The third guest article from regular reader Mia. My thanks for another excellent article. The first and second articles were widely read, while the second article seemed to enrage our friend Cosy Slippers (aka Pete Wishart or Pension Pete). We can only hope for the same reaction this time round.


It has been reported that a majority of native Scots voted Yes in 2014, but that vote was frustrated by the No vote from the non natives. One could argue therefore that the only reason why the no vote won is because an excessively open franchise was used. One could question then the legitimacy of such a referendum when the non natives were allowed to frustrate in such fashion the right to self determination of the natives. I don’t remember Nicola Sturgeon opening her mouth about this.

You can give those in charge the benefit of the doubt and consider that the first time they used a flawed franchise they made a mistake because they did not know any better. Now that the evidence showing how the vote of the natives was frustrated has been in the open since 2015, if they still insist in forcing through the same flawed franchise again, then it can no longer be considered a mistake. It will be either unforgivable negligence or simply a deliberate strategy to make yes fail. Both unacceptable.

Nicola Sturgeon has been in power for 7 long years. During that time she has had the opportunity to change that franchise 100 times over. So why didn’t she?

Both Gibraltar and the Falklands, both UK colonies, have a rudimentary form of citizenship and a constitution. Scotland is an ancient nation and we don’t have any of those. Why not? We have had for more than ten years a nationalist government in Holyrood. That is plenty of time to start a new census and form the basis for that citizenship. If other UK colonies have that citizenship and constitution, albeit rudimentary, there is absolutely no excuse for Scotland not to have one. So what is Nicola Sturgeon’s excuse?

In the case of the Falklands, for example, this rudimentary citizenship status is called Falklands Islands status. It may be rudimentary, but in order to obtain it, the candidate must pledge loyalty to the Falkland Islands.

Gibraltar has citizenship too. Citizenship is fundamental to take part in referendums or general elections, not just in Falklands or Gibraltar but in countries all over the world. So where is Scotland’s?

In every country in the world, to gain citizenship you either are a native of the country, or a child of a native of the country, or you have been naturalised, which implies invariably to have lived in the country for a certain length of time and having acquired citizenship by pledging allegiance to the country.

If Gibraltar and Falklands, significantly smaller than Scotland and not older as nations than Scotland can demand allegiance, then what is the reason why Scotland cannot have hers?

Is it because of Nicola Sturgeon’s lack of interest? Is it because of her incompetence as a pro indy leader? Or rather because setting up a citizenship would leave her and her masters with no credible excuse whatsoever to restrict the franchise to only those who hold Scotland’s citizenship?

A quick glance at the Census 2011 shows immediately that the number of people from outwith Scotland being added to our population is many, many times bigger than the increase of Scottish population due to people being born here.

Actually, if my calculations are not wrong, this should send alarm bells ringing and will immediately cast doubts about the legitimacy of a referendum with such an open franchise to be used as a valid exercise in self determination.

According to the National Records of Scotland, the total population in Scotland at the moment of writing the 2011 census that were 16 years of age or older and that had been born in Scotland were 3,569,936. 473,695 were born in the rUK and 335,441 were born outside the UK. All those could vote in a referendum with an open franchise.

Based in that 2011 census, when you calculate the total number of potential voters born out of Scotland the figure is 809,136, which is equivalent to a 22.7% of the voters born in Scotland. Those 22.7% might have no allegiance to Scotland at all. That percentage is huge and can totally trash the expressed democratic will of the natives.

These figures do not take into account how many of those born in Scotland have no allegiance at all to Scotland because they are of direct rUK ascendency and do not see Scotland as their country (or worse, as a nation). The figure of 22.7% may well be a huge underestimation of the infiltration of rUK population into Scotland’s and therefore now how flawed the use of such an open franchise has been.

Why is this important?

Because there is something that nobody likes to talk about for fear of being called racist, blood and soil nationalist, extreme ethnic nationalist or some other vacuous and meaningless insult of the sort. That something is the inexcapable fact that being born in Scotland does not immediately give you natural allegiance to Scotland. You may have been born in Scotland just because your parents were passing by or because your parents moved from another country and brought with them their own allegiance to the country where they came from and that they transferred to you. I should know this very well because it defines me and my siblings down to a T. I never had allegiance to the country where I was born. I have never identified with it. and neither did my siblings, also born in the same country as I was. We were born there because my parents happened to be living there at the time, but neither my parents (despite having been living there for over 12 years) nor I or my siblings ever grew any allegiance to that country. I am sure this is not uncommon among those born in Scotland from parents who bring their allegiance from their country of origin.

Where I am going with this?

Well, it stands to the obvious that an increase in population thanks to more and more people coming from outwith Scotland does not increase the sense of Scottish nationhood but rather dilutes it.

Lets think this imaginary scenario:

On the day of the referendum, let’s imagine that only 70% of those born in Scotland go to the polls (that would be 2,498,955 natives voting)

Let’s imagine that due to the strong motivation of “not allowing Scots to breaking up their country” or avoiding depriving the rUK of Scotland’s natural assets, or stopping Scots separating them from the rest of their family down in England, or fear of a hard border that may force them to use a passport to come and use their holiday home in Scotland, 90% of those born outside Scotland go to the polls (that would be 768,679 voters).

Now let’s imagine that as much as 55% of those born in Scotland who go to vote, vote yes (that would be 1,374,425 yes votes from the Scots natives). Let’s imagine that only 10% of those born out of Scotland vote yes (that would be 76,868 yes votes from those born out of Scotland). The total number of yes votes would be 1,451,293.

For those of you that think 90% against yes is an exaggeration, I invite you to look at the figures for the last indyref in Quebec. In some anglo speaking areas in Quebec, the vote against independence was 100%. I think I may have been generous, actually.

If 45% of those born in Scotland and 90% of those born outwith Scotland vote no, then the total figure for No would be 1,816,341

Do you start to see the problem?

In that imaginary scenario, if only Scots natives had voted, yes would have won by 55%. When you include those not born in Scotland with a strong motivation for the UK to remain intact, then that yes vote plummets to a 44.4%

Do those figures sound familiar?

Although the above is just an example and an imaginary one, it is not an unlikely one and it serves to illustrate just how easy it has been for the powers that be to frustrate Scotland’s yes vote through that flawed franchise and through the denial of a constitution and Scottish citizenship that would immediately restrict such franchise rendering it unlawful.

The information available in the 2011 census does not allow you to work out how many of the voters born in Scotland will never vote yes because their ancestry is from the rUK (for example with MOD, civil servant parents or oil workers for example). Needless to say, that there are others who will never vote yes because members of their family live outwith Scotland and perceive Scotland’s independence as an obstacle to see their family.

This means that the message that Nicola Sturgeon and her minions have been sending for 5 years that “we have to convert more no voters” is bollocks of the highest order. Given the demographics and ancestry in front of us, in my personal view, expecting anything more than a 55% yes vote among the natives is unrealistic with such a percentage of people from a different ancestry among natives Scots. It is also my personal opinion that the noise of pushing the threshold of a yes vote to a 60% is not about making the vote more clear, but rather ensuring independence never takes place. It is another damage limitation lever just like the current franchise is.

Now let see something even more alarming:

Between 2001 and 2011 Scotland’s population increased by over 233.000 people. Of that number only 1484 were Scots born ( a net gain of Scots born)

What this tells us is that of the extra 233,392 people Scotland gained in those 10 years, a huge 99% are from different ancestry, with no sense of Scottish nationhood and much less motivation to vote yes. Scotland seems to be haemorrhaging yes voters and swapping them for no voters.

Again, when you see that of all the extra people Scotland gets in 10 years, only a 1% are more likely to be yes voters because have some form of allegiance to Scotland, you start to see that what the Sturgeonites have been peddling for the last 5 years when claiming that the key to become independent is to “convert no voters”. or that “we have time on our side” is nothing but bollocks. We only “have time on our side” if the ultimate goal is to frustrate the yes vote of the natives with the no vote from those coming from elsewhere. The more we wait, the more build up of no against yes will happen.

What these figures tell us is that Nicola Sturgeon’s is either a deeply flawed strategist or a fantastic example of what is in practice setting deliberately something to fail. Going with the 2011 census figures, for every 1484 natives that you convert to yes in 5 years, you get another 231,000 extra no voters of which you will have to convert at least half to keep the balance and maintain yes as a win. This clearly shows, at least to me that, mathematically, with every year that passes, and with such an open franchise, once you have reach the yes peak among the natives, the odds are building against us and the more years that pass, the more no goes up instead of yes. 

We would have liked to use more up to date figures but Nicola Sturgeon ensured that could not happen by blocking the last year’s census, using the excuse of Covid. Amazingly the census went ahead in England, Wales and Northern Ireland it was just in Scotland that it proved impossible. What are you hiding Nicola? Big numbers of incomers I suspect.

There were reports that at some point in the last year we reached 56% for yes. Instead of grabbing that opportunity, Sturgeon has allowed it pass. Is this unnecessary wait deliberate to allow for more people from outwith Scotland to come in and dilute the yes vote?

The data above was extracted from the census 2001-2011. After brexit, the 2014 referendum have happened and Covid, nearly collapsing the nHS in England that is becoming increasingly privatised. I do not think is mad to think that the amount of people coming from the rUK has increased even more since 2011.

So what have been the real motives behind forcing on us this flawed franchise and delaying the referendum?

All the data above has been either taken from or calculated from that data after downloading the tables.

* Information from

“Majority of Scottish born voters said ‘yes”, written by MIntosh, L, March 2015 in The Sunday Times

“Independence referendum figures revealed: Majority of Scots born here voted YES while voters from elsewhere in UK said NO”, by Clegg D, March 2015, in The Daily Record.


I cannot think of any more important matter than this. using the same franchise as 2014 is a trap. When designing a strategy to win you follow the data. This shows overwhelmingly that the Yes position is being weakened daily by an influx of likely NO VOTERS. A FRESH REFERENDUM USING THE 2014 franchise will cost us victory, exactly as it did in 2014 when 53% of Scots born voters voted YES. I BELIEVE NICOLA IS DECEIVING US ABOUT TIME BEING ON OUR SIDE. ALL THE DELAYS SHE HAS INTRODUCED ONLY BENEFIT THE ONE SIDE AND AS THE DATA PROVES THAT IS NOT YES.. TIME TO WAKE UP FOLKS…BECAUSE TIME IS MARCHING AGAINST US.

If we want Independence then a plebiscite election is the best course and the decision being based on a majority of Parliamentary seats in Scotland being the determining factor. It is entirely democratic and has been used all over the World to secure Independence.

I am, as always



Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience.Sharing is very important and helps the Independence message to reach a much wider audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.

78 thoughts on “THAT FRANCHISE

  1. You’ll get no argument from me on this one. I can’t think of any other country which allows colonists to take part in constitutional votes.

    Liked by 20 people

  2. Great points, one major problem. Nicola Sturgeon!!! As the article says she has done nothing for independence in 7 years. Added to that she has done nothing to ensure there is the necessary citizenship or constitution to have a fair vote by those who are either born here or who are naturalised citizens, as my husband would be having lived here for 37 years and made Scotland his home. So……I say again one major problem!!! How do we get the current SNP and more especially Nicola to make sure any future referendum is fair to those who actually have an allegiance to and care for the country? My opinion we can’t. I’m certain that hell would freeze over before she would take any action that was fair, especially if it might mean we actually are independent because what she doesn’t want is to lose her power as she probably would with independence.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Forget any referendum, go the plebiscite election route which uses a tighter franchise, still not ideal but better. Return to the previous SNP position of the outcome being determined by one side winning more than 50% of the Scottish seats.

      Liked by 15 people

      1. Iain I apologise for posting this again but your comment even more so indicates the desperate need to take this challenge to Sturgeon and her corrupt minions , by the comments added to Mia’s post indicates the support you would have to construct a group of bloggers to DEMAND a meeting


        21st Oct 2021 at 2:25 am

        Response to Iain Lawson , Iain without disagreeing with you regarding the differing views , there will NEVER be a time when everyone agrees with everything , the bloggers I named in my previous comment ALL agree that we ARE going nowhere at present with Sturgeon and appear anxious and willing to hold her feet to the fire regarding either a plebiscite election or withdrawal of MP’s to declare dissolution of the treaty , even PAB admits eventually in his rancorous way that Sturgeon is a failure , BUT at present there is no alternative in sight , Also the bloggers I named have all previously been members of the SNP and are horrified at what Sturgeon and her cabal have done to the party so they cannot be accused of being unionists

        You and Roddy have proven that the Prism is successful and desperately needed , the guests are entertaining and educational and I have yet to see a disparaging comment , basically all I am asking is that you EXPAND on the Prism experience and success by gathering together fellow bloggers and renowned activists with a similar determination to FORCE Sturgeon to meet with your committee to give answers why she is failing to take the plebiscite or dissolution route , her answers could be conveyed back to the various readerships which consist of a very large part of the independence supporters

        You and the others are very aware of how desperate the situation is regarding Sturgeon and the missing independence , desperate times call for desperate measures , this fraudulent woman and her minions are holding independence supporters and SCOTLAND to ransom and imprisonment with her contemptible government , we need outspoken fighting patriots as the named bloggers are to CHALLENGE STURGEON on our behalf

        Iain you and Roddy are self made business men with a wealth of experience and knowledge which you have proven , you both are subordinate to no one and do not avoid a challenge , this is a challenge which independence supporters and your readerships will take with you both

        Liked by 2 people

  3. It is so obvious that I find it hard to believe we need to debate it. In addition the Military will flood every base and barracks prior to the Referendum under some claim which will no doubt will be postal vote usage. Those workers at Faslane and Coulport who shuttle up on the Exeter flight a few times a week will be given the Postal vote.
    Every trick will be used to boost the NO vote and Sturgeon is doing her best to reduce the YES vote.

    The common problem with the Referendum votes being Sturgeon! Allowing a dramatic rise in NO vote and pissing people off who were committed YES voters with her crazy cult behaviour. Quebec 2 here we come.

    The Referendum delay was purely to hide the data that is evident to everyone in a small village or town in Scotland. We are being swamped by retiring hard core BritNats who will never support Independence. We are being used as a holiday home investment centre by wealthy BritNats. We have excluded all those young Europeans who would have embraced Independence this time round. This is no accident.

    I thought the UN had rules to prevent this kind of action to enable de-colonisation to happen?

    I hope comfy slippers, pension Pete does read this. He will rant but he will not answer the points raised. A few years to maximum pension is the only thought in his head.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. The students. When you look at the age taper in 2014 the glaring anomaly is that Naw cohort in peak student age. 18 to 21 if I recall. A quick google search reveals St Andrews has 28% Scottish students. The Dept Of Education in England is seeking to cap numbers of English students which in 2020 was given as 26715 souls. Extrapolating that just to the 4 year degree would suggest perhaps 100,000 of those allowed to vote at any point in time. A 5 year residency requirement is not unreasonable. And an S taxcode is perhaps another factor to be taken into consideration.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Im not convinced the extrapolation is correct. I was thinking, that would suggest we had a million folk in Tertiary education, which is way too high. The 26k figure is properly sourced but I suspect is for the total number rather than for each year.


    2. I believe our strongest path now is for ALBA to adopt the SSRG path forward and prepare the legal ground for this in the ECJ or IC. As a party not in government they can take this overtly hostile action. There is nothing Westminster can do to them. We can use a Scottish plebiscite or properly controlled petition (post code, check against voters register) to provide the mandate for ALBA to act. This hard winter will be a good time for YES to get out on the streets with a petition like this – we should have ipads and smart phones ready to go. The next Westminster election can then be fought with a clear mandate in the eyes of the world – there will never be a mandate admitted by this UKIP UKG. Independence is claimed, not given.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. To my deep shame my first thought was a “Ladies Prison” with some of her cult on the wing. I know, dreadful but Karma was always so!
      I had to confess.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Demographics is clearly a critical determinant in the quest for Scottish independence and Mia’s study of this aspect tends to mirror much of my own research findings in this area, as published in my book ‘Doun-Hauden’ and summarised on Iain’s blog here:

    On the matter of the Scottish Government’s highly irregular use of a local government franchise for national elections and referendums in Scotland, and on the matter of self-determination more generally, my research findings again tend to mirror that of Mia’s:

    We aye await the SNP elected elite’s detailed considered response to these important findings ………..

    Liked by 18 people

  5. “This means that the message that Nicola Sturgeon and her minions have been sending for 5 years that “we have to convert more no voters” is bollocks of the highest order.”

    Well said Mia, as for the above you’ve hit the nail on the head, in my opinion its either to be a indyref restricted the conditions you set out, or a MP/MSP vote at Holyrood to withdraw from the union, the latter of the two being my preferred option.

    Sturgeon’s franchise to give the vote to everyone and their dog to make her look good in the eyes of the world, will see YES lose a second indyref, and I’m pretty sure Sturgeon knows this, and its probably her preferred outcome to boot.

    Sturgeon will push ahead with giving the vote to everyone, if she finally gets round to it, and we will lose of that I’ve no doubt.

    Liked by 14 people

  6. I’m nearly in despair at this.
    The sole, essential basis for Scotland becoming independent is the right to self-determination: people (collectively) have the right to determine the form and stucture of the state and government in and under which they live.
    The only possible, practicable, reasonable franchise for expressing and contributing to that choice, is derived from the question ‘Where is your home?’
    If you want to decide who can take part in making a decision, based on which way they are going to decide, you may tell yourself that you believe in democracy, but really you don’t.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The self-determination of ‘a people’ is a quite different matter from the election of a governing administration, local or national, and is not generally a simple matter of “where is your home”. For example, you will find that nationals of other countries living in Scotland will still be entitled to vote in national elections and referendums in their home nations, whether that be in Italy, Norway, Turkey, USA, Ireland, China or wherever. What you are suggesting is that the nationals of other countries should be permitted to interfere in the self-determination of another ‘people’ (i.e. the Scots), without fully appreciating this ‘right’ is never reciprocal.

      Liked by 15 people

    2. Specific criteria for the definition of a ‘people having the right of self-determination’ was proposed during the 2010 Kosovo case. This set out key aspects of ‘a people’ which includes them having: a common culture, ethnicity, language, identity, history, heritage and shared suffering.

      Liked by 12 people

    3. Does your tax code start with an S for example. Do you pay tax in the Country in which you are voting and have you had such a S tax code for at least 5 years.

      Question like that should be used when determining Independence.

      Liked by 8 people

    4. The Open Franchise at the moment is working against the native Scots. It’s generous to a fault to allow non-native Scots a vote over (what is not their home) a say in a country’s right to self- determination. Personally I wouldn’t give any non-native Scot a say on such an issue. We can’t and shouldn’t let them have a say even if Scotland is now their home. It’s highly possible a majority against Self-Determination would emerge. I can’t imagine English folk who have settled in Scotland would vote for Indy. So it’s not so much as where is your home but are you Scottish. Only native Scots should get the vote. Those who live here for whatever reason will just have to accept the outcome. They can decide on their own original country but there’s no way they can have a say on a 2nd country. No chance whatsoever. The 2014 Referendum would have been 53% v 47% in favour of Indy. It’s reckoned the non-native Scots swung it in favour of the No voters. What’s it got to do with them!!! Some were only here for a short period of time but have since swanned off back to their homeland having played their part in inflicting serious damage on Scotland.


  7. With the invaluable groundbreaking research of Alf Baird in his volume Doun-Haudin and now the sterling work of our own indefatigable, Mia, in her excellent essay, above, will those of you who still insist that Scotland should be regarded as a normal liberal-democracy and not merely as a colony of England now please take-the-floor. Along with verifiable evidences, and sufficiently detailed reasoning, you are hereby invited to supply an account as to why you can so confidently hold such an assumption.Those attempting to make their case by appealing to visceral sentiment or through mere ideological habit, will be immediately disqualified on grounds of material incompetence.

    Liked by 14 people

  8. The number of Scots has actually declined since 2001.

    The only organisation that has done comprehensive work on the matter, probably because its such a controversial subject, is Migration Watch. They crunched the numbers and the number of “white British” in Scotland has dropped by 52,315 between 2001 and 2020. See table 6:

    As stated by Professor Baird in his “DETERMINANTS OF INDEPENDENCE DEMOGRAPHICS” article on this site, an average of 50,000 per year year move to Scotland mainly from England:

    This 50,000 per year may be a bit high, but the figures from the ONS show that 6000 more people die than are born (will be mostly Scots), 40,000 come from overseas, 20,000 leave Scotland for an international destination, and 10,500 move to Scotland from elsewhere in the UK. Looking back the migration from rUK to Scotland ranges between 7,000 to 12,000. (the 2020 figures are distorted by covid)

    The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is currently 1.37 and has been below 2 since the mid 1970s. The TFR is higher in non European ethnicities so this number will be lower for Scots. This means that for every 2 Scots in a generation, we get 1 and a bit in the next generation.

    When you combine the overall decrease of 52,315 “white British” with the inflow of about 10,000 per year from the rest of the UK then the overall decrease in Scots between 2001 and 2020 would be a loss of about ~242,000.

    There are limitations to this estimate. How many of those that emigrated came back? How many of those moving up from England were Scots returning after a long career down south? How long are people living when they move from the rest of the UK to Scotland? Do they move back? There is no accurate way to measure this. The statistics do not include illegal immigration such as illegal border crossing, overstaying a visa or falsely claiming to be a student. Even questions of the accuracy of the recording are valid.

    In conclusion if we take the statistics at face value, the minimum that we can state with confidence is that there was a decline of at least 52,000 native Scots between 2001 and 2020 but that the figure could be a quarter of a million. There has been an increase of at least 450,000 “non-white British” and the number from the rest of the UK, mainly English, has grown at least ~50,000 but possibly as high as 200,000.


    1. Tom, I would suggest you look again at the Scottish census data as it looks like you may be confusing or combining data for emigrants from rest-UK with those from EU and elsewhere. The data for rest-UK ALONE shows consistent inflows of approx 50,000 per annum and this has typically exceeded all inflows from rest of world combined and which is a separate number. The data therefore suggests actual physical inflows of approx 50,000 per annum from rest-UK, which amounts to approx 500,000 people from rest-UK each decade.

      Recent census data as you imply indicates Scotland now has the lowest birth rate in the UK and that the population is growing mainly due to inflows from rest-UK. Since Brexit and Covid, anecdotal evidence and property market changes – e.g. incredible rise of 40%+ in house prices in parts of Scotland over the last year alone – suggests the rate of inflow from rest-UK to be rapidly accelerating. Hopefully next years delayed census will clarify this further. The holding up of the Tory+unionist vote in recent elections and a gradual fall in the Yes vote in the polls also appear to reflect prevailing population change.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Alf.. I realise I maybe accused of wearing a tin foil paranoid hat here but I remain suspicious of the motives behind postponing the 2021 census allegedly for health reasons pertaining to Covid.
        It remains a fact that England, Wales and Northern Ireland residents completed said census online, so why didn’t Scotland follow suit.
        Might it possibly be that Princess Nicola and her chosen few knew in advance that this census would show a vast increase in newcomers in general and a similar increase in newcomers of the gender woo-woo in particular and didn’t want this to be known prior to the Scot Gov elections?

        Liked by 11 people

  9. I’m afraid I think you’re muddying the waters a bit here: are there not many and varied patterns of how people from one country may or may not be able to vote in administration elections in another? For example, when I lived, with an immigration visa, in the USA for 3 years, I was allowed to vote in no elections – neither in the US, nor back home in the UK. And don’t Irish nationals living here get to vote in everything? (Is that reciprocal?).
    My point was that we shouldn’t try and decide who should be able to take part in an ‘independence’ vote, based on whether we think they will vote for independence.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t think anybody on the YES side of the debate is trying to rig the vote. If a person has lived and paid taxes in Scotland they should have a vote. Owning a holiday home, being in the Navy or on a short term Uni course are very different things.

      Holyrood should decide that using UN guidance on de-colonisation.

      Liked by 10 people

    2. Firstly it is an absolute certainty that the English will rig any franchise and vote in another indyref, and for that simple and sufficient reason any and all thoughts of such a vote must be abandoned. There are far better routes that have been well explained and documented elsewhere, and our energies need to be focussed there.

      Secondly, to say that those who are against freedom and prefer foreign control should veto a people’s freedom is anathema. In days gone by a husband owned his wife in the same way as he owned his dogs, and was able to keep both against their will. It is only recently that most men have come to understand how wrong this was, and that one partner to a marriage cannot have the right to veto freedom for the other party.

      And yet we still have people, such as you, arguing that the controlling party has the right to veto Scottish freedom. A simple veto through perpetuating the myth that a S30 is required and then denying it, or a devious veto through rigging a franchise and vote. This cannot be.

      At Culloden we stood and fell with sword in hand. Today we whimper and fall with dick in hand. We need to do better, we need to deny the other party the ability to deny freedom. We need to exert every effort, not to force Sturgeon’s hand, but to force Sturgeon out and replace her with a leader who will give Scotland its freedom.

      Liked by 14 people

    3. “And don’t Irish nationals living here get to vote in everything? (Is that reciprocal?).”

      Only Irish nationals are permitted to vote in national referendums in Ireland. Can you imagine the furore if the referendum question in Ireland was say about Ireland re-joining the British union and British nationals living in Ireland were asking for a vote? That would seem ridiculous to the Irish, as would the notion of Ireland seeking to re-join the UK union.

      Liked by 12 people

      1. I can personally testify to the fact that only Irish citizens are allowed to cast a ballot in national referendums in the Republic of Ireland; your hypothetical scenario illustrates, very well, why that is the case.

        Liked by 9 people

    4. No. I don’t think that is what people here are trying to do. They KNOW that WM WILL rig any Independence Ref by imposing domestic franchises that they think they can ‘fix’. What people here are trying to say is that they want a method by which WM’s rigging won’t work, ie NO 2nd home people, NO students here for 4 yrs of study & then off back to their own countries & NO military who are posted here for (usually) a 3 year post & then retiring back in their own nation of England/Wales whatever. There is no doubt that WM used ALL these avenues to rig the first IndyRef. Why would you allow them to do that again, against your own country’s interests? Unless you are for ‘No’? Well… most people wouldn’t. So – they want rules that will prevent that! It’s as simple as that. Rules such as ‘live here for (to be determined) so many years which is is likely to mean more personal investment in Scotland. Or be born/have parents here, which would indicate indigenous leanings to wanting ‘the best’ for what they see as their country (whether that be ‘yes’ or ‘no’) and whether you have bothered to apply for citizenship or some kind of paperwork that gives you the right to live here & vote for what is now seen as ‘your country’.

      Almost all countries have these rules. Do we consider THEM to be ‘rigging’ their elections? I’ve never heard anyone say Canada, Australia, France, USA etc etc all RIG their elections. (Well they may do but not through using these particular rules). These rules aren’t exceptional – they’re NORMAL. All we are seeking is a ‘normal’ chance for SCOTS, indigenous people of this country, to have their say. And to make the choice, YES or NO.

      If you aren’t in agreement with the rules, I can only think it’s because you believe it will give YES an advantage. As I see it, you’re very wrong. It gives SCOTS an advantage. EVERY Scot. And if enough people aren’t in agreement with Indy in Scotland, they get to vote NO. There is no winner when it comes to these rules. The winner is only if enough people are persuaded to vote YES.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. PS: Just let me say though… I don’t actually want an IndyRef. I VERY MUCH prefer SSRG’s plan. It’s excellent, it’s easy to do (in a manner of speaking), its LEGAL, it’s effective, getting us exactly what we ant – and we will be Globally accepted as an independence country. I just really hope we can finally push SNP/Sturgeon to ride with it. I hae ma doots. But I hope…

        Liked by 3 people

  10. The next GE is in 2024, or if Johnson calls an early one, surely we must compel Sturgeon to use the next GE as a plebiscitary election, time isn’t on our side, as more and more incomers settle in Scotland without pledging their allegiance to Scotland.

    Or call back our MPs from Westminster to Holyrood hold a vote on whether to leave or remain in this union, if its a leave declare independence there and then.

    Maybe that’s Sturgeon’s plan, to hold off as long as possible on a indyref to allow the maximum amount of Southerners to take up residence and tilt the vote in favour of no. I don’t know about Edinburgh but Glasgow is awash with Southern accents right now, and has been for a couple of years.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. We need to send ALBA to Westminster – the parliament that holds those pesky reserved powers. Send down a party that will use those powers 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  11. As a slightly contrarian take on this, Phantom Power’s new release in the “Road to Yes”, shows how the country could be actively attracting non-natives with a vested interest in independence. Forget persuading the soft Noes, that’s a fruitless exercise. Simply increase the pool of hard Yesses.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “attracting non-natives with a vested interest in independence.”

      Kinda misses the point that self-determination and decolonisation is primarily about the oppressed natives, Stuart.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. And how could you know for sure that these people ARE ‘invested in Scottish Indy’? But again… is that not just allowing ‘foreigners’ to have the deciding say in Scotland’s affairs? I thought the whole point of Indy was for SCOTS to decide on her future… :-/

        Liked by 2 people

  12. All referenda are flawed and open to manipulation. I remember Michael Portillo’s sneering remark months before our referendum in 2014 that referendums are easy to rig.

    Nicola Sturgeon must know that a referendum will fail. So why does she seem to be so intent on holding one? We can only speculate.

    More and more I see leading voices in the independence movement such as Iain Lawson and Alf Baird coming to the same conclusion. That a plebiscite election is the way to go. I hope we get an opportunity to hold one and the sooner the better.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. Trouble is I will never vote for the SNP again and I’m sure I am not alone , if they are the only option for independence then we are stuffed.

      I know ALBA is preparing but it is still in its infancy and it has a huge mountain to climb regarding widespread publicity.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Neither would I ever vote SNP again.

        But SNP weren’t always ‘the only option’… Thing was, people didn’t just say the country was ‘stuffed’. They campaigned & fought to get SNP where they are. So I guess its for those who believe in Independence to persuade people that the ONLY hope now is ALBA to take the country forward. We may have to go backwards a bit – to go forwards. But we are only ‘stuffed’ if we sit back down & decide ‘indy isn’t worth the fight’. We KNEW Indy would be a fight. We didn’t know we’d have to fight our own party (snp), that we’d have to fight SNP – now we know who the enemy is, we start the fight again on that basis. No point in saying ‘that’s divisive’. The point is – it IS SNP/Sturgeon holding us back. That is the reality.

        So… we can give up or we can fight on. Yes, it’s a huge mountain. But what’s the alternative? Bozo, brexit & WM closing down HR. That’s the reality.

        Liked by 2 people

  13. To paraphrase James Connolly [1868-1916]

    “Yes, ruling by fooling, is a great British art with great Scottish fools to practice on.”

    Liked by 7 people

  14. Sturgeon’s ideal Scottish independence referendum, everyone is given a vote, yes loses, however the referendum is placed upon a pedestal as being the pinnacle or gold standard of referendums, and Sturgeon’s notability rises among world leaders.

    Am I wrong in saying any coming referendum isn’t about Scotland or our self determination, but about Sturgeon and how she wants the eyes of the world to view her.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. We are in a bad place with Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister untouchable. That has to change once we get Indy. We can’t have one person being able to hold back the aims and desires of the Scottish people. Yet shamelessly and brazenly she has and does. Without a doubt she is the worst thing that could have happened to the Indy cause. Alba for me.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. I’d like to add a few observations to this article:

    First point: no more bent Referendums, in fact no more Referendums on our Sovereignty! The last one was a majority to stay in the EU, but we were defrauded out of it by Perfidious England’s illegal breach of the Union ‘majority’, compounded by allowing N.I. a made up province to remain in the single market.

    Second Point: only someone deaf , dumb and blind would not have noticed the massive increase in RUK settlers buying up both rural Scottish housing and ‘desirable ‘ prosperous city dwellings creating massive price rises putting those properties out of the range of indigenous locals, with in particular the emptying of our rural areas of indigenous youth. I have personal experience of this, which I recounted in an earlier thread on this. The English tory austerity measures and continual attacks on working people have reduced their ability to raise families without both having to work, and the consequent decline in birth rates as a consequence.

    Third point: The UK/English gov. is sending more and more civil servants up to Scotland and servicemen to bulk out the presence of their authority over us. Like the post 1745 rebellion forts set up in strategic places we see the massive build of accommodation for thousands at Faslane. We see the massive construction of private housing at inflated prices, to the west of Edinburgh to accommodate the Edinburgh UK Gov ‘hub’ which will soon make the Gasworks on the Royal mile redundant.

    Fourth point: the troll meme about Scottish Sovereignty being somehow ‘different’ from almost every Sovereign nation on the planet, is just that, a U.K. inspired lie designed to undermine a population already severely undermined by three hundred years of sustained imperialist propaganda creating a cringing colonial response in many of our population. Interestingly, Sturgeon and her minions virtue signalled the ‘civic nationalism’ bogus branding.
    Several years back on W.O.S. website, Rev Stu showed a poll that suggested that 4 million English would consider moving north after Brexit. This survey could not have accounted for the possibility of large Northern Irish loyalist emigration to Scotland, if a United Ireland also looms ever more likely. One possibility that blows the whole blood and soil smear to smithereens, for are not they our kith and kin? Or more likely regarded by most Scots as the unwanted PRODigal sons and daughters, I would suggest!

    Now I ask anybody, what country with no real control over its border would consider this possibility of even a fraction of these people coming here as welcome? Logistically impossible, but politically insane.
    But ‘Nicla’ and her weird acolytes know this and I believe, welcome. I offer as evidence the refusal to stop A’nB scams in our cities and not stopping the proliferation of private English companies’ building of overpriced housing when we have 1/4 of our population on the breadline and suffering the obscenity of foodbanks as evidence.

    Fifth point. Everything that Sturgeon has done points to wanting to undermine ‘Scottishness’ as an identity and as a politY. She abhors the name of her own party and has stated she would change it, if she could. She has utilised the world wide ubiquitous Stonewall/ Big Pharma lobbying of world wide governments to introduce the divisive strategy of gender ID with catastrophic outcomes for women, for professional dissenters in caring professions and more pertinently the YES movement. This I believe has been deliberate and part of her aimed destruction of our movement.

    Liked by 14 people

    1. Interestingly, I noticed recently during my job search that the ‘Home office’ have been recruiting for positions in Edinburgh.
      I was witness to work colleagues up in Scotland, very much here on a temporary basis, having ‘No’ parties in the aftermath of indyref and waxing lyrical about how good a night it was. I sat there fuming hearing their account of how good a night they had. The majority are now back in the Home Counties of course.

      I’ve been talking to a few people about the franchise and decided to talk about it from a different perspective. Imagine you are a Scottish person who has deep affection with London and very much identifies with being British. Then imagine, a very open franchise referendum sees most non-Scots living, or studying here (or here for 5 minutes like the 2014 franchise) etc voting FOR independence. Imagine being wrenched out a union by people who have no intention of even staying here. The franchise works both ways. It should be there to give Scots their say which ever way we vote.

      I do wonder if any political parties will grasp this jaggy thistle. Of course they will be eviscerated by the predominantly English press who conveniently ignore the reduced franchise of the brexit vote.

      A third party, or an honesty broker will be absolutely necessary I think to give this any traction. This is why we need to seek UN involvement. I’ll be absolutely gobsmacked if the SNP would countenance such a move.

      Even the use of the next general election as a plebiscite is problematic, since the northward migration would likely favour the unionist parties. Of course the SNP will demand that we vote tactically and ‘game the system’ in that election to give them another neverendum mandate.

      Liked by 7 people

    2. Correct on all counts Lochside. Sturgeon, slavishly supported by supine members of the SNP and its elected Parliamentary representatives, has turned her back to the Scots seeking Independence and have done so with a contempt she no longer cares to hide.

      Here on the Isle of Skye there has been an increasing influx of those identified as RUK settlers. many openly stating their reason for moving North was the number of immigrants now in England, the irony in that quite clearly lost on them. Thankfully not quite all fall into that category, indeed some of the most committed activists in the campaign for Independence on the Island are of English heritage.

      Scotland is being destroyed culturally and politically by a woman living a lie in so many respects who puts the rights of crossdressing men ahead of the the rights of weans going without nourishment and their parents relying on food banks and charity shops to retain self esteem. All of this in parallel with her taking every opportunity provided to have herself photographed with and promoting ‘her people’. The SNP as a political organisation has facilitated all that is wrong within the Scottish body politic. Continuing denial is collaboration regardless of designation within that organisation.

      Liked by 12 people

    3. To put not too fine a point on it; Any Scots person with two ears that can recognise an English accent in the street, in the shops or wherever, knows very well that we’re being inundated by English incomers. Further, for anyone who’s interested: the blood-and-soil epithet for those same people has no resonance whatsoever. That’s simply because lived concrete experience always trumps self-serving fairy-stories and abstract statistics.

      Liked by 4 people

    4. .” Like the post 1745 rebellion forts set up in strategic places”

      Indeed Lochside England’s General Wade built the roads to the strategic forts, and the Ordance Survey was set up originally to map out how to hunt down and murder those Highlanders who escaped from Culloden. Under Cumberland, women and children were butchered and raped after the battle, in order to destroy the Highlander way of life and to prevent any more uprisings.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. I’ve seen a lot of bonkers arguements about independence but this caps them all. Essentially you can have been born outside Scotland but lived there for years and then be completely disenfranchised from voting on the future of the country you live in.

    This is a proposal of such flagrant discrimination based on a factor outside an individuals control it’s comparable to other forms of discrimination we have laws against.


    1. You don’t read well do you? There is nothing in this article that says a word about what you allege. You are a typical Britnat inventing a narrative to suit. Try disputing any of the factual information. That is where it gets tricky isn’t it?

      Liked by 11 people

      1. Iain: It’s perfectly clear that the author thinks that in order to be a citizen of someplace you have to have been born there. That’s the subject of the whole article. The article hasn’t confused citizenship with place of birth or voting rights – the entire article is an argument if favour of disbarring anyone born outside of a country from citizenship of that country.


    2. ‘Essentially you can have been born outside Scotland but lived there for years and then be completely disenfranchised for voting…’ That’s nonsense & wasn’t what was suggested. I think you’re having comprehension problems… IF you have read the thread you’d have seen someone write IF you have lived in Scotland for a certain length of time, you may be eligible to vote. If you have not lived here for the required amount of time then, no, you WON’T get a vote. And why would you be given the chance to usurp the indigenous population’s choice? You might as well continue in the union and the whole point is to have OUR say, make OUR choices & make OUR decisions. It should not be for immigrants to make that choice for us.

      YES – IMMIGRANTS. English people coming to Scotland are IMMIGRANTS. The ToU is a Trade Agreement between TWO COUNTRIES. Scotland is NOT a region of England. English moving up are NOT just moving to another part of their own country. They are moving to A NEW, SECOND COUNTRY – OUR COUNTRY, SCOTLAND. Try understanding & accepting that… IMMIGRANTS don’t get to decide on constitutional matters in any other country. That is the Global ‘norm’. Particularly over the wishes & choices of their HOST country. And it’s time to stop it in Scotland.

      If you were born in Scotland, or born of Scots parents or Grandparents, lived for a certain period of time (to be determined) and if you have attained citizenship, you will get the right to mark your ‘x’ in the box. Otherwise, you don’t qualify. That is the franchise in most countries. Why should OURS be any different? If you say it shouldn’t matter, then you REALLY DON’T want independence or Scotland to be a ‘normal’ country. In which case, if you’re Scots, you can VOTE NO. You WILL get to make your choice.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Edwin, independence is always about the liberation of a people and ‘their’ national culture. It is not a matter of political ideology, or of right or left.

        You are right to mention culture as the dividing line, though you don’t appear to understand its importance; in this instance the divide in self-determination conflict is between Scottish/Scots culture and an imposed British/Anglophone culture and language. That is also what the post indy research found.

        Liked by 5 people

  17. Surely the point is… the union is a Trade Agreement between TWO COUNTRIES. Thus anyone moving up to live in Scotland is an IMMIGRANT. They aren’t moving to ‘another part of their own country’. They’re moving to ANOTHER country. That is the truth of the matter. And as such, most countries in the world do not allow immigrants to vote in constitutional elections. Most countries have strict rules that do not even allow you to live in their countries for more than a stipulated time, without the right paperwork in place, giving you the right to overstay. Try emigrating to Canada if you do not have a skill they need… Or Australia…

    SNP have not put citizenship into legislation, which for a party that supposedly WANTS independence, is very puzzling. You’d be forgiven for thinking that would be something they’d be doing without having to be shamed into doing so. As to Constitution – Dr Mark McNaught wrote an excellent Constitution, with Scots input, and handed it to Michael Russell two years ago. It’s more than likely still sitting on his desk. It was on Wiki till very lately but I assume Mark has taken it down, given they (SSRG) are working on a new one, using his as a guideline, I believe.

    SNP have had the wherewithal to do all this work to get us Indy ready – and have completely ignored it. So one can only assume, they DON’T WANT to do it. Why, is the question?

    Liked by 6 people

    1. The legal concept of being an immigrant to Scotland from England does not exist. Scotland is not a sovereign nation. This whole piece is simply an attempt to open discourse on the issue of manipulating the Yes vote prospects by selective disenfranchisement.


      1. ” This whole piece is simply an attempt to open discourse ” on the blatant idiocy of a * universal * franchise which failed in 2014 and will fail again if we allow the NSNP to impose another flawed referendum on us .

        For the reasons Mia states above plus the arrayed forces of an overwhelmingly hostile MSM -which will make it’s propaganda of 2014 appear like the apogee of journalistic impartiality – and the inevitable nefarious manipulations of the British State Security Service ( now given carte blanche to act in ANY way deemed necessary to protect it’s * interests * ) a Scottish Independence Referendum is just about impossible to win .

        YOU might be content to sacrifice our freedom on the alter of a spurious notion ” Fairness “- whilst our opponents use every trick – dirty and/or otherwise – to thwart or aspiration . I’m not , and neither are the people here

        Liked by 7 people

      2. Thank You Edwin. It is very worthwhile to record your view that Scotland is not a sovereign nation. It explains an attitude of mind and an ignorance about Scotland that highlights the problem with a daft universal franchise that no other country, anywhere, would accept. To help out sovereignty in Scotland lies with the people, not the land. Hence the title King of Scots at the time of the Declaration of Arbroath that made this principle world famous.

        Liked by 8 people

      3. The union is a union of two countries. Now whether you accept it or not, a person moving from one country to another is an immigrant. Can you prove there is a law that says this statement is not true in this case? I’d like to see that please?

        You’re right of course. This whole piece is simply an attempt to open discourse on the issue of ONCE AGAIN unionists being allowed to manipulate the NO vote prospects by selective enfranchisement. Well, these are the rules of almost all NORMAL countries. Rules are the standards that govern our day to day lives & they keep us safe. New rules in elections will be needed to make sure YES get as even a chance as NO. The rules don’t hurt SCOTLAND – only the ability to rig the result. If NO don’t intend rigging the result, then having rules in place shouldn’t worry anyone. SCOTS will have the choice to vote YES OR NO. SCOTS get to choose, not immigrant English. As it should be.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Independence after attaining a majority of MPs was originally what the SNP believed and campaigned on in the 1970’s 1980s. So when did that change? Were we so desperate to get a referendum in 2014 that we accepted one designed for the Yes vote to lose?

    Going with the same design next time would make it even harder to get a positive result. The terms of the next referendum should be set in Scotland by Scots.

    Liked by 6 people

  19. There is no ethnic component to Scotland’s civic nationalism. Excluding people from the franchise on the grounds that they might vote the ‘wrong way’ is anti-democratic.


    1. It would be a laugh if you were not allowed to vote for councillors in Glasgow because you were born in Edinburgh.

      However, Peter’s wrong – as is clear from the artical, there is an ethnic component to Scotland’s nationalism, and the author probably isn’t part of a component that amounts to one person.


    2. Scotland in the UK has no democracy. Scotland had no democracy when it was forced in to the Union in 1707 and has none today.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Well, there we have it. The clear view that Scotland is already a sovereign nation when its clearly not under international law. If it was it would have seat at the UN. This continues to be the massive self delusion that there is a road to independence outwith an Article 30 Referendum. Now we have the insidious thinking of disenfranchisement of those who might vote No


    1. Edwin you are in no danger of finding any friends on this blog but I will tolerate your comments as it reveals the very limited historical or international knowledge of the franchise arrangements in every other nation in Europe. I have an article coming on Monday on this blog especially for you.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The combination of ‘self delusion’ and ‘insidious thinking’ feature throughout your commentary. ‘Flagrant discrimination’ against the Scots has been the hallmark of the colonising mindset residing within the English Parliament. English votes fur English laws an aw that, nae ‘manipulation’ there then!

      Liked by 3 people

  21. The author of this opinion seriously thinks that not all citizens of a country over 16 years of age should get a vote. You don’t need to be born in a country to be a citizen.

    Appart from being a howlingly mad idea, it is also illegal. Nationally and Internationally.

    It’s the kind of thing that results in international sanctions.


  22. Anyhoo, if anyone cares, the voting franchise for the 2014 referendum was found to be illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. The illegality didn’t concern place of birth.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: