'll be ample time to debate before anything happens".  But then in a blink of an eye, they were being told that it was far, far too late for debate, we had passed the point of no return, and that any attempt to stop the military build-up should have taken place much earlier.

The suspicion in some quarters is that the SNP leadership are attempting a similar stunt - but instead of shutting down dissent over a predetermined action until it's too late to stop it, they're shutting down dissent over a predetermined lack of action.  But is that actually what's happening?  I've been told, by someone who is in an excellent position to judge, that Nicola Sturgeon remains sincere in her commitment to independence, but that she only ever listens to an extremely small, closed group of advisers who simply have no strategy for bringing independence about in the absence of a Section 30 order, and no interest in ever devising such a strategy.  But I've also heard it said by others that a strategy is already firmly in place and that we'll see it play out reasonably quickly after next year's election.  Without being a mindreader, it's impossible to tell for sure which of those possibilities is the correct one.  That being the case, my main criticism of the leadership at this stage would be their tendency to say to the wider movement "just get on with building support for independence and don't worry your pretty little heads about process".  We all have a stake in "process", and being told not to even think about it is bound to fuel paranoia that we're being led up the garden path.

I think part of this problem will resolve itself, though.  The movement will be expecting a crystal-clear manifesto commitment to a reasonably early referendum.  If that doesn't materialise, or if there are caveats in the wording about taking no action until the economic impact of the pandemic has been reversed (which, if taken literally, could mean decades of delay), then at that point it might cease to be so illogical to look at smaller pro-indy parties.  I certainly wouldn't say there'd be nothing to lose, because there are some pretty major potential downsides to risking a unionist government, even when the main pro-indy party has no intention of pursuing independence.  (I keep thinking about how the Parti Québécois failed repeatedly to come close to regaining majority power after losing it in 2003.)  But it's fair to say there'd be somewhat less to lose.

The much more likely scenario, however, is that the desired watertight referendum commitment will be in the SNP manifesto, in which case the most promising course of action will be to give the SNP a thumping mandate, and then to hold their feet to the fire over honouring their own commitment.  The only possible exception to that would be if there is a new party led by Alex Salmond, which might well be strong enough to win seats and to gain some leverage with the SNP government.

Of course I'm going to have to take issue with Robin's language about the electoral system.  His subtext is that the SNP asking for "both votes" is greedy and unreasonable, and that they'd have to clear an extremely high bar to even begin to justify it.  But the reality is that the whole logic of the Additional Member System hinges on the assumption that the vast majority of people will vote for the same party on both ballots.  The only reason there are two ballots rather than one is to give people some discretion to vote tactically on the constituency ballot, while still voting for their first-choice party on the more important list ballot.  It would be downright odd if the SNP weren't asking for both votes.

165 comments:

  1. So I believe that Boris is to take a trip north of the non existent border in an attempt to bolster the precious union. Well that should add another percentage point or two to the Yes vote in the next opinion poll.

    As for the SNP, I too am having doubts to thier commitment to holding a referendum but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until the election campaign starts. Taking time to prove to doubting Scots that the country can be run effectively and efficiently is all good and right, but pointless if it doesn't eventually lead to a second referendum, and in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is Boris coming North to save the Union?

      I thought the SNP were all unionists now so that sort of thing wasn't needed?

      Delete
    2. Whether the SNP are unionists or not, Scottish Tory support rests principally on being seen to be tubthumping about the UK. This stunt is intended to impress their own voters; it's not got much to do with actually safeguarding the Union.

      Delete
    3. ScottytheScotinScotlandJuly 20, 2020 at 11:11 AM

      Skier - please do not spread rumours that the SNP are all unionists - some people may believe you. The truth is that the vast vast majority of SNP members would give almost everything they had for independence. It is certain people with influence that is the problem. They need removing. They have shown quite clearly that they are not fit to have any role in a party of independence.

      Delete
    4. What about that massive pension rise for us old muppets. How much and when? Who will pay for it?

      Delete
    5. The UK will pay pensions for all existing (former UK) pensioners post indy, yourself included. That's who collected the cash from these. Young people who start working in an indy Scotland will be paying into the new Scottish scheme. Those mid career (like myself) will have a negotiated mix I imagine, being owed by London what they paid until now.

      Unless you are suggesting all the Brits/English/Welsh/N. Irish here will be denied by London what they put into the pot over the years?

      If this was not the case, it would mean the London government is e.g. racist anti-English/British/Welsh/N.Irish/Scottish.

      Delete
    6. I disagree. At the moment British taxpayers pay for current British pensions, which means that Scottish taxpayers pay for current Scottish pensions.

      Post-independence this arrangement will continue, except Scottish pension will surely be a lot less miserly.

      We do not need England's money to look after our pensioners!

      Delete
    7. True, but the British still need to come good on what they owe people in Scotland (of all former UK home nation 'nationalities') who have paid into the pot.

      Scotland can top this up for it's own citizens.

      Delete
    8. The UK Treasury has all our contributions no matter which nation we were born in. On indy there will be a split of assets and liabilities one of which is the "pension pot". The UK has spent it already, that does NOT mean that they don't owe the money. It will be part of the negotiations.

      Delete
    9. Pensions are not an asset, as there is no "pot", so they are simply a liability.

      They are paid out of current tax receipts; essentially a pyramid scheme where the current workers provide the funds for the retirees.

      JB

      Delete
    10. If you pay into a pension, the pension must pay out when the time comes. It's your 'pot'.

      British citizens living in Spain can collect their UK pension just like those in an independent Scotland could.

      The only way to stop this would be to withdraw British citizenship from people in Scotland, including English, Welsh, N. Irish and unionist Scots.

      If Scotland votes for independence, will the rUK do this to its own citizens in Scotland? What a fucking horrible country if so.

      Delete
    11. Except one does not pay in to the UK state pension.

      Yes for a private pension, there is a pot (e.g. money purchase), but not for the state pension.

      For the UK State Pension one accrues an eventual claim to a proportion of a 'full amount', assuming one paid sufficient tax (NIC) for enough years.

      Except that 'full amount' is not determined until one gets to the golden age, and the golden age can be changed (as it has been, as still is being). All of these numbers are subject to the whim of Parliament, irrespective of Scottish independence or not.

      A significant issue is that the current scheme is unsustainable, people are living too long (hence the age being raised), and there are too few people in work to continue to fund it. The demographics curve is the real killer.

      Even though I am accruing towards such an entitlement, I have no idea what the sum will be, or even when I can collect it, or what it will be worth at the time. I know what the value is for current recipients.

      Best to assume it will be non existent, or worth nowt, and plan accordingly.

      JB

      Delete
    12. You need to explain how British citizens in Scotland who are pensioners or soon to be* would not receive their British state pension from the UK post indy simply because they might choose to retire to Scotland. This was the BT2014 argument I'm disputing. I full expect my state pension to be Scottish.

      As things stand, the only way to stop my indy supporting Scots neighbour collecting his British pension would be to end British citizenship/the UK, flag, UNSC seat, trade deals and all. At the same time, England would need to deny 'English' people in Scotland a pension, for it could not tell the difference legally as there is no legal definition. What a fucking horrible country if it did that to its own people.

      But yes, I agree with you that the UK pension is shit; one of the worse and in Europe. So, like you argue for in your post, I will vote Yes.

      ---
      *This is obviously everyone of qualifying age

      Delete
  2. Thought they had a cast iron commitment in their last manifesto ! Very clear. Yet .......tumbleweed.
    They have no cunning plan and no plan B if Boris keeps saying no.
    If they did they would be using an ultimatum on sec 30 with threat of plebiscite election in holyrood 21.
    If boris keeps saying no then it is next WM election in 2024 before we can do anything like that ... that's far too late!!! Failing that it will have to be a scottish run indyref...which she can do now ... so why cant she get the ball rolling now and set it up for next year ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. McAlpine was pretty harsh, but I do understand. We were promised a referendum before we left the EU. That didn't happen. You could argue that it would have happened this year if not for Covid-19 but then you look at, for example, the Social Justice Commission. It was meant to be building a new case for indy, but it hasn't reported yet. It's unclear how that could make sense if there was ever a serious commitment to a vote this year. Meanwhile, as McAlpine pointed out, there have been SNP figures briefing heavily that nobody should be expecting a referendum any time soon. That's pretty damn disappointing.

    It might be the case that the party machine has been waiting for the polls to turn and if current polling holds until May then things will move very quickly after the election. At the moment though, it's pretty hard to believe that because almost nothing the Scottish Government has done for the last few years gives any sense that independence is a top priority. At last year's conference, all the messaging was about stopping Brexit, not gaining independence and letting England have what it voted for. Same goes for the December election. At this stage I think scepticism is the appropriate response. The party has sacrificed a lot of trust people had in it.

    On the question of SNP radicalism, you can certainly disagree with McAlpine. Not everyone wants the same policy prescriptions he does. However, I would argue that it's making the differences between here and England clear during the pandemic that has caused the polls to turn. I can't help thinking that being more radical sooner, and constantly testing the limits of devolution would have helped get us to this point sooner. Imagine, for example, passing bills for things like UBI then being told it was ultra vires. It would have made the limits of devolution much clearer to people. As it is, the Scottish Government seems to have willingly hemmed itself in by refusing to pick fights with the Johnson government. It inspires little hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McAlpine is another like Campbell with a big ego. I also remember him saying that we wouldn't get our Independence until the mid-twenties with the people standing around looking horrified so why the change of tune now?

      Delete
    2. I well remember us all standing at the door and clapping for McAlpine and Campbell.

      Delete
  4. You have admitted that Nicola doesn't listen. There is no secret plan. This is the point where voting SNP 1 and 2 seems pointless. Nicola has at least 3 mandates , but we are no closer to indy ref 2.

    Does anyone doubt that Alex Salmond had an alternative strategy for the first referendum, in the event that WM said no!

    It's why Nicola's time is nearly up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to hear you have the inside track. It's what we've all been desperate for.

      Delete
    2. She has had only one definate mandate

      Delete
  5. Another very important point. This is the year where Holyrood's power is going to clawed back. We are in the red zone. If the SNP think they can twiddle their thumbs until 2021. Then I am afraid that suggests they are lying down in the submissive belly up position.

    In other words they have accepted their fate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Big Eater From PerthJuly 20, 2020 at 9:08 AM

    I'm taking soundings for a White Rose Rising Party as a fallback position.

    The party would adopt a robust style in the tenor of its political message. It would take no prisoners and - unencumbered by manifesto commitments - would be prepared to pivot towards UDI at short notice. It would also take a hard line on lying bladders.

    Indications of support?

    #DissolveTheUnion #IDemandAttention

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roddy Collarless-ShirtJuly 20, 2020 at 6:34 PM

      I think that much of what you say is rather good. But have you thought of changing the name to The Scottish Shirts?

      Delete
    2. UDI? Get real.

      Delete
    3. Big Eater From PerthJuly 21, 2020 at 10:02 AM

      As one of the more substantial thinkers in the independence movement I feel that all courses of action should be on the menu.

      Delete
    4. I will seek assurance from President Jamez that he is not tainted by Sputnik. If he cannot say this then I will consider to join you.

      Delete
    5. Big Eater From PerthJuly 22, 2020 at 8:56 AM

      If you want to worry about Russian interference in Scottish elections and referendums then you are, of course, perfectly at liberty to do so.
      The Russkies almost certainly do have their tentacles reaching into Scotland. But when there is a frantic pointing at them and their activities (alleged) then I my first response is to wonder which state actor’s activities I’m being distracted from. Being in Scotland, I don’t have to wonder long.

      Delete
  7. Mr McAlpine's article is way, way more damning than portrayed here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Open your eyes people. The strategy is hiding in plain sight and it is not pretty for Indy supporters.

    Nicola has been fostering a non-Indy coalition since 2017.

    First Stop Brexit, then Stop Boris and now Stop Covid falls nicely into her lap. Next, she has told us, is Fix Economy.

    There is no way she is going to risk losing the support of all these non-Indy supporters she has cultivated with any kind of meaningful commitment to Independence or a Referendum next year.

    Those of us who only have to vote have the luxury of waiting to see the manifesto before we cast it. Those who want to ensure there are alternatives available when the manifesto falls short have to act now.

    My view of the 2016 manifesto was always that it was an attempt to kick IndyRef2 into the long grass (because NOBODY in the SNP leadership thought Brexit was remotely likely when they wrote it). They never wanted a mandate and have done everything they could to, in that favourite phrase of theirs, 'run the clock down' since it was thrust upon them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''First Stop Brexit, then Stop Boris and now Stop Covid falls nicely into her lap.''

      FGS! Falling nicely into her lap? You'll be telling us next that she prayed for Brexit and a pandemic to cover for not wanting independence. Something that she has worked towards for most of her life.

      Delete
    2. If all these things are falling nicely into Nicola Sturgeon's lap in her bid to avoid independence, she must be devastated to see support for independence riding so markedly.

      Delete
  9. Unity of the movement is vital; we split - we lose. The strategy described by James is still the right one. It offers a way forward while maintaining unity. 'Braveheart' ( movie not real Wallace) options present us with likely fracturing and a modern version of Ireland post 1916.

    We have to trust democratic methods, to the last throw of the dice, as independence is about improving the lives of our people. If we are forced off the democratic road by the imperialists then we will deal with that when it happens.

    If the polls hold then an indy majority, preferably without playing with list votes, can be won.

    If the SNP leadership fails to follow through then that is the time for renewal - not before. Premature 'heroics' will only defeat ourselves. Johnson would love us to get over excited and go putchist.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you want to pressure the UK, then you need >50% yes consistently in the polls. That's the only way to do it, both internally and internationally.

    54% Yes will have Boris rushing north.

    Won't matter shit how many MSPs you have in Holyrood if Westminster can keep saying 'it's clearly not the will of the people - look, just 45% back it!'.

    Anyway, if we can replace sturgeon with someone who can get Yes back to that level, Boris will be chuffed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As Mr McAlpine illustrates, if the SNP membership wanted a cast-iron policy of holding a referendum, they don't have a means to do so. And Sturgeon has stated that a referendum is not going to be discussed until after the economic disaster of the covid virus has been reversed. So, that's what is going to happen, and that could well be a decade from next year.

    The SNP are also a Scottish nationalist version of the Tories, except the Tories don't hide behind left-washing lies and aren't basically run by two people and their corporate advisers (who are still paid as lobbyists), and don't ignore their members. No-one would countenance Dominic Cummings if he was employed as a corporate lobbyist, but it's normal in the SNP. Their economic plan for Scotland was written on behalf of RBS by a guy being paid by RBS. It's astounding.

    It's seriously damning stuff. The referendum bits are the least of it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If we want to influence the snp for a cast iron commitment to put indy ref2 front and centre.the snp hierarchy need to know if that is not forthcoming by St Andrew's day 30th November all snp party members will withdraw there subscription to the part until such time as it is.up till now the members have been sidelined and ignored with no voice.its time for the members which I am one to reclaim our party.rigging the party conference should also not be allowed.120000 subscriptions should give you a say.


    ReplyDelete
  13. ScottytheScotinScotlandJuly 20, 2020 at 11:03 AM

    A true party of Scottish independence would ALWAYS have a majority % vote as a mandate for an independent Scotland in elections. 54% for independence in the polls. Where is this true party? Where is this brave party? Scotland the Brave - let's hear it sung out loud. If not now when?

    What do we get Pete Wishart celebrating being in Westminster for 19 years. To me that would be like a prison sentence not something to boast about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let me seriously ask Mr Kelly what he means by “watertight referendum commitment”. The assumption on all sides has been that under its founding act, the Scotland Act, Holyrood has no power to hold a referendum without permission from London. The current court action by Forward As One might decide that it does have such power, but it might not. Even if it does, the UK government could easily pass an amendment to the act so that the power is prohibited unequivocally. If we assume that Holyrood does not have the legal power, the word “watertight” cannot apply. It is only appropriate for action which can be taken without London’s say-so, and in the context of a vote on independence, that can only mean a plebiscitary election. Does Mr Kelly not agree that London will refuse any mere request for a referendum, and that the only chance of getting one is to make the realistic threat of using an election instead? And if so, why not do that with the forthcoming election rather than slumping into another period of several years’ enforced inactivity (except for the drastic possibility of trying to use Holyrood procedures to engineer an earlier new election, in order to crystallize the threat)?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Almost six years since the 2014 referendum and the Nat sis still do not have currency plan. Maybe they have a secret money press for making monopoly money. We are currently having massive investment in bank infrastructure, eg: Barclays and Clydesdale. Those people could walk away from Scotland. We need to know the Nat si plan now. What will come oot the hole in the wa? No firm plan no referendum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the currency choice can be made post-referendum, just as e.g. the UK is making trade deal choices post EU referendum.

      The ballot is about indy, not currency or any other future choices, all of which will be decided by Scots in subsequent elections.

      Personally, I favour no Sterling as that means no debt. A Scottish £ currency pegged to sterling then the Euro like Denmark is a nice option.

      Also, the (former) unionists need a plan for Yes as much as the pro-indy parties do. Unless they are planning to not stand post indy? It worries me that they don't even seem to have the most basic proposals for the electorate. As a result, they won't get votes.

      Delete
    2. Incidentally, what currency would you propose if Scots vote Yes?

      I hope you are not some dumb ass without any plans if that happens?

      What an idiot you'd look like if you were posting about the nats having no plan if you didn't even have one yourself.

      Delete
    3. The currency should be proposed in advance of a referendum and should have credibility. We are supposed to have experts on such matters who are highly paid. That is the thing about you Skier, you just love masses of unperforming politicians and their sidekicks milking the taxpayer.

      Delete
    4. Your side have not proposed what currency they'd like to see under indy.

      If folk vote Yes, I assume unionists will respect the result and move forward with that, even if they still advocate rejoining the UK in the future. Or are you saying they won't respect the result?

      In 2014, the SNP had policy proposals for both indy and for staying in the UK union. They e.g. made the latter to the Smith Commission and to the public in subsequent elections.

      Are unionists so fucking useless they can't offer up proposals for both the union and indy too?

      So, I ask again, what is the unionist proposal for a Scottish currency under indy?

      Delete
    5. The winners should have proposed the alternative currency prior to a referendum. The losers have no proposals except to stay in the Union with the GBP. We could ask the USA to use their dollar.

      Delete
    6. But the winners didn't propose an alternative currency because they are useless fucks.

      The unionists would have been utterly screwed if Scots had voted Yes then went back to normal Lab/Con/Lib stuff as happened with England and Brexit / UKIP.

      The unionist need to propose a currency for an indy Scotland as much as the nats do because if the Scots vote for indy, all parties will need to deal with it. This is primary school stuff.

      Delete
    7. It's pretty basic stuff, and therefore too complex for Covidia to understand.
      It is a simple and obedient colonial.

      Delete
  16. My fear is that there well be no Scottish election in 2021, Boris having abolished the devolved governments following final Brexit on Jan 1st.

    Where do we go from there?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The commitment to a 2nd indyref will have to be set out clearly on line one of the SNP manifesto going into the next elections. If they fudge it, or worse, explicitly accept that Scots have no legal right to choose unless Johnson grants them that right, then we will be looking at decades.

    If its the second option, then I will find it hard to put my vote in that camp.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is it really wise for unionists to tell potential No voters that if the Scots do actually vote for indy, the London will just keep everything they've paid in national insurance over their careers, and deny them their pensions, English, Welsh, I. Irish and orange Scots included?

    Seems like a way to generate Yes votes to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For example, 10% of people in Scotland are English migrants, many of whom are pensioners, retired here for the lower property prices and better NHS.

      So would England would stop their pensions if Scotland votes Yes, even if these people all personally voted No?

      I can see them warming to Sturgeon's SNP in this case.

      Delete
  19. There's not much point in debating this as Westminster is going to make Holyrood a shell come next year and there will be no election. #prediction

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whilst websites like this are discussing pensions and currency
      choices the tories have passed a bill to dismantle democracy in Scotland, next year is too late, the SNHS and Scottish water will be sold off by then. The tories dont hang around for ANYONE

      Delete
  20. I certainly wouldn't say there'd be nothing to lose, because there are some pretty major potential downsides to risking a unionist government, even when the main pro-indy party has no intention of pursuing independence. (I keep thinking about how the Parti Québécois failed repeatedly to come close to regaining majority power after losing it in 2003.) But it's fair to say there'd be somewhat less to lose.

    Hmm - if the main pro-indy party has no intention of pursuing independence, then it seizes to be an indy party and beocomes just another unionist party. I mean - the main prerequisite for the party to be called an indy party should be - well - to want independence.
    Are we that far with the SNP - quite a few of us have our doubts, but for the time being they are an indy party - and yes, we'll see what the manifesto will bring. If they don't commit themselves to the independence during the next five years then they'll stop being an indy party.
    I find what BoJo and WM Tories are doing in regards to devolution at the moment a good thing. It will force NS and the SNP to act and act fast.
    Because if they just stick to their usual tweeting and feeling outraged, but doing nothing really, Holyrood will become just a parish council parliament. And that brings less money and less influence for the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Listen to craig Murray ref independence.in a talk to pensioners for indy.spoiler the snp are taking us for a ride.not in a good way

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a link for this Craig Murray talk to pensioners?

      Delete
    2. It's okay I found it. It's in two parts (1) the talk and (2) the question and answer session. To find them just use goggle and do the following searches:

      YouTube "Pensioners 4 Indy podcast #001 - Craig Murray"
      (and)
      YouTube "Craig Murray part 2 - Q and A"

      I'll have a listen to them later on. But Craig is an engaging speaker so I know I'll enjoy them. Thanks for the heads-up.

      Delete
    3. I would like to see Craig Murray in conversation with GWC.

      Delete
    4. There would be no conversation.
      Covidia is as coherent as the tangerine blimp in Washington and would flee faster than Ben Shapiro did from Brillo's mild questioning.

      Delete
  22. In 16 in the NE Region over 137,000 voted for the SNP with their list/2nd vote, they won no seats and yet James is telling us to do the same next year, why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SNP won 9 of the 17 NE Region Seats* in 2016.

      That's over half of them on 45% of the PR list vote. They won 9 'Regional List' seats, but as they'd already got these by the constituency vote, they were, fairly, not allocated another 9!

      If they'd won zero constituencies, they'd have got something not too dissimilar due to PR allocation.

      That's how PR works.

      Surely the who idea of indy is that the government we elect is a government that represents us? If pro indy parties had won huge majority of the seats on the less than 50% of votes they got in the NE region, that wouldn't be be the case.

      If we are to win independence, it will only be through getting >50% of people voting for pro-indy parties to give us >50% pro-indy MSPs because >50% support indy and will vote Yes.

      We could get 100% pro-indy MSPs and by cheating the system and it would get us nowhere if only 49% back Yes.

      ---
      17 Total NE Region Seats = 7 List + 10 constituency

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that Skier,

      I don't subscribe to your Queensbury rules take on Elections.

      In a democracy folks are free to vote as they wish, there's no requirement to vote for any party 1-2, you can choose any combination you want, I'm just pointing out that the NE independence voters who voted SNP 1-2 in 16 wasted their 2nd vote, and there's another option available.

      No jiggery pokery, cheating or gaming the system, just exercising their democratic right.

      The more Indie supporting MSPs we can return to Holyrood next year, the stronger the case foe Yes2Indie.

      Delete
    3. Sure, but if the outcome of an election isn't proportionally representative, then it's not going to help further the indy cause.

      What would you rather have, 54% solid backing for indy and 54% pro-indy MSPs, or 75% pro-indy MSPs and 45% backing indy?

      If anything, a grossly disproportionate pro-indy majority on a minority of the vote with lots of potential Yes voters disenfranchised is likely to hurt Yes in any subsequent referendum. The unionist scaremongering of a 'one party Yes state' will have, on the face of it, proven correct.

      Also, I see people warning about the Tories shutting / neutering Holyrood. Well, if we kick all they unionists out of that, the chances of them trying to shut it will rocket. By contrast, if there's a good few of them have a job there yet see the wind blowing to indy, they'll jump ship, gravy trainers that they are.

      I'm happy to eject every single unionist MP sent by Scotland to London by contrast. Tactical vote all you want here.

      Lets try and get e.g. 60% pro-indy MSPs because 60% voted for that. If we achieve that sort of thing, then we are well on the road to indy.

      Delete
    4. As Skier has pointed out the List vote is the first vote. Get over 50% and you are pretty well guaranteed a majority for your preferred Party and your vote has not been wasted; You have the added bonus of successfully selecting your preferred MSP whenever your Party wins a Constituency.
      I know from friends in Germany where the AMS system is used in some elections, the List is always considered the first and most important vote. It's the heritage of the first past the post system here that folk here can't shake off

      Delete
    5. Thanks Skier,

      but it will be proportionally representative, that's the beauty of the system, votes cast for each party will be counted and the formulae applied.

      If Unionists are free to vote for any combination of parties, and they do, then surely that option is open to the Independence supporters.

      If support for Independence rose to 60% that would be fine, but what would it take for that to happen.







      Delete
    6. Clachan,

      I'm not really up to speed on German politics, but isn't their Government usually a coalition? and maybe that's what we would be better off with here, instead of wasting so many 2nd votes by voting SNP 1-2.

      Delete
    7. I thought the idea was to game the system so that e.g. 50% of folks voting for Yes parties could get 70% of seats or something?

      If we want proportionality, folks just need to do similar to what they did last couple of times, i.e. vote for the party they support most on the list, and tactically on the FPTP constituency (if they want).

      Delete
    8. Would the 9% of Scots Tories or the third of Scottish Labour voters who support independence be gaming the system if they voted for Alliance for Independence on the list?
      Surely they'd just be voting with their conscience.
      How could anybody have a problem with that?

      Delete
  23. Withdraw SNP/MPs from britnat Westminster. Have them set up an independent assembly in Scotland to fight for Scotland's independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should not forget the 35% of Labour voters who back YES.
      Its not all about targeting the SNP vote.
      Labour at Holyrood could become a fringe party without their YES voters. Target them and its a straight fight with the Tories.

      Delete
    2. Is anyone thinking about the substantial number of people who haven't been voting in Holyrood elections?

      Delete
  24. Robin McAlpine in his article on sourcenews.scot "Unite? Behind what exactly?" is one hundred percent correct in what he says of the SNP under the leadership of Sturgeon and her gang of SNP upper-echelon hangers-on. He is spot on and reflects my own thinking very closely. Robin is also correct in his final conclusion on what to do about this - so that's it for me.

    In the Holyrood elections next year for the constituency vote I'll vote SNP but with a very, very heavy heart. I've had all I can stomach of Sturgeon's constant assurances that independence is coming, years-worth of that and we are no further forward at all under Sturgeon. So this election will be the last I will ever vote for the SNP if they do not deliver independence in the next Holyrood cycle. It is also the case that the upper reaches of the SNP, including Sturgeon, have gotten far too cosy with right-wing elements in Scottish society -- I've had enough of that sht too.

    For the List vote I will not be voting SNP. My hope is that the AFI gets off the ground and I'll vote for that. The AFI is a brilliant idea and just what we need to maximise the pro-indy vote without splitting that vote among multiple pro-indy parties: if they all get under the umbrella of the AFI then that is a great mechanism for consolidating the pro-indy vote into a single "pro-indy pool" of votes that actually wins seats and seats that might well goad Sturgeon to actually act on independence.

    Enough is enough folks! First vote SNP, second vote for a pro-indy party, hopefully AFI but if AFI isn't available then for any pro-indy party other than the SNP (are they really pro-indy under Sturgeon?) and the Greens (busted flush and more woke than the wokerati in the SNP).

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have never seen as many 5th columnists, on all the independence blogs claiming they are actually for independence. Bigger liers than their boss Johnston.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've noticed that pretty much all the monikers telling me not to vote for the SNP are those I don't recognise from way back indy social media wise, but have just popped up recently.

      Delete
    2. Yes, it's getting more and more obvious. "I'm an ardent independence supporters but I'm voting against the SNP. You should do the same. I have an insight into the upper echelons of the SNP because I was talking to a woman at the bus stop who knows Nicola Sturgeon's neighbour." Yeah.

      Delete
  26. The Scottish Government should tell the English people we are repealing the Treaty of th Union of the Scottish and English Governments, thus granting you the freedom you so desire

    ReplyDelete
  27. Who is Craig Murray? is this the same Graig Murray that was sacked by the British, is this the same Craig Murray who was refused as a candidate by the SNP, is this the same Craig Murray who's chums with the Wings lunatic who can't keep himself out of court and is banned from Twitter for hate speech, is this the same Craig Murray who asks for donations to support his life to his bank in the Strand in London

    Thes guys don't have any grudges whatseover do they, I support the rights of people to play ping pong please send me money to my bank in England thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't bow down to authority... much.

      Delete
    2. To be honest, I'd be very proud to have been fired by the British.

      Delete
    3. You need to work and have a job to be fired.

      Delete
    4. I've got two; all funded by Europeans. How many do you have?

      Delete
    5. SO YOU PRODUCE NOTHING for the people and take tax payers money, no wonder you support masses of useless EU politicians. I worked full time from school to retirement and did part time work during this time. Grovelling EU Irish skivers like you need outed.

      Delete
    6. Ah, but would you know the essential skills of pitching a business plan?
      Stick with Young James and you'll soon be a Business Insider.

      Delete
    7. What the fuck are you on about. I'm paid to help produce what you put in your car / is used in plastics / paints and all sorts of shit + what's funded England to the tune of hundreds of billions and I'm paid for it by European based multinationals.

      It's unionists that voted to be British subsidy junkies in 2014.

      Delete
    8. I do not have a car, I carry my shopping, and use the bus.

      Delete
    9. That's the Craig Murray that conned everyone into thinking that he was skint, to donate to him, and then to find that he had paid cash for his mansion in Edinburgh. He and Campbell are a couple of BritNat supporting chancers.

      Delete
    10. Ok, what they put in the bus then. And what your shopping packaging is made from. Also a wide range of items in your home. And is what's put in the lorries that bring the food to your supermarket, and what a lot their parts are made from. And what's put in the tractors that ploughed the fields to produce the food. Also the fertilizer that they put on the fields. And the gas that warms your home, or at least the supermarket and the homes of the supermarket workers and the farmer. Also the lorry drivers.

      You just like insulting key workers such as myself and have particular hatred from nurses, doctors etc who are funded by the taxpayer, which is me.

      Delete
    11. Covidia will soon know the meaning of hard work.
      Those fields won't harvest themselves, and the Tories will soon decide that the triple locked pittance must be worked for.

      Delete
    12. ScottytheScotinScotlandJuly 22, 2020 at 1:16 AM

      Anonymous - 2.01 - change the record its bloody boring. Are you actually a human or just a program that has got stuck playing I hate Murray.

      Delete
  28. Well, the disincentivists and their useful-idiot negativist spillovers from WoS and elsewhere are certainly out in force today. Support for independence has reliably crossed the halfway mark, Slippery Gove is panicking, BoJo suddenly feels a need to pay a gracious visit to quell the restless natives, who are increasingly of the opinion that we can do far better managing our own affairs thank-you-very-much, and it's us who are in trouble? All on the say-so of a political no-hoper with a record of abject failure, weary-willying impotently from the sidelines?

    Today on the EBC R4 lunchtime news, independence is again on the agenda for the first time in ages, Curtice is declaring that the writing is on the wall, and Pathetic Ricardo Leotard is trotted out to declare that Labour is considering better-more-local devo sometime honest, while fondly hoping that the post-Covid economic situation will return Scotland to its woeful old dependency culture. These sorry excuses are running out of road, yet the SG/SNP is the problem?

    Seriously? Get a grip people. Yes, we are getting restless, and we do expect the SNP to get behind the growing swell of public support for independence and start putting real heft behind the many assurances previously given, and do so by next May at the latest, if not sooner (like year's end). But provided it does rise to this occasion, it deserves our wholehearted support at the coming polls.

    Its gain is our gain. And the clear-sighted on both sides of the fence can see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well well well Grizbard! You’ve changed yer tune eh?

      An interesting insight, that comment about the “pain threshold”. How much mistreatment will an abused person take without rebelling? Will there ever be a “last straw”? The London government, in its arrogance and fundamental ignorance, evidently sees no likelihood whatever. Not least because the SNP, when it ever does react at all, appears to offer nothing more than the barren prospect of yet further procrastination.

      Delete
    2. You wrote that in 2017 !! Lmao !!

      Delete
  29. Young James, Oxford have developed a coronavirus vaccine. Are you going to take their jab or will you wait for the Imperial College version?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No they haven't.

      Delete
    2. You can tell when the Nat Zis are in retreat, they impersonate me GWC. Feel kind of chuft.

      Delete
    3. Grossly Woeful Cringer, who exactly is in retreat? (Have you seen the polls lately?) And who is impersonating you? (Who would even want to?) You have never had a positive word to say for your Preciousss (impossible to find, I grant you), but you are now becoming increasingly delusional.

      You're running out of road, and getting desperate. The pressure is showing, it's easy to see. I almost feel for you.

      Delete
    4. Albie knows that Ah'm his precious. But if he gets over rowdy then its the Good Housekeeping Bumper Annual 1973 straight in the nuts.

      Delete
    5. It's the only thing Covidia understands.

      Delete
  30. Paul Kavanaugh has pretty much naile it, in my opinion.....


    https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2020/07/20/the-determination-thats-needed/

    ReplyDelete
  31. I know that I should contribute more to the debate. It's just that I spend too much time fantasising about hunky British Skier. He's a scientist, you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, you can't help it, GWC. It's called multiple personality disorder. Combined with attention-seeking disorder. You really are a mess. It's all that pointless fantasising about the lost British Empire that I blame.

      Delete
    2. I blame the free NHS condensed milk and orange juice.

      Delete
    3. I blame the turps that Covidia swills.

      Delete
  32. Ye sometimes couldnae make it up.
    Russian interference in the 2014 indy ref says London. No mention of the UK VOW just before the vote.
    British exeptionalisn at its most crass.
    Nothing seems to shame or embarrass them. The Scottish people are politically educated, but I hope the SNP make hay with this piece of rank British hypocracy.
    The same over the so called 'gaming' of the list vote. OK for Ruth Davidson but unfair for Yessers to do the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was an NKVD former agent standing behind me in the polling booth with a gun in my neck telling me to vote leave. Surprised no one noticed.

      Delete
    2. Covidia is an obedient colonial comrade.

      Delete
  33. Next Tuesday it will be exclusively revealed that Peter A. Bell is the evil genius who attempted to influence the result of the 2014 IndyRef.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The 750 billion EU recovery package, per capita, would equate to 9.1 billion euros (£8.2b) for Scotland alone.

    Compare and contrast:

    https://www.laprensalatina.com/boris-johnson-unveils-5-billion-pound-coronavirus-recovery-package/

    Boris Johnson unveils 5 billion pound UK coronavirus recovery package

    It's unclear whether Scotland will get any of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skier, you are the expert! HOW MUCH HAVE WE THE UK TAXPAYER given to the EU since MARCH 2017.

      Delete
    2. You have not earned the right to say 'we'. It is a privilege granted to few mortals.

      Delete
    3. I'm not the idiot advocating the UK leaves the EU, so losing all its contributions to the rainy day pot. If the UK had remained, per capita, it would be looking at 75 billion or so from the fund.

      You are the UK expert. How much have Scots and Scottish oil revenues contributed to the UK over the years? When is Scotland getting that back? If it was in the EU, it would be getting its EU contributions back.

      Delete
    4. So you do not know the answer. It should read UK Oil revenues and still is at present.

      Delete
    5. Short of rubles? Try a rube like GWC. He lives in Ferryland.

      Delete
    6. So you do not know the answer. It should read UK Oil revenues and still is at present.

      Delete
  35. All I can say is that to let the "enemy" know what plan B is would mean making a similar error like we did in 2014, instead of turning their "Unionists" questions back on them we stumble over an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Scotland has just been mentioned once in the Russia Report but it should be noted that [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. Whereas when [REDACTED] and 'open source information was taken into account then [REDACTED]. In summary the conclusion must be that extensive [REDACTED] had a material effect on [REDACTED].

    ReplyDelete
  37. The account shall never die:

    https://twitter.com/search?q=wings+scotland&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearch

    ReplyDelete
  38. I don't think this was reported.

    Anyway, the unionists need to get rid of their stooge. She's shite.

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1284842049708199936

    Not QUITE sure why it took two further weeks for the WM VI to be released from this batch of polling...

    New Scottish Westminster poll, Panelbase 30 June - 3 July (changes vs 1 - 5 June);

    SNP - 53% (+2)
    Con - 21% (nc)
    Lab - 19% (nc)
    LD - 6% (nc)

    ReplyDelete
  39. I see that the Tories in Scotland want an inquiry into the 2014 Independence referendum following the Russia report at Westminster. Please let us have that. We can then find out the true tactics of the No side in getting Putin, EC leader of the time and other foreigners to speak out against independence. All the collusion of the BBC with the No side regarding 'No Borders' etc, etc, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's true that Russia interfered, the referendum will need to be re-run to ensure a free and fair result.

      Delete
    2. Scotland has no access to intelligence other than what the UK *allows* us to have so we would be investigating only what the Tories wanted us to find out, and that probably means going after Alex Salmond for his involvement with RT because we wouldn't be *allowed* any information on anything actually relevant to information on the UK government

      If Russia was involved in the 2014 referendum they probably would have supported both sides if their aim was instability
      We believe David Cameron asked Russia to get involved but we'll never get true access to that information, so the Tories only want the information they want in order to implicate who they want
      In the end if the Tories say they want something to happen they either know it can't or it's something to benifit them

      Delete
    3. Sure, but it doesn't matter which side Russia might have been trying to 'help'. If the result was unduly influenced, we need to re-run the vote.

      Delete
  40. Tory MSP Murdo Fraser calls for investigation into senior figures in the SNP over Russian involvement 2014

    They're after Alex Salmond again as a diversion from their plight
    Predictable really, but he brought it on himself when he signed up to sell his show to RT
    No mention of Ruth Davidson's £20 grand dinners with the Russian Oligarchs though

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Salmond was in league with the Russians, we need to re-run the iref. We need a free and fair vote to settle the issue.

      Delete
    2. Anything that is free will suit the Jocks.

      Delete
    3. Covidia voluntarily pays for its prescriptions, of course...

      Delete
    4. Says GWC the English subsidy junkie (2014).

      Delete
  41. Certainly makes sense that Russia would be pro-brexit and anti-Scottish indy.

    Brexit weakens the UK and the EU. Scotland is the gateway to the N. Atlantic and rich in oil & gas. Putin should clearly prefer a Scotland part of a weakened, isolated UK than as a N. Atlantic bastion of Europe.

    Certainly, Putin would favour the refusal of a section 30. He likes strong arm, anti-democratic tactics. He also wants the UK divided, which is what happens if it's not democratic.

    A Scotland freely choosing indy or union in a relationship of respect strengthens the British Isles partnerships while a section 30 refusal causes the division and strife we are witnessing. You can't make a strong UK by forcing it on people; it must be freely chosen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skier has now turned to being an expert on Russia. What more for this Irish blawhard! A Tony Blair advisor mibbie.

      Delete
    2. Covidia has pronounced itself an expert on everything, much like its badly painted idol.

      Delete
  42. Tories accuse Alex Salmond George Galloway and Wings over Scotlands Stuart Campbell in Russia money scandal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Scotland has no currency, what is used to pay Covidia's state pittance?
      Is it a barter system, or will Covidia simply be marched into the fields to labour for its pittance?

      Delete
  43. Being honest, what difference does it does it make? Who cares about Russian involvement? We lost! And isn't the UK's responsibility to ensure reliabity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the Tories that care. I support them in this and agree we need a re-run of the referendum to ensure fairness.

      Delete
    2. Yes, full control of broadcasting and media regulation needs to be given to Holyrood to ensure no outside interference.

      New laws can be introduced to prevent any outside interference in the political process from beyond Scotland's borders. For example, it would be illegal for any politician elected outside Scotland to have involvement in the campaign on pain of jail etc.

      As someone who works hard and efficiently, I see this as readily possible within 6 months to a year. It doesn't require a lot of legislation. Lazy folk might try to stretch it out of course; they can be fired.

      The reason there were problems last time of course is because Westminster was in charge (reserved matter) and admits it was just being lax (all over the papers).

      Delete
    3. Are you English or Scottish today GWC?

      Delete
    4. For sure legislation could pass in 6 months, but that does not mean would happen in 6 months. New licences for Scotlands print and broadcast media would have to be negotiated. Regulatory bodies set up set up etc. Would imagine this would take another year to 18 months post all legislation being passed.

      Probably best to write off any chance of a second indy ref till 2023 to make sure fair as you say.

      Delete
    5. What on earth are you on about. Scotland already has a media regulatory body that operates according to Scottish law with an Office in Edinburgh. You'd just need to transfer oversight to Holyrood.

      https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/how-ofcom-is-run/nations-and-regions/scotland

      Delete
    6. I'm getting the impression you are just one of these lazy people that sees everything as a huge challenge that will take ages to organise.

      Delete
    7. Because Scotland has a different legal system / is run semi-autonomously, it already has most of the bodies needed. It's just a matter of transferring control of Scottish 'divisions' to Scots / Holyrood. The Scotland office for example should move to Holyrood control.

      Also, to ensure the democratic process is sound, Scotland should become an internationally recognised independent / sovereign state, albeit within an EU-type UK going forward, handing full control of the political process to Scots. That is the only way to stop interference from e.g. Wales, England etc.

      Delete
    8. You are on waffle mode again Skier. You Nat sis want interference from the EU. You would comply with EU rules. That is not independence.

      Delete
    9. You'd just need to transfer oversight to Holyrood.

      Erm i'm talking about an independant body like the ISPO and offcom. your not seriously suggesting that the Scottish goverment has control over the media without indipendant regulators are you?

      I'm really struggling to see the point to be honest. I mean even if it was disolved I would still be able to watch UK BBC/ITN/Sky News in Scotland right. In just the same way that I can watch CNN/Fox news/ France 24 now. Same with the papers. I would still be able to go into a shop a buy a English paper right, just like a can buy an American, French, German paper now?

      And obviously I would still be able to access the BBC/Sky News etc internet sites from Scotland.

      Seems like alot of time and money for no real purpose to be honest.

      Delete
    10. I am saying broadcasting becomes completely controlled by an independent sovereign Scotland / Scots (instead of England controlling it, so interfering), and e.g. Ofcom Scotland becomes an independent Scottish regulator overnight. Sorry if you misunderstood.

      Do you see CNN as news from your country? What about France 24?

      I see these as foreign news stations and all that comes with such a status. But e.g. BBC Scotland is supposed to be my national broadcaster and STV is supposed to be nationally regulated and impartial ergo I should be more trusting of them? Except they are regulated by a foreign country with respect to Scottish politics, one which is bringing democracy to an end (no Section 30).

      Incidentally, are you the English anon who's not registered to vote here? If that's the case, you are interfering the Scottish political process by being on here arguing different positions. Only those with a vote here should be trying to influence what we Scots think about such things / vote.

      If not, apologies.

      Delete
    11. Being part of the UK isn't independence GWC. You brexiters don't know what real independence is.

      Delete
    12. I'm just putting my opinion across on a publicly open comments section. You are choosing to read and respond to them. What I say on here has no influence on the political process.

      Quiet telling that you are trying to stifle discussion, ties in with wanting to stop news broadcasters you don't agree with broadcasting.

      Delete
    13. That's still interfering in the political debate. You are deliberately seeking out Scots voters on political sites to put across ideas and concepts which might sway how they vote. It's no different to Russian agents pushing stories on UK facebook or similar.

      I'm not stifling anything; just pointing out the reality of the situation. You were the one that started responding to my posts on the issue.

      You might want to add 'I'm an English voter, so it's not really my place to tell you what to do, but if I were Scottish I think I'd probably....' to the start of posts. That's what I'd do if I did decide to butt into Irish political debates. It's the polite thing to do at the very least, and makes clear you not Scottish (politically) so people can account for your lack of knowledge of the country and life in it.

      Delete
    14. Nope I will continue to post however I like. If you want to set the rules on how people should post then set up your own blog forum. I'm not telling anyone what to do, just posting on comments section.

      I have made it clear that I do not live in Scotland, i'm not hiding anything.

      Delete
    15. I wasn't telling you to do anything. It's you doing that. I merely suggested you might adopt the approach nice, polite people adopt. Why not call yourself 'Bob from Surrey' or something. I am honest and don't hide; I'm Scottish (resident/voter) and a keen skier.

      You don't live in Scotland, yet you are trying to influence how its run by actively seeking out and putting across your opinion to its voters from a biased perspective. You also don't make it clear you are not even in Scotland when do this (although credit for being honest when asked). You claim to be Scottish, and have even insisted on this, as if you give you rights on the matter, yet legally you are not, and are even against internationally recognized legal Scottish nationality existing in the first place (at least Wings says he wants such a thing).

      The fact you don't reside here is very obvious in your posts of course, you don't seem to know much at all about Scottish politics, just as I am no particular expert on the politics of Ireland (even though I actually am a citizen). Certainly, you seem in no position to judge whether Scotland would be best independent or not. How could you judge that from England? Of course some who are less clued up might think you were a voter here and listen to what you were saying, ergo be influenced.

      And you are here a lot doing this. Just about every day. There's no doubt about your attempts at outside influence.

      Delete
    16. This site is biased. James makes this clear. Anyone reading his posts will fully understand that he is biased on the side of Scottish independence and is trying to influence people by his blog posts. You don't seem to have a problem with this.

      You seem to favour the type of culture that communist states use in regards to discussion and media. You don't want 'foreign' media and don't want people from other countries putting their view across incase this differs from your own biased views. You also seem to constantly highlight other countries failings but never say anything positive about these countries in order to project a biased impression of them. As I say this suppression of the media and discussion as well as a biased impression of other countries is regularly used by communist states - North Korea and China are good current examples. The USSR a good example of a historic use. Your way of thinking /acting would fit in well in any of them to be honest.

      Delete
  44. Cameron in 2014 is on the front page of the Scottish papers pleading for help from Putin stop Scottish independence.
    Fast Forward to this committee report..
    Johnson sat on it, delayed it and is undermining and discrediting its findings.
    London power was ranged against the Scottish people in 2014.
    Express,Mail,BBC are still there SPIN, bias by OMMISION but we in YES have direct access to the people.
    Not remotely but face to face in our communities.
    Was their ENGLISH interference in 2014?
    Were electoral rules trashed with the breaking of PURDAH with the last minute VOW. Brittania waves the rules. Who knew EH!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ian Botham the ex cricket player is now an unelected Lord and now has more power than an elected SNP MP

    Isn't English democracy great, certainly better than those Brussels people who actually are elected by their own countries just like UK representatives were until the Tory Nazis conned the gullible into believing they weren't

    Who elected Dominic Cummings to be overlord of the UK

    England voted for it so England should get it, Scotland didn't vote for it and it's being imposed by England, that's dictatorship

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't get a lawmaking vote in parliament. Botham, Mone etc and the bishops do.

      Delete
    2. I reckon I have been consistent in the abolishment of the Lords. However you have not reciprocated this in the abolishment of the EU Lords.

      Delete
    3. ScottytheScotinScotlandJuly 22, 2020 at 8:47 PM

      Anonymous - 6.28pm - an English dictatorship from day 1 in 1707.

      Delete
    4. Yes, you have.

      Ok, for clarity, I support the abolishment of any politicians in the EU who are able to vote on laws yet are unelected.

      Currently, no such people exist, but I support them not existing.

      Delete
  46. Ladies and gents, I give you racist British nationalism. Still alive and well.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-53498493

    UK citizenship test 'misleading' and 'false' on slavery

    The information about British history given to people who apply for citizenship is 'demonstrably false', according to a group of academics.

    In an open letter published in an academic journal, the historians and authors accuse the government document of misleading applicants about several aspects of British history.

    They claim the UK's role in the international slave trade is downplayed, and that the end of the British Empire is described as "mostly peaceful" when it was not.


    Most of the world thinks Churchil was a racist out first and foremost to protect the English/British empire. The idea that he was great liberator is comical. If he was, he'd have ended colonial rule across the British empire, taking his jackboot off the faces of the natives.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-53405121

    Churchill's legacy leaves Indians questioning his hero status

    I first learnt about Winston Churchill as a child. A character in an Enid Blyton book I was reading kept a picture of him on the mantelpiece in her home because she 'had a terrific admiration for this great statesman'.

    As I grew older, and had more conversations about India's colonial past, I found most people in my country held a starkly different view of the wartime British prime minister.


    As part Irish, I can confirm that Brits live in a complete fantasy land on this topic. Nobody admired imperial Britain apart from other brutal emperors like Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cannot be part anything. You are Scottish or not.

      Delete
    2. The UK allows for multiple citizenship. I am Scottish & Irish under your British laws.

      There's even a free travel area. :-)

      Delete
    3. It is UK laws and you are perhaps a citizen of the United Kingdom. Ireland is a foreign country.

      Delete
  47. ScottytheScotinScotlandJuly 22, 2020 at 8:51 PM

    GWC carries his daily shopping - 8 cans of tennents lager - in a Union flag bag. Saddo.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Not posted for a while but here is my contribution to the debate
    IMHO We are at a crucial moment in Scotland's history and it takes level heads and clear thinking take the wrong course now and Indy could be gone for generations .
    Catalonia should serve as a warning . For those who say Catalonia is different get real the International community couldn't give a f@@@@ monkeys about the constitutional differences between Scotland and Catalonia and the ins and out of Scots constitutional law .
    Lisa Nandys comments give an insight into the minds of the British political establishment . Those who shout UDI now or dissolve the Union , do they really believe that the 40% to 45% of Scots who wish to remain in the Union and Westminster are going to sit back and say that's that. Almost immediately Westminster would move to assert its authority and yeah if it came to it I think they would use the military and arrest the Scottish Government.

    The only court that matters here is that of International opinion .Catalonia made two crucial errors firstly a referendum with a 45% turnout is as good as a chocolate teapot it did not demonstrate to the International community that a clear majority of Catalans wanted Indy . Secondly the Catalan Government could not convince the International community that it had control over the civic authorities within its territorial boundaries . As was made clear when the Police and government bodies all obeyed the Spain and the Independence movement leaders ended up in jail.

    Westminster will never agree to Indyref2 especially if looks likely Yes will win. We therefore are going to have an Indyref without one. To render a Unionist boycott pointless we then need to ensure that a minimum of 50%+1 registered electors turnout to vote 2.1 million. That is a tall ask given that the MSM the BBC will continually pump out the message that its a wildcat referendum no legal standing etc .. To win such a referendum under those conditions we need support a bit higher than it is now around 60% .
    To get such a result would place a hell of a lot of moral pressure on the courts civic bodies like the Police Civil servants and it would demonstrate to the International community that a majority of Scots wanted Independence . Backed up by a campaign of civil disobedience and non cooperation with Westminster and demonstrations not just of 100k but 250K the pressure on Westminster to negotiate would become overwhelming

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ScottytheScotinScotlandJuly 23, 2020 at 12:56 AM

      Aha - the old support is never enough punt. When it's getting near 60% it will suddenly become 65% is needed because ----------- fill in the blanks.

      All that is needed is to use the 2021 election and put in the madate that > 50% vote share is a mandate for independence. If the Britnats don't turn out then they ain't gonna gave many MSPs.

      Delete