Was Salyers "a typical mooth doing the British state's job for it" when she stayed silent on the good independence supporters (and I'm simply one of dozens) who were trampled over by the Alba leadership? On her own logic I suppose she must have been. What a pathetic hypocrite. https://t.co/nRkd8SsRoe
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) February 22, 2026
I must say it's something of a relief to finally have such a demonstrably strong reason for not taking one of the noisiest figures from the nuttier fringes of our movement seriously anymore. I've had to bite my tongue any number of times over the years when people have invited me to treat Salyers and her batty prospectus as some sort of passport to the promised land. You'll have to forgive me, but as a baptised Roman Catholic with ancestry that is two-thirds Irish and one-eighth French-Canadian, I have no great interest in Salyers' preposterous, offensive and quasi-religious belief that Scotland's right to choose its own constitutional future is not granted by modern concepts of democracy and international law, but instead by the almost random existence of a racist, bigoted 17th Century document that spends half its time wittering on about the supposedly self-evident evils of "Papists". It really isn't that far from Salyers' belief-system to Benjamin Netanyahu's conviction that Israel must rule the West Bank because it was promised to them in a sacred book 3000 years ago.
Incidentally, my message to Salyers above is much the same as to anyone else who claims that nobody is allowed to criticise the Alba Party because it is nominally "pro-independence". OK, if you spoke out at the time against the McEleny purges of good independence supporters, if you took to social media to denounce the Alba leadership's appalling treatment of independence warriors such as Eva Comrie and Denise Findlay, if you wrote to Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh to tell her in no uncertain terms how outraged you were by her sinister actions against the impeccably pro-Yes Alan Harris and Morgwn Davies simply because they had insisted on due process in Colin White's disciplinary case, then fine, you have credibility on this matter, you deserve a hearing, and I'll give you one. But if you instead sat back and allowed all of that to happen without comment while continuing to mindlessly applaud the perpetrators, then I strongly suggest you stop being such a ridiculous hypocrite and just pipe down.
You can see the video that triggered Salyers so much below -
As a presbyterian SNP supporter I have never heard of Salyers. That's all I have to say other than it is 2026 and we have an election to win that is inclusive and wishes a fairer and better society for all.
ReplyDeleteAppareny Sara got so gone she thought that this was good enough to spend on Swiss lawyers,,, By Erecting publick schooles and societies of the Jesuites and not only allowing mass to be publickly said But also inverting protestant Chappells and Churches to publick Mass houses Contrair to the express lawes against saying and hearing of Mass.... Itt goes on about King Billy and a lot of stuff that is incontinent in 2026.
ReplyDeleteDon't be too hard on Sally Salyers. If you want an international court to ban the distribution of "popish bookes" in Scotland, Sally is your woman. The dream shall never die
DeleteI haven't heard of this person either and I'm not a member of any religious outfit.
DeleteShe's completely potty.
ReplyDeleteMI5 captured? who does she think she is? ----IFS?
ReplyDeleteI see Buckfast boy at 6.24am is back. You should have gone to bed rather than staying up all night to post a pathetic one liner.
DeleteI say the SNP leadership are devolutionists. That clearly opens them up to accusations of being captured by MI5 or indeed always with MI5 voluntarily. If they didn’t want people to be suspicious of them then they shouldnae be devolutionists in the first place kidding on they want independence.
19/10/23 no ifs no buts - aye right.
De facto referendum promised - aye right.
Know them by their actions not their words. They grovel to Westminster for a sec 30 knowing fine well it will be rejected. It’s all a devolutionists show. Whether Liz Lloyd was Sturgeon’s MI5 handler it makes no difference they made promises about indyref2, raised funds on the back of it, did nothing and kept the money.
Whoever's at it, they’re the ones responsible for disarming the obvious and inevitable majority for independence in May's election with Swinney's absurd yet staunch insistence that only SNP 65+ seats will do.
DeleteAre IfS and Salyers related? Because their rants seem uncannily similar.
Delete65+ seats only to be told the day after the HR election 'that was 2011, this is 2026. The answer is no again, obviously.'
DeleteAnybody who thinks that response would be democratically untenable might want to prepare for disappointment.
Who does the telling? London or Swinney?
DeleteHe's the one who set the untenably high threshold. It's his "democratically untenable" line, not theirs. (In as much as he's supposedly his own man and not just doing their bidding.)
If there's a big majority for independence in Holyrood but the first minister is dead set against it, who is even saying No? Because that is the overwhelmingly likely outcome now.
Buckfast Boy at 4.17pm has slept it off but is still posting one line garbage that only a troll would think was worth the effort. Drunk or sober he is always a waste of space.
DeleteA de facto referendum with a >50% result is the way forward. Always has been since Boris Johnston told Sturgeon to piss off with her sec 30 request. It has been obvious since 2020. The fact that the SNP vote for an approach that is not even worth being called stupid tells you all you need to know about them and the people who support them - devolutionists. Even with 80 SNP MSPs Swinney will be told to piss off by Westminster and Swinney will be delighted and the SNP numpties that post on here will cry “ let’s go for 90 MSPs in 2031they cannae keep denying Scottish democracy”.
The Snp leadership are not 'captured' by MI5. She should be called to publicly evidence such statements. In matters of UK wide vital intelligence circulation norms, any Scottish Government will of necessity be 'informed' of certain matters with regard to overall national security concerns, as will members of the Privy Council when it is deemed necessary. That does not equate to being 'captured' by MI5 which could as much be applied to media and journalist, businessmen and no doubt independistas declaring intentions to bring down the Scottish Government or SNP leadership- under the guise of it all being 'for the independence cause'. Methinks Ms Salyers protests too much.
ReplyDeleteOh really? I wonder how many cosy visits Parnell and de Valera had on such matters with the British state.
DeleteDev visited Downing Street.
DeleteI take it Sara Salyers is repeating much the same as Phil Boswell, Through a Scottish Prism/Liberate Scotland/Alliance for Scotland when he says "the current SNP leadership have been captured by the British establishment" and "unionists know the SNP are not a threat because they are devolutionists". There was no greater devolutionist than the late Alex Salmond who back in 2014 felt that Scottish voters were much more likely to respond favourably to enhanced powers for Holyrood rather than ever commit to independence. It's highly doubtful he ever truly came to think any differently. So many of the independistas who are aggressively pursuing their anti-SNP/leadership campaigns in an overtly OTT manner are role-playing faux outrage - which is nothing to do with furthering the cause of independence. They ramble along highways and byways of shouty rhetoric throwing in dramatic flourishes of language and posture merely in order to lure voters away from that dastardly SNP - simply in order to have their own favourites on bums on seats in - my goodness - a devolved administration - which given their antipathy to devolution - you would think they would seek to absolutely avoid wanting their chums participating in such a place. Rational people should be wary of those saying 'we will have no problem bringing down that government' and deeply scrutinise what their real motivations and ambitions are.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the point comparing anti Catholic sectarianism in Scotland with Zionism in Gaza is true. There would be no room for either in a civilised world - and I say this as an originally presbyterian, Paisley boy.
ReplyDeleteComing home from great holidays in Ireland in the recent past we usually had the misfortune to come through the blighted and benighted 'north'.
Absurd lies everywhere from nonsense about King Feargus in the sixth century to pictures of William III landing at Carrickfergus in 1690 from ships from which the Dutch flags had been edited out and replaced by British Union flags - in 1690 !
The childishness of the self deception was often laughable. We really don't want that kind of mumbo jumbo - surely ?
Alt Clut - what's worse a "Paisleyite" or "Presbyterian"?
ReplyDeleteI give up - what's the answer ?
DeleteBBC - Brainless Bafta Crapshoot
ReplyDeleteBBC Bryan "Brimble" Cameron
DeleteI'm with Salyers on this one. What Scotland needs now is some good old-fashioned wholesome religious fundamentalism. Down with Popism - let's do this!
ReplyDeleteOrange poppies on (Imperial Sacrificial Wars) Remembrance Day!
DeleteDid you know that Britney Spears is an anagram of Presbyterians?
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of issues conflated in this point-scoring spat.
ReplyDeleteWhen debating, maybe it's better to try to avoid making it sound like personal attacks, rather than differences of opinions ?
It would make for an interesting Youtube video if you respectfully debated the issues raised.
James, Alan and Morgwn are some of the Alba members that tried to stand up for fairness and democracy. They, and others who did so, deserve credit for that. Thank you.
"It would make for an interesting Youtube video"
DeleteIt's strange you should say that, because even before I saw your comment I had posted on Twitter to say I'd be more than happy to debate Sara Salyers on video. (That was in response to a mass pile-on from her fans, who were accusing me of "cowardice" for reasons that were somewhat hard to follow ) I fully expect her to be too busy washing her hair, just as RevStew was when I made the same offer to him.
She has fans ?
DeleteWe elect MSPs and MPs who all swear fealty to the King of England / UK Head of State and uphold English Crown in Westminster sovereignty. By doing so they receive generous incomes as UK politicians. Is that really the best plan for Scottish independence?
ReplyDeleteSo we dont elect Indy Supporting politicians . Then what!!!!. I greatly look forward to your answer.
DeleteIf someone believes in Scottish sovereignty of the people, they should not be swearing fealty to King Charles as Sovereign Overlord. "Not my King".
DeleteIf politicians are against discrimination on religious grounds, they should not be swearing fealty to an Anglican-only UK head of state.
If against ethnic / national discrimination, they should not be administering devolved Sovereign power of English Crown in UK parliament that denies Scots the right of self-determination.
The politicians will do it for as long as you continue to accept it and vote for them.
Bought and sold for English gold.
My opinion has been that the SNP lost more than a few very good members to Alba six years ago when Alex Salmond formed the new party. However, having read some of the comments both on here and Twitter it now seems to me that we also lost more than a few nutters to Alba as well.
ReplyDeleteSalyers would doubtless say she's only in favour of the non-bigoted elements of the Claim of Right, but the problem is that she also regards the Claim of Right as a kind of inalienable, irreversible "constitution" for Scotland, which means it has to be taken as a whole package. So whether she cares to admit it or not, she really is arguing for the persecution of Jesuits and the eradication of Catholic prayer-books.
ReplyDeleteBut why SHOULD Catholics have equal rights? I'm with Salyers on this. You go girl.
ReplyDeleteThe Big Ginger Dug has been barking a lot recently. Must be an election soon.
ReplyDeleteHe says this about Reform winning the next UK election:- " Should this transpire, there would be virtually no checks and balances in the British political system to limit Farage's exercise of unlimited power."
So Farage could just permanently close the Scottish Parliament. The only thing that can prevent this is Scottish independence. What is preventing independence - the devolutionist SNP leadership and the numpty SNP supporters that have supported Sturgeon's gang all these years since 2014.
Ifs- did you learn the term numpty from your therapist? You use the term continuously. Still maybe you are looking at your reflection on your window.
DeleteAnon troll at 11.49pm like all numpties you are wrong. More than happy to call you a special diddy.
DeleteDirty Business on Channel 4 - very good. Luckily for us Scottish Water is publicly owned. Businesses can choose who bills us - and how much.
ReplyDeleteSalyers it strikes me is someone caught in a bubble of approval and has no idea just how whacko her ideas look to the normal people who do occasionally look on. (She also has no idea how whacko her ideas are as a matter of objective fact.)
ReplyDeleteHer comment about the security services in the post about James makes her look, frankly, like a lunatic. Someone needs to tap her on the shoulder and have a gentle word.
DeleteWhen the whole thing came out about the 17th century Claim of Right proving sovereignty in Scotland lay not with the crown, or the parliament, but with the people, I went and read it. I could not find any reference to that doctrine in the document (read it yourself https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1689/28 or http://www.rps.ac.uk/trans/1689/3/108). However when I mentioned that I was told I was wrong. Presumably by people who had not taken the trouble to read the original source. There is also a 1989 Claim of Right which is much more succinct and matches the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989. Folk are getting the two mixed up.
ReplyDeleteLook, the 1689 Claim of Right may not say anything at all about popular sovereignty, but it does make very, very clear that the forts and magazines of the kingdom should not be entrusted to Papists, and that doing so would "contrair to law". Isn't that just as good? I'm with Sara on this.
DeleteI see Campbell continues to lie through omission about the dual role of the L A. Introduced and insisted upon by the Unionist parties in the devolution legislation. Has he forgotten this? And an attempt by SNP , in 2019 I think, to change it, was opposed by, you’ve guessed it, the unionist parties. As always his muppet following don’t know or understand this, and swallow his every word. Please send him money. The guy has a big house to heat. And all the soirĂ©es he’ll want to host for his new found reform besties. All costs money.
ReplyDeleteYou see better than me. Where does he say what you posted? You are correct it is in the initial devolution legislation created by Labour and remains there.
DeleteCare to provide details of your “attempt by the SNP in 2019, I think” - can’t say I remember this. You “think “ isnae really good enough. You say it was opposed by “ the unionist parties. It only required Boris Johnston to oppose it. What reasons were given for opposing it by Johnston? Sure you ain’t telling porkies mr anonymous at 10.09am. Any reason the SNP hasn’t requested the change since 2019 ( assuming it did happen in 2019 as we only have your “I think” to go on).
No reply from you to the points raised means you are a liar. Nothing new you being a liar is it Mr Anon troll.
IFSy IFSy, you silly billy. You never learn. Think was in reference to the year, not the event. I’m sure I’m not alone in noticing you taking the side of the unionists over this. Almost as if? Oh wait. Too easy. Our own wee idiot for Scotland IFSy making a tit of himself again. But possibly some improvement. He doesn’t use his favourite word. Although he has forgotten again that he posts anonymously. He struggles.
DeleteTo Independence for Scotland February 24, 2026 at 2.40pm. The attempt by the SNP was made by Joanna Cherry KC at Westminster - UK Gov ignored it and wouldn't take it forward. Sure she'd be delighted to give you the details as she is not shy in trumpeting herself. She did a Herald article at the time, mentioned it several times afterwards and she has an updated article in the Herald this week. In the days when she was pally with Sturgeon, I think she suggested Sturgeon should or would make her Lord Advocate. Can't remember if that's right or not. Not sure how that could work if Cherry was an MP at Westminster at the time, so the legal profession would probably have thought that was unworkable anyway.
Deletewww.rps.ac.uk/trans/1689/3/108 The declaration of the estates containing the Claim of Right and the offer of the crown to the king and queen of England
ReplyDeleteYes, it's an odd law for a Scottish nationalist to be so enthusiastic about. Presumably Salyers would have been on the Duke of Cumberland's side at Culloden?
Delete