WE NEED TO VOTE SNP?

A guest comment on my blog from Yours for Scotland columnist Mia.

“The irony at the moment is we need to vote SNP for independence”

No, we don’t actually. 

The only irony in front of us is that after wasting 7 irrecoverable years of Scotland’s time, after deliberately undermining our democracy and rights, after laughing at us while walking all over our right to self determination, after enthusiastically betraying our claim of right and sovereignty, after willingly cooperating with the English establishment to destroy our laws and policies to make it more difficult for Scotland to return to the EU, after handing over our assets as if they were birthday party balloons, after deliberately stalling and dividing the yes vote, and after pandering to the political and financial forces behind the GRA trojan horse, there are still party apparatchiks and spin doctors who have the arrogance and the lack of moral compass to continue to attempt to fool indy voters peddling the bullshit that this decomposed and corrupt pseudopolitical construct that calls itself SNP today is the only party of independence, when the same apparatchiks are falling over themselves to make us believe Alba never existed or it is not an alternative, so the useless pseudopolitical construct that calls itself SNP can still appear both as a functional political party rather than a unionist tool and as a pro independence entity rather than a devolutionist one.

In the same way that voting Labour was never the way to get rid of the tories, but rather the way to open the door to them, voting SNP is the way to ensure we are driven away from independence and instead sent back to the box with more rebranded useless devolution and the pretence of autonomy while we are robbed blind of our powers and rights and our country is being stripped off its main assets for the benefit of somebody else.

Whoever entity took over the SNP on the 19th September 2014, be it based in the sewers of London or those across the pond, does not want independence and has been working relentlessly to stop it. Taking our assets over one by one with the help of the useful idiots in control of Scotland while giving us a few crumbs in exchange, and,leaving Scotland poor and totally dependent on external entities is a testament to this. The fact Sturgeon and her pseudopolitical SNP has been enthusiastically cooperating on this robbery of the century is the best evidence you can ever find that proves this woman and those who call themselves SNP are working against independence. 

A leader serious about independence protects the countries assets in preparation to independence. Instead, what this woman is doing is handing our assets over so independence is much harder because Scotland cannot rely on its own assets.

Never a FM of Scotland and party of government has crushed so many of our rights and handed as many assets and powers to Westminster and foreign entities as the current fraud and her “party” of “government” have done.

If we really want independence the best thing we can do is eject the brigade of careerists, betrayers, liars, seat warmers, labour opportunists and MI5 plants hiding behind the SNP flag and the pretence of pursuing independence, off the green seats in England’s parliament.

We voted for the last 7 years for this party of useless amoebas and what has the fraud leading them achieved for Scotland?

Brexit. A brexit we never asked for, we never voted for, we never gave consent for.

We can vote for this shell and the fraud of the day leading it for another 7 years more or for another 70 that all what we will be doing is wasting our vote and achieving exactly the same this fraud and her shell of a party has achieved for Scotland in the last 7 long years: absolutely nothing other than despair and embarrassment and assets loss.

The sooner we accept the SNP as a party of independence died on the 19th September 2014 and since then it has become a British state tool to stop independence and to hand over to Westminster the control of as many assets of Scotland as possible, the sooner we can move forward.

A vote for the SNP in May will be a vote to save the union and a vote to give the green light to the fraud leading it to continue destroying our rights and handing our assets to Westminster while leaving our children and grandchildren without them.

MY COMMENTS

Mia has a great ability to identify and explain where it is all going wrong, badly wrong and then explains the great urgency in Scotland to abandon those who took us there and support and build Independence on a more honest and honourable base. She is right independence is going backwards, our assets will continue to be moved out of our control until we do.Time to wake up….and act!

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.


BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some sites had given up on being pro Indy sites and have decided to become merely pro SNP sites where any criticism of the Party Leader or opposition to the latest policy extremes, results in censorship being applied. This, in the rather over optimistic belief that this will suppress public discussion on such topics. My regular readers have expertly worked out that by regularly sharing articles on this site defeats that censorship and makes it all rather pointless. I really do appreciate such support and free speech in Scotland is remaining unaffected by their juvenile censorship. Indeed it is has become a symptom of weakness and guilt. Quite encouraging really.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Are available easily by clicking on the links in the Home and Blog sections of this website. by doing so you will be joining thousands of other readers who enjoy being notified by email when new articles are published. You will be most welcome.

102 thoughts on “WE NEED TO VOTE SNP?

  1. Thanks Mia. This says it all and why I left the SNP and became a Founder Member of Alba. The one thing, however, you omitted was the stripping of democracy from members of the SNP. This was a major reason for my leaving.

    Liked by 29 people

    1. Having never been a member of any political party but a voter for snp for many many years I can agree wholeheartedly with your reasoning , the division this creature and her minions have caused in a movement that was gaining positive momentum and was so close to our goal is despicable

      It is unbelievable that in a political party so many of its officials and existing members are so cowed and cowardly that they refuse to EXPOSE PUBLICLY the lies and corruption infesting that party all because they are TERRIFIED of a narcissistic psychopathic bully and her minions

      Liked by 27 people

    2. And yet these members who have been stripped of all say in their own Party do nothing. It is a huge betrayal of those who went before and built a truly Democratic Party where members held the ultimate say. A happier place all round.

      Liked by 15 people

      1. When you stop and think about the way these members have been used and ignored SURELY there has to be SOME POINT when you say to yourself WHOAH this is NOT what I voted for , this is NOT what I am willing to accept for my children or grandchildren , this is NOT the future I envisioned for them , this is NOT the caring empathetic environment I envisioned for our citizens (unless you are a perverted , deviant paedophile) , THEY/SHE/HER/IT is NOT LISTENING to US the people paying for her and her minions fake grandiosity , ALL WE WANT is an independent country with bounteous natural resources to be governed by a responsible , honest group of people with dignity and integrity who CARE about all the people and who will use the VAST natural resources we have been blessed with to look after and care for everyone , not just specific groups that you favour because you lie about your own existence , surely that’s what any NORMAL person would pay their dues for , not what has infested and corrupted their party

        Liked by 5 people

  2. @Jim+Arnott
    That’s an important point that I’d like to think others care about as much as you but there’s probably a lot of SNP members out there who are happy to let the party make all the decisions for them. Those of the colonial mindset, ironically!

    Liked by 18 people

  3. I will be voting for Alba, ISP (if standing) and any independent candidate who is also for independence. For the first time since 1972, I will NOT be voting SNP. Given the vitriol aimed at Alba on social media, they don’t want my vote anyway.

    Liked by 31 people

    1. 👏👏👏
      I will be voting for them I will be ranking them bottom of the preference list. I think that is also a key message. Vote till you boak is essential. The Greens will be second bottom etc etc. if you don’t rank them all then they could still sneak in. It is important to understand the voting system for the council elects….Rank them ALL.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. Quite Mia, quite.

    I’ve voted SNP for decades but last year didn’t for the first time. I couldn’t in all conscience vote for a party I did not think would progress indy and I knew was captured by gender ideologues. I knew my vote would be spinned into supporting self id. Lo and behold as the implications of last week’s Robison statement became wider known, the Sturgeonites were telling us the people supported it because they voted SNP. Yeah sure, low info voters vote SNP for identity politics, it couldn’t possibly be because they wanted indy…

    I despair at how many are still fooled by nuSNP. Maybe we are too stupid right enough. No it’s just we are kept in the dark and fed manure and most people don’t have time to follow the background. Fingers crossed more in hope than anticipation for a rebellion in the council elections. The SNP need to know they can’t take us for granted.

    Liked by 28 people

  5. Voting for the SNP will be interpreted in any way that the leaders of the SNP wish and they will use it to justify their actions (and inactions).

    The most recent example was just last week – the GRA reform bill was introduced on the basis that “Scotland voted” for it last May’s Holyrood election. (Funny how polls can be turned into plebiscite elections on a single issue when the SNP leadership want them to be … retrospectively of course).

    My own view is that Independence will not get back on track until the Salmond conspiracy is, and the plotters behind it are, revealed. Somehow and in some way the details have to find their way into the public domain.

    Liked by 30 people

    1. The details will find their way into the public domain at a time when the unionist side consider it will do the maximum damage to the Indy cause, unless of course, we get there first. All the information is out there but most indy supporters need it put before them in an easily comprehensible form rather than long complex blogs no matter how well researched and accurate these may be. Do we have the talent among us to present the facts of the conspiracy so that even the most sycophantic Sturgeonite will wake up to the truth? Is it beyond our wit to produce a dramatised documentary to show how the plot unfolded and put the finished product on a website out of the Scottish courts’ jurisidiction? I’m sure that we could find many volunteers among our ranks whether it be writers, tecnical crew, carpenters, stagehands and perhaps a few experienced amdram performers and crowdfund for the rest. Some positive action to bring us together to unseat the incompetents rather than hoping that eventually the indy movement will see sense.

      Liked by 7 people

  6. Excellent article.
    There are still old SNP supporters (and one notable blogger) who might acknowledge the lack of movement on Independence but nonetheless think all we have to do is compel the SNP leadership to act.
    Yes, the Scottish government is the only vehicle to Independence but Sturgeon clearly has absolutely no intention of pursuing that goal.
    We can even see Ukraine being used as a delaying tactic. Next excuse?
    They’re taking the piss now.
    Vote SNP or we get a unionist? On past and current performance, vote SNP and we still get a party of union. And a very authoritarian one at that.
    No thanks.

    Liked by 22 people

    1. I don’t believe the Scottish government is the only – or best – vehicle to independence. Holyrood is acting as a block to our right to self determination. Sturgeon claims she needs an s30 order even when she holds a mandate from the people of Scotland. Why is this? I understand it is because the constitutional power are held by Westminster. Now, either our own MPs hold those powers or we can readily demonstrate we are a colony. Thatcher said our MPs hold those powers. So then why are a majority of SNP MPs warming seats in Westminster when they have a mandate to either call an indyref or go ahead and open independence negotiations? Cosy feet all round? Sturgeon has shat all over this path and while Holyrood remains open it seems to me she has led us into a toxic wasteland. Holyrood is a pretendy parliament with a real legal system. The UK has separation of state and justice but when Westminster structured Holyrood they did not provide that separation for Scots law. This is the root of the evil that the talent less SG are inflicting on us. The SG is doing great harm to us now – I think the time has come to close Holyrood and use a majority of genuine YES MPs to get an indyref. Voting YES/NO in Westminster elections does not affect us as we have no say in policies there anyway – something worth highlighting with the voters. Voting SNP in Holyrood does not get us an indyref – it gets us oppressive incompetence. So then, lets go one step further than the excellent points made by Mia – why do we need Holyrood?

      Liked by 12 people

    2. I am seek of listening to that nonsense nallyanders. We can somehow compel the SNP leadership to turn miraculously into Independence supporters and run (equally miraculously) a competent campaign. The referendum is a diversion tactic used by the unionist leadership of the SNP.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. I have been looking at sandwich boards on the net because I was thinking about doing a one man protest outside the Scottish Parliament when the campaign starts. The board will have a couple of simple messages:

    Scotland
    ‘My Country’
    Deserves better than Sturgeon

    Sturgeon Out
    Independence In in in
    (Suggestion by poster on this blog)

    Sturgeon the Great Betrayer of Scotland and it’s People.

    Other suggestions welcomed as long as they are short, simple and to the point.

    Words will only take us so far, what is needed is direct action and this will be mine.

    Liked by 15 people

  8. Just thought of a new term for Sturgeon’s devoted disciples who are still delusional enough to believe that the Blessed Nikla will lead them to independence:

    Devolusionists.

    Liked by 17 people

  9. Very well said Mia, hit the nail on the head. Scotland will never achieve independence under the current guise of the so called SNP. How many more mandates do the want, we could give them a hundred and we still would be no further forward. I didn’t vote for them last election and I won’t vote for them ever again under the present leadership.
    Never mind them not having any type of plan for taking us forward, giving away our assets and generally becoming more unionist than the Tories. They definitely lost my vote with the GRA nonsense. I have a daughter and three granddaughters and they are taking away my, and their rights. The rights of all Scottish women, the rights some of us fought so hard to get in the first place.

    The other thing that is bothering me at this time, is the great pinning of hopes on ALBA as a great break though in the council elections in May. Council elections are notorious for low turnout, and I worry that we are going to be let down here. You can just hear the crowing now. ALBA are finished, smothered at birth mair like. They are all colluding to bury the party before it can really get started. SNP, MSM etc, no coverage and they’ll just go away.

    I have to agree also with Duncanio, I don’t think that we’ll make a lot of progress until the whole Salmond plot and the plotters are out in the open. Time that particular boil was well and truly lanced.

    Liked by 24 people

    1. carolclark1

      I would suggest a slight change to “until the whole Salmond plot and the plotters are out in the open” to “until the plotters are in jail”.

      Liked by 13 people

  10. YES, We All Must Vote For the SNP!
    Why, because They Are Our Only Hope of getting Our Overdue & Justified Independence!
    Alex Salmond’s failure to Counter Gordoom Broon’s Federal UK Lies, the Daily Retards Promised Vow!
    Alex blamed ‘Purdah’ but that is Not Law, and it iS the Reason why He resigned!
    And actually Voting Labour in 1946 & 1997 Did Remove the Evil Tories!
    Iain, You are Blinkered, be practical & pragmatic, & Not Biased!!!

    Like

    1. Yes absolutely Tosh the daily retards “VOW” remind us blinkered and biased ones who wrote that steaming pile of pish and WHO now employs them as their communications head , and Bill if you really are a independence supporter for Scotland why has the messianic lunatic prioritised GRA despite opposition instead of INDY

      Liked by 12 people

    2. Lots of exclamation marks. Your indignation would serve you better if you turned it towards those who deserve it, the devolutionist SNP, who even as we read this pro Independence blog are preparing their brainwashed followers for yet another ‘long ball into the grass’, citing the tragedy of the Ukraine as a possible reason. Wake up.

      Liked by 13 people

    3. For Bill Tosh – just a reminder of the run up to the referendum and the importance of Purdah and the weasel way they got round breaking it. It is easy to say it had little effect on the outcome but they would not have Purdah if it did not affect outcomes.

      Scotsman 27th August 2013
      Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has already said there is “no reason to doubt the good faith of the UK government’s commitment to observe purdah restrictions equivalent to those imposed on the Scottish Government in the bill”. A Scotland Office spokesman stressed that the UK government “always abides by purdah rules” but said it saw “no need” to put these on a statutory footing.
      https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/scottish-independence-uk-purdah-parity-call-1563377

      BBC 7 September 2014
      UK Chancellor George Osborne said voters in Scotland will be offered a plan for more powers. However, the UK government claims the offer would come from the pro-Union parties, not the government itself.
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29100372

      with regard to Salmond’s resignation, he resigned because he felt ” he had to make a judgement about whether he is best placed to take Scotland forward, saying he believed there are others better suited.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/alex-salmond-resigns-scottish-first-minister-to-stand-down-after-referendum-defeat-9744650.html

      Liked by 8 people

      1. WT: it has always, since 2014, been a mystery to me why Mr Salmond was so sure that Nicola Sturgeon was the right choice of successor. Perhaps she gave no hint at all that she was not 100% behind independence, but I remember a leadership contest way before 2014 – appealing for votes from the membership – in a tiny hall, when the leadership hopefuls gave their reasons for standing. Mike Russell was there, too, and the other hopefuls, with Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon standing as a duo. Although Alec Salmond had been my choice, I recall not being so sure of Nicola Sturgeon. Something was lacking that I just could not put my finger on, but I do remember remarking to others that I was unsure. In the end, I did vote for both, and I have since spoken to other SNP members of that time who also felt grave reservations about Nicola Sturgeon. I know it’s easy to say that in hindsight, but I definitely was not fully convinced and was eventually swayed by Mr Salmond’s belief in her. He rarely put a foot wrong, but he was very mistaken in her commitment to independence, I think. If it is true – and I certainly have seen no evidence to suggest it is so, just rumour – that the cold-shouldering started very soon after 2014, and way before the allegations of misconduct on Mr Salmond’s part arose – but that puts a very different complexion on matters. As I say, I have no proof that anything like that happened, but I do recall watching and listening to an SNP Conference years back where I thought that Nicola Sturgeon’s body language was at odds with her outwardly enthusiastic embracing of Mr Salmond on the podium. Who knows? Whatever, the party has been irrevocably crippled by so many adverse matters during the past seven/eight years

        Liked by 11 people

      2. (Following Lorncal’s comment at 3.00 pm)

        We might well ponder point 20 of Craig Murray’s sworn affidavit:

        “20. I told him [Alex Salmond] that Sturgeon’s hostility towards him seemed to be longstanding. I recounted a story I had been told by Robin McAlpine, of an occasion shortly after his resignation when Alex Salmond had arrived at the Scottish Parliament for a function and the First Minister’s Office had refused to sign him in. Alex replied that this was true ; it was particularly embarrassing as the occasion had been to hand over a large cheque for funds raised for charity following a campaign he had initiated as First Minister. They had been forced to do the photoshoot in the rain outside instead.”

        https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/03/schroedingers-evidence/

        Liked by 10 people

  11. ALBA is supposed to be an alternative.
    This could have come straight out of Bute House.
    https://archive.ph/pq9Zo
    Gotta try harder you guys.
    You do not impress.
    Covid-19, if it exists, has through government provoked «fear» done harm to economies, mental wellbeing, education, trust in politicians and created more poor in vulnerable communities and countries. It has however made the very rich even richer. I’d be more concerned by that and the possibility that the leaders of the SNP are quite happy happy with the current socio-political order.
    Mia is right, the old nostrums no longer work. We need a thorough spring clean of the political household.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. No, Ottomanboi, we definitely need new strategies although I don’t think that retaining the monarchy should be a deal-breaker, albeit I am a republican by inclination. The monarch is monarch of Scotland in his/her own right, The monarch is actually one person in whose person the monarchies of England (and Wales and NI), and Scotland, separately, are invested. There never was a true Union of the Crowns; they were, and remain, two Crowns, as may be understood from the Treaties of Union, 1707.

      Liked by 9 people

  12. Nope, reluctantly lent them my last ever vote last May.
    Any pro-indy politician with a decent strategic brain would recognise that now would be a good time to send a S30 to London, just as Boris is spouting his ‘importance of national sovereignty’ speech regarding the Ukraine. A wee bit embarrassing if Downing Street then refuses to ratify a Scottish referendum. When the better together protagonists are being linked to Russian money – the complete opposite of what the Herald was claiming in 2014, how could there be a better time to begin to extricate ourselves from the plutocracy of London. The UK is on its knees, the unionist arguments have simply dissolved before our eyes.

    Of course what we have in holyrood is simply a colonial administration, not a pro-independence Government and Nicola sturgeon doesn’t have a remotely strategic brain. Who would have thought that the ‘now is not the time’ mantra would be something that would come from the SNP. Funny how Iceland extricated itself from Denmark in June 1944 – a year before the end of WW2.

    She has had an armchair ride up until now, with our anger and vitriol being aimed at London. It really is time for her to face discomfort. Maybe she should be faced with the choice of having protestors arrested outside the Scottish Parliament, or Bute house for demonstrating about something as radical as say independence. Bit embarrassing given her recent remarks about brave Russian protestors. The SNP are part of the political wing of the YES movement. They need to be answerable. Perhaps now is the time for a joint letter from all YES groups asking her what is going on. Would she respond I wonder?

    Liked by 20 people

    1. Scott Egner: agree entirely with the points made in your comment at 9:30am. We MUST assert the right of assembly around OUR PARLIAMENT at Holyrood and there are no shortage of issues that we can bring to bear on this current (mal)administration who sit within that building working courtesy of and on behalf the Westminster establishment.

      Mia in her inimitable fashion brings into stark relief the effect Sturgeon and the SNP are having in stalling progress to Independence while at the same time sabotaging our claim on our countries natural and national assets in favour of the colonial pillaging entity HM Gov Westminster.

      The people of Scotland need to see and hear boots on the ground around OUR Parliament and what it is that brings us there. Confining dissent within the ‘blogosphere’ I fear will in in no way alarm the established order currently ensconced within Fortress Holyrood and if we indeed have intent to implement change we MUST be on the streets.

      Liked by 14 people

    2. I hope that the GRA Reform (Scotland) Bill will be the clincher. Opposition is building day-on-day, and, unless the cohort who support this nonsense are deselected or voted out, independence is still a long way off. They, the pseudo woke, allied to the Greens and the SNP foot draggers, are the problem and have been since 2015.

      Liked by 13 people

  13. 100% correct!
    As ex member/candidate/activist/ etc I agree completely with today’s post! The SNP do NOT want independence- they would have to make Decisions ! And be responsible for them !

    Liked by 16 people

  14. In an earlier blog post “What a depressing time”, I made this comment … “I suspect in the run up to and in the aftermath of the local elections in May, we will find in that “fog of war” twixt parties and supporters, more reasons for feeling depressed, and the ultimate bloodied casualty will be the cause of Scotland’s independence as we fight amongst ourselves, whilst the enemy combine their forces. Truly sad!”

    It was with that prospect (and many others) in mind that last April an initiative was started called “The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” which opens with this paragraph ” Exercising my Claim Of Right as a Sovereign Scot, I declare: I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Treaty of Union established through the Acts of Union in 1707.”

    Last Saturday at the rally in Paisley, a queue formed of individuals – of whose party allegiance, or none, I know not, nor do I care – each person wanting to sign their individual Declaration. Those individual Declarations will shortly be sent and lodged with the United Nations, it is still very early days in all this, but it will be the seventh batch of such Declarations to be sent in that way, with a copy of all the documents being retained to eventually be compiled into one historical document.

    I won’t lengthen this post – if you have any questions as to what this initiative is attempting to achieve, and the basis upon which it is hased (UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.) you will find the details here: https://www.facebook.com/X2-113742180011217/

    (Personal comment: I am not a member of any political party, and never have been, and have no reason to see that change.)

    Liked by 17 people

    1. Thanks Mike,
      I think this is a very important initiative just now in light of what has been installed in holyrood. I shall certainly sign it although I’m not on Facebook. It certainly merits a much wider audience.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. Iain, it would be good if you could persuade Mike Fenwick onto the Prism Show. I’m sure many people would like to hear what he had to say.

        Liked by 7 people

  15. It’s not an either / or construct, the puppet masters pulling the strings aren’t necessarily based in London or Washington, it’s a joint effort.
    The provable links between Sturgeon’s inner cohort and the US State Department can be explained by Foggy Bottom providing a cut-out between NuSNP and MI5. The State Department are “case handlers” but only to a template determined by MI5 and in close coordination with MI5.
    Satan’s little helpers include the Smith clan with its pre-existing trans-Atlantic and deep state connections.
    This quid pro quo arrangement is fairly standard form, remember wee Simon Bracey-Lane of the Institute for Statecraft “volunteering to work for Bernie Sanders”.
    For their part, the “puppets” aren’t helpless patsies, they know what their doing. Humanities graduates of limited talent and limited career prospects, plucked from well deserved obscurity and “networked” into Ministerial positions in return for toeing a line determined by their handlers.

    Liked by 14 people

  16. Thanks Mia for expressing the sad reality so well and to Ian for hosting your essay. I have voted SNP for most of my life and I now feel totally betrayed. I am angry with myself for believing that NS would take this country to Independence. How could I be so wrong?

    Liked by 15 people

  17. You ae not alone Dave, thousands of us were betrayed lied to and sold for a pot of gold, not only by She Her, but buy the treacherous parasites sitting in W.M. under false pretences. I make no exclusions here everyone of them.

    Liked by 15 people

  18. Duncanio comments (9th Mar 8.29 am): “My own view is that Independence will not get back on track until the Salmond conspiracy is, and the plotters behind it are, revealed. Somehow and in some way the details have to find their way into the public domain.”
    ——
    In this regard, anyone who has not yet read and spread Craig Murray’s current (4 March) post, ‘SCHROEDINGER’S EVIDENCE’, is encouraged to do so —

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/03/schroedingers-evidence/

    Liked by 13 people

      1. These are good articles Fearghas, as are others from both these authors and other writers.

        Understandably these have to be cryptic and incomplete to stay within the law.

        But I believe that only complete transparency will facilitate the rooting out of the rotten and enable unity of purpose once again with the Yes movement.

        Liked by 10 people

    1. The plotters identities are well known to that fearless principled band oft times referred to as ‘the fourth estate’ and dare I say it our freedom of speech custodians ensconced within the Holyrood citadel where lying is a prerequisite to career advancement.

      Craig Murray’s appeal against a perceived contempt of court in the opinion of Dorrian demonstrates how the judicial system is being manipulated to quash dissent where truth is being pursued in defence of democracy. Duncanio’s comment clearly highlights the Albatross which the Salmond conspiracy has hung around the neck of the Independence movement which will only be cast off when the conspirators associated with Sturgeon have their identities exposed to the world.

      Scottish Independence can be no more than a pipe dream until this occurs!

      Liked by 11 people

  19. Biden, Great Leader of the West NOT, is very confused about his foreign countries, Iran, Ukrain, Russia etc and he has that nuke button by his bedside.
    America’s future seem to be poor on geography. High school students who think Iraq is somewhere in Sth Europe, Danes are Jewish and Florida is on the Pacific is very suggestive indeed. Could they find Ukrain on a map? Could they even find the US? Find their backside in the dark?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08O5kOqvm7E that was 2017, things have not improved apparently.
    I come from a backward third world country….so who am I to crit.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. And when you get a geography savvy American, especially with politics as a side dish – i.e. geopolitically savvy – boy, are they sharp! Unfortunately, America is isolationist by instinct, but not all Americans are like that. I often think that there is a wee bit of the patronizing colonist in British accounts of America. They are the imperialists now, and have been since WW II, and we are the supplicants, if truth be told. Never mind, enjoy your stay, Iain.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. My brother was teaching history in a university in America back in the late 70’s,when one of the students asked him why it was that France and Russia had not had any wars with each other. Ian was a bit mystified and asked the student the reason for the question. Well said the student with two countries bordering each other you would think that that would have happened.

        Liked by 3 people

  20. Iain

    I am sorry to sound a note of scepticism, but let me quote Mia here:”Brexit. A brexit we never asked for, we never voted for, we never gave consent for.”

    The problem is that the Brexit referendum involved a British decision to a British question asked by a Union Parliament. That was the same Union that the Scots ratified in 2014 and “we” did not need to give consent to Brexit. If “we” did, there would be no Union, as Scotland has no veto over Union decisions. As a lifelong Independence supporter I voted LEAVE and campaigned for Brexit. I was accompanied by hundreds of thousands of YES supporters. So Mia’s talking nonsense. If Scotland wants to become part of a larger and even less democratic union then its path is firstly independence from the UK and then a vote to join the EU. It will never happen.

    William

    Liked by 3 people

      1. I totally agree it was 62/38%.
        Maybe, that would have been the time to consider declaring independence so that both countries in this “equal union” could have followed different paths and respected each others wishes?
        Scotland’s wishes were totally ignored and treated with contempt. NI also voted to remain in the advisory non binding Brexit referendum.

        Liked by 7 people

    1. You make a fair point, William, but Scotland is, ostensibly, in a voluntary Union, not one created by military defeat, ergo, we have every right to not want to leave the EU if we want, and to make that the reason, with others, of course, for leaving the Union. Two parts of the UK did not wish to leave against two parts that did. That’s actually a draw, not a walk-over by England and Wales, unless Unionists are now stating quite baldly that England is the Union, is the UK and vice versa. We know, naturally, that that is, indeed the de facto situation, but it does not exist in constitutional law – yet. That both wanted to leave should have given the Unionists food for thought. As per, it didn’t. Mia’s points are very pertinent, because, if the parliamentary SNP, in both Westminster and Holyrood, was a party for independence, it would have seized the opportunity to make hay and, I believe, would have won at that stage because both New and Old Scots were allying against Brexit. The opportunity was deliberately let slip because the SNP is now the party of devolution. They were elected as the party of independence and they squat now in both parliaments as imposters – and not just as imposters, but as insufferable pseudo woke performers who actually believe not one word of what comes out of their own mouths.

      Liked by 14 people

    2. William

      The Treaty of Union and Claim of Right enshrined in the ToU does not permit any alterations to that constitutional arrangement without the specific agreement of the Scottish people. Major constitutional changes such as those imposed unilaterally on Scotland by the British Government – e.g. Maastricht and Brexit etc treaties – may therefore be unlawful. Not that any Scottish MP or MSP or even Scottish constitutional lawyers (if any exist) appear to have noticed.

      Liked by 12 people

    3. I agree with William as I also was a Brexiteer! Why fight to get free from Westminster (which I agree with) and then be consumed in an even bigger monstrosity that is the Brussels-based EU?

      The EU Referendum was whether the WHOLE of the UK should stay in the EU, NOT its constituents parts. However, 38% of those registered to vote in Scotland voted to LEAVE, not bad as no political party in Holyrood supported leaving, and that apparently included about 35% of SNP voters. Had we voted to remain, we would have NEVER broken free from Westminster, as the EU hates fragmentation. ” An Ever Closer Union” is carved in stone.

      Now that we are out, there is a FAR BETTER chance of achieving Independence, with a future Scotland then deciding to join EFTA, even the EU at some future date. However, I, for one, would never vote for so-called “Independence” if part of the package was immediately applying to join the EU! Out of the frying pan into a worse fire, I would say. Let’s try national freedom first.

      Liked by 3 people

    4. ”Brexit. A brexit we never asked for, we never voted for, we never gave consent for.”

      I stand my my words, Willian. Scotland never asked for brexit, never voted for brexit and never gave consent for brexit. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, by means of their total inaction, or perhaps some action behind closed doors we do not know about, did so on our behalf. In my personal view, they had absolutely no right to do so and therefore I see it as an abuse of their position of power , deliberate frustration of democracy and dereliction of duty towards the Scottish people they were elected to represent.

      “The problem is that the Brexit referendum involved a British decision to a British question”

      I am not sure what it is what you are trying to conflate here. If you are attempting to present the concept of “Britain” as being a separate, independent entity from Scotland, then I think you are completely wrong in making such an assumption. The UK is not an independent entity from Scotland. Scotland is in a bipartite political union with the Kingdom of England, therefore any of the government and parliamentary structures of the UK are completely dependent on the continuous consent from Scotland to remain acting as such. Unilateral consent from England is not enough to keep this as a functional political union. Unilateral consent from England without ratification from Scotland transforms what is legitimately a political union of equals into an imperialistic construct where Scotland becomes England’s colony. I think you find that is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the treaty of union.

      The Treaty of Union was a contract. There are plenty of examples during the last 300 years of misinterpretations (both negligent and fraudulent) and breaches of the conditions in that contract to render it void at any point, if we only had people representing Scotland with a backbone and the balls to put that voidable contract aside and declare it legally void for once and for all.

      Another voidable contract was that established in 2014 for Scotland to remain in the union and allegedly ratified by the no vote of the people of Scotland (allegedly if you believe the official result and that the vote was not coerced, which I do not). Why is voidable? because Devo Max was verbally presented as an untrue statement of fact. Many people voted no on the basis of that statement. Those offering it did not have the power to offer it, therefore they were making either a negligent misinterpretation of the fact, or worse, a fraudulent one, because they knew they could not deliver it and yet they were offering it anyway, or misleading the voters into believing it could be achievable to induce them to enter the contract.

      I think you find that in any other context that is not UK politics, such a contract is legally void and therefore no longer enforceable.

      There were many other untruths presented as statements of fact that were used to lure the voters into voting no in 2014. An example was the statement of fact by many unionist politicians that the way to remain in the EU was by voting to remain in the UK.. Only 18 months later, that statement of truth was proven false, but nobody ever bothered proving if all those politicians who stated it and the press who amplified and propagated the untruth were committing negligent or fraudulent misinterpretations of the truth. There are many signs, like a TV debate between Sturgeon and Carmichael in 2013, that point to the possibility that all these politicians knew before the referendum that the UK would leave the EU after an EU referendum and therefore would suggest the misinterpretation was not negligent but fraudulent and designed to lure Scottish voters into that contract.

      Considering that such a contract Scotland entered in 2014 should have been declared void by now, the consent of Scotland for those forms of government to continue acting as UK ones and on behalf of Scotland would have been more important than ever in 2016. In my personal opinion, Scotland terminated that consent because on the May General Election 2015, by giving the majority of seats to a party of independence, the people of Scotland were signifying their interest in Scotland going solo. You could also interpret that vote as the people of Scotland telling its government and the UK parliament that they were putting the 2014 contract to remain part of the UK aside and declaring it void.

      However, instead of taking on from that declaration of void contract, Sturgeon did the precise opposite: she put her fingers in her ears and continue to pretend Scotland wanted to preserve the union. Furthermore, as an attempt to bypass beforehand that removal of consent so she could brush it under the carpet afterwards, Sturgeon, of course, betrayed the constitution of the SNP and the voters by declaring that a vote for the SNP in 2015 was not a vote for independence and has been doing so ever since. Such a change, in my opinion, indicates, very, very clearly that she, as her handlers, know very well those UK structures no longer have consent to act on behalf of Scotland, so the triggering of A50 without Scotland’s consent was unlawful.

      Scotland doubled down on its intention to remove consent for the UK entities to continue acting on its behalf by ratifying it in 2016 during the Holyrood election. At that point, Scotland demanded a referendum before that consent was restored. When a referendum is on the table, until you get the result from that referendum you can no longer presume the UK structures retain the consent from Scotland to act on its behalf. And this is precisely the reason why I personally think the participation of any of those structures (like the UK civil service, the Electoral commision to cite some) in any process related to an independence referendum for Scotland is ultravires too. Because without consent to act as UK structures on behalf of Scotland, they are at all effect, only England’s structures. There is no place for England structures to stick their fingers in any process that concerns only to Scotland and where it is the people of Scotland and them only who are going to vote to decide if Scotland terminates the UK union or not.

      The ratification of our removal of consent was given again in the GE 2017, GE2019 and more recently in the last Holyrood election. As it is, in my personal opinion, since 8th May 2015, the representatives of England, Nicola Sturgeon and her government and MSPs and MPs have been acting ultravires by deliberately assuming and acting as if the UK structures have the consent form Scotland to act on its behalf when in reality they do not and they will not until a no vote is returned in a referendum.

      The continuous reminding us of “the vote” of 2014, but deliberately ignoring the votes of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 that clearly point to the removal of that consent and which in the scenario of a democracy would have far more weight than the vote of 2014 because they took place after, suggests an unhealthy, dishonest and desperate attempt to make the people of Scotland believe for a bit longer that they have given consent for the UK to continue when in reality they removed it in 2015. What we have in front of us is a demand to make us believe those UK structures are acting legitimately on behalf of Scotland when you could argue that without Scotland’s consent to act on their behalf, since 2015, they are not.

      Until that time a referendum or a proper independence plebiscite election takes place and that consent is reinstated, that consent does not exist. The contract Scotland entered in in 2014 to preserve the UK with the assumption of Home Rule/Devo Max within the EU for Scotland became void the minute vitiating factors were part of the tools to get the people of Scotland to vote No. In addition, it became void the minute the parliament of the UK voted against fiscal autonomy making the first part of the offer (Home Rule for Scotland) an impossibility and later on, when that same parliament voted for A50 to be triggered, making the completion of the second part of the offer (home rule in the EU) a double impossibility. That our political representatives continue to ignore this and instead continue to act as if what looks like a totally void contract remains valid and legally enforceable today is, in my opinion, because we what we have acting as our “pro independnece representatives” and “leaders” are political frauds representing the interests of somebody else rather than our own.

      So from where I am standing, it is not just a case that England MPs had no constitutional right to trigger A50 without Scotland’s consent because Scotland is not an integral part of England nor its property, but its equal partner. It is a matter that since 8th May 2015 and without a second independence referendum with a no to indy result to ratify that consent, the “UK” parliament, the “UK” committees, the “UK” government, the “UK” commissions and civil servants appointed for them did not have Scotland’s consent to act on behalf of Scotland, to trigger A50 on behalf of Scotland, to speak on behalf of Scotland, to put our assets on the negotiating table, to enter any trade deals on behalf of Scotland or to bargain or accept anything on behalf of Scotland.

      “asked by a Union Parliament.”

      Scotland is part of that union. Without Scotland there is no union and there is no Union parliament. Without Scotland’s consent for that parliament to act on its behalf, there is not “union parliament” either. Scotland is who gives consent to that “Union Parliament ” to continue in existence, not the other way round.

      To pretend that the decision of over 500 England MPs who were elected to represent England and its interests, and who do not hold the endorsement from a single vote from Scotland, takes priority over the democratic decision of the people of Scotland themselves and who have the legitimate right to decide if that union parliament continues in existence in the first place, is the colonialist perspective unionists have desperately tried to peddle since 1999 in order to make Scotland look less of an equal partner to England wiithin a bipartite international union based on a treaty, and more as England’s possession. Sadly, this also appears to be that the brigade of devolutionists, careerists and pretend independentists on Sturgeon’s ranks appear to be peddling too.

      Either this is a union or it is not. If it is a union, then Scotland is above that parliament, not the other way round. If it is not, then the concept of “union parliament” or “United Kingdom” are deceiftul and designed to mislead, because Scotland is at all effects, a colony.

      “That was the same Union that the Scots ratified in 2014″
      Actually, not it isn’t.. The union the people of Scotland voted for in 2014 was one where Scotland had home rule, devo max within the EU. The vote by England MPs in early 2016 crushing full fiscal autonomy and the EU referendum proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the statements of fact made by unionist to lure, if not mislead Scottish voters into voting no, were falsehoods. This means the people of Scotland voted for something that was impossible, ergo in any other context, the contract the people of Scotland ratified in 2014 with their vote would be void and unenforceable in legal terms. In other words, the people of Scotland ratified nothing in 2014 other than they wanted more autonomy.

      ” “we” did not need to give consent to Brexit

      Yes, we did. Why? Because the United Kingdom of “Great Britain” is not just England. It is England + Scotland. England MPs triggering A50 without Scotland’s consent was unconstitutional and if Sturgeon and the SNP had a backbone, the balls leaders should have and real concern for Scotland, real commitment to democracy and gave a shit for the treat of union and its conditions, they would have immediately taken the UK government to the European court and demand the triggering of A50 to be reverted immediately on the basis of violation of the principle of constitutionality included in A50 itself.

      .”If “we” did, there would be no Union”
      On the contrary. The fact that we did not give consent and still brexit was allowed to go through against our expressed will and interests by those who were claiming to represent us and our interests, is the proof that this is not a functional union at all. Scotland is being treated as a colony, being seen as a colony, being exploited as a colony, being abused as a colony, being silenced as a colony and and governed as a colony.

      ,”Scotland has no veto over Union decisions”
      Then who does? Only England?
      How can you even talk about “union decisions” when you claim that one of the only 2 main equal partners in this union does not have veto and therefore you are stating without words that you do not think the union exists at all? A political construct where the voice of one of the equal partners is deliberately suppressed so only the other one can be heard is not a union. It is a take over.

      ” As a lifelong Independence supporter I voted LEAVE and campaigned for Brexit.”

      Independence supporter for your whole adult life or for a few minutes, independence supporter or unionist, you were in the minority. Only a 38% of those who approached the polls in 2016 voted for brexit. Scotland therefore, as a majority, voted against brexit. Ergo, it did not give its democratic consent for brexit.

      “I was accompanied by hundreds of thousands of YES supporters”
      More thousands of Yes and no supporters voted against brexit. Millions in England voted to remain in the EU and yet they were never listened to. What makes you think the 38% in Scotland should have a bigger say than the 62%?
      By the way, that those voting for brexit were yes supporters or not is completely irrelevant in the matter of brexit.

      Scotland did not vote for brexit and did not give consent for brexit.

      “Mia’s talking nonsense”
      No, you are. You are trying to legitimise forcing brexit over Scotland by claiming some yes supporters voted for it. Sorry, that a few yes supporters voted for brexit does not change the reality that 62% of those who voted in Scotland did so to remain in the EU.

      You like it or not, Scotland never gave consent for brexit and if this was a functional union rather than the pretence of one, if Nicola Sturgeon was a real yes supporter instead of a covert unionist, and a leader, instead of another useful idiot of Westminster, and if the SNP under her “leadership” (and I use that term very loosely) was a party of independence rather than another brand of new labour, either Scotland would have contested the triggering of A50 on the basis of being unconstitutional and therefore violating the conditions stipulated in that article, or would have declared independence on the basis that the conditions of the Treaty of Union had been breached beyond reconciliation, and let England leave the EU on its own.

      “If Scotland wants to become part of a larger and even less democratic union”
      I think the idea of a more undemocratic union than the UK is utopia. We always like to believe there is something worse than what we have to make us feel better. From the point of view of Scotland, the UK is a profoundly and irreversibly undemocratic and abusive union that since 2015 can only continue in existence by gagging Scotland and treating it as a colony. Forcing brexit on Scotland is an example of both, gagging Scotland and treating it as a colony.

      This is because since 8th May 2015 the people of Scotland openly removed the consent from the UK structures to continue acting on Scotland’s behalf. Such is the conviction of the UK big wigs and their useful idiots in Scotland’s government and parliament that Scotland will not renew that consent, that they are currently preserving this union by denying Scotland the opportunity to cast a yes vote in a fair referendum/plebiscitary election, and by continuously ignoring Scotland’s majorities of pro-indy MPs.

      “then its path is firstly independence from the UK and then a vote to join the EU”
      No. The path is first to remove Sturgeon from the driving seat to stop her causing more harm to Scotland, remove the SNP from our seats in Westminster to stop them stalling indepenence any longer, elect a party that stands for Scotland’s independence and end the union.

      I am of the opinion that the concept of “independence from the UK” is misleading because it is based on the assumption that the UK will continue in existence as a separate entity from Scotland or that the Kingdom of England will automoatically became the UK continuator state. If Scotland leaves the UK, the United Kingdom of Great Britain ceases to exist. Both, the kingdoms of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, as equal partners have, in my opinion, equal right to remain as the continuator state of the UK, therefore that decision should be part of the negotiations between both kingdoms when the union is ended.

      The day after of the EU referendum, Scotland had all the cards in its hand and the possibility to force England to either remain in the EU to preserve the UK, or to end the union so it could leave the EU. The politically useless for Scotland Sturgeon handed all the cards to Westminster instead.

      .”It will never happen”
      For as long as Scotland remains under colonial administrators passing as leaders, colonial gatekeepers passing as judges and COPFS, amateur dictators passing as democrats, misogyinists passing as feminists, devolutionists and covert unionists passing as pro independence politicians attempting to resurrect Brown’s devo max utopia as the illusion of a viable option, careerists, amoebas, charlatans and seat warmers passing as independence warriors in Westminster, of course it will never happen. Because none of these people want it to happen have been working very hard for the last 7 years to stop it happening.

      Alarm bells should have been ringing all over Scotland the minute this political fraud announced in 2015 that a vote for the SNP was no longer a vote for independence.

      Liked by 13 people

  21. Ach hellfire. Lisa Townsend is the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner. She’s a Tory but in this instance I’ll not hold it against her. She’s tweeted

    “Disappointed that on this #InternationalWomensDay Surrey’s Police and Crime Panel have found my tweet in support of a @jk_rowling post about women who have been raped by ‘women’ with a penis, not to be ‘dignified or respectful’ and to explain myself to the 3 men who complained”

    and

    “For those asking – Surrey Police and Crime Panel is made up of Surrey councillors. It has nothing to do with
    @SurreyPolice

    The Panel were responding to a complaint made by Surrey MP Crispin Blunt and two other men about my tweet.”

    Men complaining about a woman retweeting another woman’s comment about rapists. Rapists with a penis. Obviously they must be a marginalised and vulnerable group /sarc.

    Liked by 7 people

  22. The SNP were lent my vote (along with many hundreds of thousand others) to achieve Independence. Quite obviously that is no longer their goal and, as they move yet further to the right, they have no chance of securing my vote in the future. However, as an active YES supporter, I am not naive enough to think that there is an army of us ready to mount a challenge to the SNP firm (but lessening) grip on the Indy movement. So this is the perfect time to be pointing out to those, still under the illusion that Sturgeon will deliver, that Independence cannot be gained at local elections and May, therefore, is the ideal time to register your disgust at their lack of action by voting for anyone but SNP candidates. Even if it’s a low twenty turnout it will send a clear message that her time is almost up.

    Liked by 11 people

  23. Dear All

    It must be remembered that the 62 to 38% vote to stay in the EU in Scotland was solely for the UK (not Scotland) to stay in the EU. Lorna has got it right to the extent that the Scottish people have every right to agitate for independence based on the UK leaving the EU. But there is no “2/2″ draw on Brexit made up of England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland and NI on the other. There was a single UK vote on a single UK question. Neither Scotland nor England were members of the EU.What Sturgeon did post- 23 June 2016 was to work with Remain forces to undermine a valid UK-wide referendum setting up just such undemocratic tactics by Unionists when Indy 2 is actually won by 52 to 48%.

    Scotland’s remedy for Brexit (if any) is independence, and nothing else.

    Prof Baird asserts that:”The Treaty of Union and Claim of Right enshrined in the ToU does not permit any alterations to that constitutional arrangement without the specific agreement of the Scottish people.” Which TOU article is he referring to? If he was right his theory would also be fatal against the Masstricht, Nice and Lisbon treaties as these were entered into without any democratic analysis whatever.

    William

    Liked by 1 person

    1. William

      I suggest you read the full Art XXV, much of which appears to have been removed for some years (??) but miraculously has recently re-appeared on gov.uk, and from this you will see that the ToU is ‘a fundamentall and essentiall Condition of any Treaty or Union to be Concluded betwixt the Two Kingdoms without any Alteration’ and that the two sovereign Kingdoms of England and Scotland represented within a joint British parliament do indeed continue to exist as separate and distinct sovereign signatory parties to the said treaty:

      https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/section/XXV

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Not ToU as condition, rather: “the Claim of Right And it is hereby Statute and Ordained That this Act of Parliament with the Establishment therein contained shall be held and observed in all time coming as a fundamentall and essentiall Condition of any Treaty or Union…”

        Liked by 6 people

  24. Good article. What isn’t addressed though is why the SNP believe they can do so with impunity. The answer to that is two-fold. Firstly, most Scots don’t know the difference between a devolved administration and who their government is. Secondly, because they assume the devolved administration is the government the Scottish government is NEVER held to account. Excuses are made every single day. Scotland can’t do X,y,z because these matters are “reserved”. Never do they question, reserved to whom? given both Scottish and English governments sit in the parliament of GB legally as equal partners with equal authority. It is assumed by many that “might is right” and therefore the treaty partner, England, attains FULL rights while Scotland forfeits ALL of its rights. It is an absurd position to hold. And yet it is the standard response from many. The people need to ask the questions that an outsider would ask. Why is a sovereign nation state pretending it has no authority? Replace Scotland and England with any other 2 sovereign nation states and ask the same questions. Perhaps starting with, does a sovereign nation state forfeit its inalienable rights if it enters a treaty? If the answer is yes, then England must have forfeited it’s rights also. If the answer is no then Scotland retains all of its rights. If so then every excuse made has enabled the SNP to act with impunity against Scotland.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Gayle
      I also wonder the same. How have they got away with it for so many years?
      My take is that we are also sadly missing our own Scottish Broadcasting Channel. We would be in much better place with one. Currently the narrative is entirely controlled from London. It is something that the SNP seem entirely happy with and it seems to fit perfectly with the SNP devolution agenda.
      Finally, I also truly wish that Alba finally achieve representation in our Parliament. Until then the SNP cannot be held truly to account for their gaslighting. We need leaders in Parliament who truly represent the Sovereign wishes of our people, regrettably the current clique appear to be sitting on their hands and deliberately missing every golden opportunity to progress independence.
      Sorry for the rant.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. I think they got away with it for so many years because Scottish MPs to WM were unionist party politicians elected by the people of Scotland as the best of a bad bunch. Again, from the beginning of devolution & the reopening of Scottish Parliament, it was run by unionist parties who were happy with the status quo, who benefited from the status quo and who were happy to bend the knee to WM. Thus – any policy WM put before Parliament, these ‘Scottish’ politicians accepted it. Anything that meant Scotland lost out, they didn’t care. Any policy that meant Scottish people lost jobs, lost infrastructure, lost land, lost resources, lost revenue… so what? They were OK & getting good salaries & expenses & ‘perks’ and were happy under the ‘broad shoulders of the WM thieves’, so… why complain? Any policy, any decision of WM’s that took rights off Scottish people were not contested. And… here we are.

        Independence parties were not supposed to get majority seats in HR, the majority parties would always be unionist parties. So the decisions to take powers off Scotland, whether legally entitled to do so or not, would not be contested. When we finally got an Independence party into power in HR, I believe they simply had no idea how the law would view their claim to full powers. And given that the Civil Servants, and much of the judiciary (even then the LA had a finger in the Parliament pie at that time, till AS separated the roles.) were in the pocket of the unionists, it wasn’t easy to determine exactly who was going to take on the might of WM. But Alex Salmond didn’t need to because he believed Scotland should have FULL POWERS THROUGH INDEPENDENCE. Now we have a supposed Independence Party that – well, DOESN’T ACTUALLY WANT Independence. So they’re happy to go along with the WM’s declaration that the ‘Equal Partner’, Scotland, is no longer able to speak for itself and/or make its own decisions.. And It suits the SNP’s purpose to leave things as they are. As it was, so shall it ever be.

        Unless we do something about it – work to get a Party into power that is willing to challenge WM & their illegal take-over of the country of SCOTLAND.

        PS: William: I’d contest that the four nations voted as one on Brexit. The Union is comprised of TWO SEPARATE COUNTRIES, with TWO SIGNATORIES. FOUR countries voted. You may have seen it as every nation voting as one, but that doesn’t make it so or make you right.

        I voted as a Scot. 62% of Scotland voted to Remain in the EU. And you don’t speak for the Welsh or the Irish. And no… we’re NOT ALL ‘british’. There is no such thing as ‘being british’. It is WM hoodwinking everyone into believing we are all part of one big ‘family’ – part of the british ‘hive’. Not so. Great Britain is a collection of Islands, made up of 4 countries. We are Scottish, Irish, Welsh or English. That’s it. Britain is a geographical term. It is NOT a nationality. If you don’t believe me, check your Passport. But read it properly. Most people don’t.

        Liked by 7 people

    2. “why the SNP believe they can do so with impunity”

      In my personal opinion, because they are being actively protected by the English establishment. The unionist press has created a convenient and thick protective fog around them too while they focussed on vilifying Mr Salmond instead.

      For quite some time I have wondered if those currently in control of the SNP are not in Scotland, but in London. I have thought for a while now that many of those faces and voices that we constantly hear from the SNP trying to distract us from independence, pushing us back , dividing us or asking us to look the other way are really new labour operating under the SNP flag.

      It has been clear for quite some time that Scotland does no longer vote unionist parties. Labour as “the left” option is finished. They still survive in Holyrood because of the voting system. With the arrival of Alba and the prospect of a pro indy supermajority, the voting system was no longer enough to ensure their presence, so we are led to believe Sturgeon asked SNP voters to throw their list votes in the bin and denied us an independence plebiscite election to ensure the unionists parties retained their seats in Holyrood.

      But I wonder, was she helping unionist parties to retain their seats, or was she protecting the union by offering a way to justify in the public’s eyes their continuous presence in Holyrood when the expectation would have been a pro-indy supermajority with Alba?

      I have often wondered if the vote was rigged in the last Holyrood election to stop Mr Salmond getting into Holyrood as the ultimate damage limitation after the establishment’s spectacular failure to stop him with the civil and the criminal cases, and with Fabiani’s farce.

      Alarm bells started to ring for me when there was no exit poll and the ballots were left an entire weekend without being counted without no convincing reason to do so.

      We are expected to trust that those ballot boxes were not tampered with and to trust in the honesty of a system that forced brexit on us against our will for the sake of England, a system that has stolen our assets and powers, a system that butchered the Scotland Act so the theft of our powers and assets could have a veneer of legitimacy, a system that actively misled the people of Scotland in 2014 for the sake of preserving the union so England could exit the EU without the fear of Scotland remaining in, a system that endorses malicious prosecutions to silence dissenters, and a system that waved off the civil service code of conduct so civil servants could work actively to frustrate Scotland’s independence and float an unlawful and tinted with apparent bias procedure.

      Well, considering all the above plus the lengths the establishment has gone to stop Mr Salmond entering back politics and to protect perjurers, the gagging campaign on Alba and Sturgeon’s increasing allergy to independence, I feel asking us to keep trusting the system is asking far too much.

      The worse thing that could happen to the union is an overt unionist party in control of Scotland’s gov and parliament. Why? because it has been clear for quite some time that Scotland does no longer focus in the concept of “left/right” politics like England, but rather “pro indy/against indy” politics. A unionist party would exacerbate that polarisation. Scotland and England are now two different worlds politically speaking and cannot be brought together without some gerrymandering.

      If you think about it, the only way for the union to survive for a bit longer is by having unionists governing Scotland under a false flag and under the pretence they are seeking independence. But instead of seeking independence, they are pushing it back by pretending they can never reach it because of their being powerless. And voila! the next thing we have is them settling for more devolution hoping for a return to a “left/right” focus in Scotland’s politics, just like England. This is exactly what we have had for the last 7 years.

      What would be today the quickest path for a revival of Labour in Scotland?
      By returning as something else entirely. Is that what Sturgeon’s SNP is?

      “Why is a sovereign nation state pretending it has no authority?”

      Absolutely with you on that one. There is another point that was the clincher for me: the proportion of sovereignty.

      England MPs, Sturgeon and many of the devolutionist seat warmers in the SNP have since 2015 been falling over themselves to make us believe the reason why they haven’t lift a finger in 7 years to progress Scotland’s independence is because they claim Westminster is sovereign.

      But it is only very recently, since the Withdrawal bill to be more precise, that for first time, England MPs have dared to put in law what is at all effects only an English convention. Had we real pro independence leaders in Scotland instead of political frauds, and there is no way that withdrawal bill would have ever passed without ending the union.

      Instead, the withdrawal bill passed like a walk in the park and was stamped by Betty against the will of the people of Scotland because Sturgeon was conveniently looking the other way instead of acting to stop it to protect Scotland’s sovereignty, just as she did when brexit was forced on Scotland, or when A50 was triggered, or when the Scotland Act was butchered, or when a more advantageous deal was given to a section of the Kingdom of England (NI) in direct breach of the Treaty of Union, or when the “internal market” legislation was passed to ensure Scotland would be forced to accept decreased standards from England and forcing Scotland’s producers to reduce their standards too.

      But the interesting thing for me is that considering the UK is a bipartite union, and the ratio of Kingdom of England MPs to Scotland’s, Westminster’s sovereignty would mean for us that England MPs would hold over 90% of Scotland’s sovereignty and over 90% of its own. This is an absurdity of the highest order and nothing like that has ever been stipulated in the Treaty of Union. Such idea would mean Scotland completely loses its sovereignty with the union while England not only retains its own, but gets all Scotland’s as well. Such absurdity would even mean London with 73 seats holds more of sovereignty from Scotland than Scotland itself. Yet, this absurdity is what England MPs, the useful useful idiots of Labour and Tories in Scotland’s parliament and Sturgeon and the SNP devolutionists expect us to believe and accept. Well I don’t.

      Bizarrely, under this absurd logic, the amount of Scotland’s sovereignty that England MPs hold vary over time and of course may increase just on their say so. This is ridiculous. Recently they have changed the constituency boundaries so Scotland loses a couple of MPs while England wins a few. In other words, if you consider the principle of Westminster’s sovereignty valid, then England MPs have just voted to take away from Scotland another chunk of its sovereignty so they can award it to themselves without Scotland’s consent. The logic of this is simply laughable, yet, we are considered total idiots who should simply accept this nonsense without even question it. Well, I can’t.

      Liked by 6 people

  25. Gayle

    I am afraid that you have it completely wrong. The Treaty of Union was an incorporating union which created an ENTIRELY new state, the United Kingdom, and ended the separate independent existence of both England and Scotland. I quote you:”Never do they question, reserved to whom? given both Scottish and English governments sit in the parliament of GB legally as equal partners with equal authority”.

    You are completely wrong. Scotland and England are emphatically NOT equal partners in the TOU. If that were the case then Scotland and England would have the same number of MPs.

    William

    Like

    1. William,

      It is you who has it wrong. The treaty merely ratified in 1707 created the state of Great Britain. That is it’s name. The TWO sovereign nation states AND kingdoms -plural, while uniting retained ALL of their rights prior to and after the signing. This is also explicitly stated in the treaty itself. The treaty did not and does not have the authority to abolish any other treaty, declaration or covenant that Scotland is a signatory to. In addition, the reason for the discrepancy in MP numbers is because at the time when the treaty was being drawn up Scotland was governed primarily by Kirk’s and various charters and not by parliament unlike in England. The 2 governing systems were completely different. That the discrepancy in numbers remains is irrelevant. Both signatories are sovereign nation states who retain all of their rights prior to and after the signing.

      Liked by 8 people

  26. Remember way back in 2014 and for a year or so on – FM Sturgeon hugging babies, selfies galore.. ” I Iove reading books..etc…”. So what happened to her? What brought about the change?

    Remember her more recently, appearing before the SG investigation panel farce – 4 hours of – unable to recall, not sure of the detail in question….accompanied by a near-breaking voice, and no notes, and wholesome deceit.

    If it had been forecasted to you in 2014, the harassment of Ms Millar, Hirst, Salmond, and the imprisonment of Craig Murray would you have considered it credible?

    At the UK political scene, we learn that the Tory party is substantially funded by Russians, meanwhile the MSM darkly talks about Russian hacking …of our democracy!

    Since 2014 politically we have travelled a long way downwards.

    Liked by 8 people

  27. I am afraid that Gayle is simply not reading the same Treaty of Union as me. There is no trace of her theory in the Treaty. Article I says it all: ” That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First Day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain…” Where does the Treaty preserve an independent sovereign Scottish identity? It is not there. Certain Scottish rights are preserved to be sure. The numbers of Lords and MPs is absolutely key because they speak to Scotland’s minority representation in the Palace of Westminster.

    Professor Baird comes up with an interesting theory regarding extended TOU Article XXV. In fact this has to do with the establishment of the Protestant Kirk which was established in 1707 by the two Acts of Security. The main import of the Claim of Right 1689 is to denounce popery and offer the Scottish throne to William of Orange. For arguments sake, I accept that the 1689 Act is still in force even though some of its provisions have been abrogated (“No Papist can be King of this Realm nor bear any office whatsoever therein”) Honestly, I just don’t see its effect on Brexit.

    Like

    1. “Where does the Treaty preserve an independent sovereign Scottish identity?”

      For example

      in the fact that the crown of Scotland is still in existence and the treaty stipulates it is to be kept in Scotland in perpetuity.

      in the fact that Scotland is keeping its own seal and there isn’t one for the UK (as far as I know).

      in the fact that the treaty establishes that a mint should be kept in Scotland

      in the fact that it establishes Scotland keeps its own laws and churches

      in the fact that the treaty does not stipulate that Scotland must give up its name

      in the fact that the treaty does not stipulate that Scotland has to give up its territorial boundaries, which have not changed since 1707. Only the territorial water boundaries were changed in 1998 by labour to steal from Scotland some of the oil fields to hand over to England.

      Scotland has kept its own notes.

      300 years later, and the royals still have separate titles in Scotland. Nowhere in the treaty it stipulates that Scotland’s royal titles cease to exist.

      England celebrates St George. Scotland celebrates St Andrews. Which one is the saint that is celebrated for the “United kIngdom of Great Britain”?

      The Treaty of Union talks about a parliament for the United Kingdom of Great Britain but it does not stipulate anywhere that Scotland cannot have as many parliaments in Scotland as it wishes. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the treaty that I could see it says that Scotland has to give up its own parliament or prorogue it to form part of this “United Kingdom of Great Britain”.

      In the same way that a new parliament was created for the EU without the requirement for each EU country to give up their own parliaments, Scotland could have done exactly the same after that treaty was signed, keeping its parliament while sending extra MPs to the new UK one.

      Because the Treaty of Union does not appear to stipulate that Scotland had to give up its parliament, it is clear as day that all those MPs in the Scottish parliament who voted for the union in the day were bribed to vote to close the parliament themselves.

      I have wondered for a while if this would not have been because of the claim of right.1689, which stipulated that absolute rule from a monarch was unlawful. In fact, the crown of Scotland was taken from the previous monarch because of absolute rule, therefore it stands to the obvious that the new monarch could not be seen as being responsible for giving the order to end Scotland’s parliament. Instead, it had to come from a decision made by Scotland itself.

      Whatever “gentlemen’s” agreement behind doors made in the 18 century if it is not written, it does not have to be acknowledged, so now, looking 300 years back and having only that treaty as evidence, there is nothing in that treaty that demanded Scotland to give up its parliament, in the same way that there is nothing in that treaty that demands Scotland to accept that our current parliament is “devolved” instead of reconvened or accepting that England MPs must retain some of our own powers or control of our assets.

      Nowhere in the Treaty it says that Scotland has to give up its crown. England does not have Scotland’s crown, Scotland does. the Queen cannot wear that crown anywhere other than Scotland. I am not even sure if she can wear it in Scotland.

      As far as I know, the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” crown does not exist. The title of “Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain” does not exist. The Queen is the Queen of England and Queen of Scots, not the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

      As a matter of fact, the Queen wears the English crown when she opens the “UK” parliament. Why? Presumably because she cannot wear Scotland’s crown in England. She never wears the English crown in Scotland either. If both kingdoms had ceased to exist those crowns would be exchangeable or actually obsolete. She has been wearing England’s crown for decades, so clealry they are not obsolete.

      Have you ever seen the Queen of England and Queen of Scots wearing when she opens the “UK” parliament any other crown that is not England’s?

      I haven’t. Other because the Kingdom of England is still in existence and not obsolete, can you think in any other reason why she wears England’s crown?

      The treaty talks about a new united kingdom of Great Britain flag, but not a new crown or a new seal. or a new currency. There are not “UK” notes, as far as I know.

      If the Kingdoms of England and Scotland had ceased to exist, then why do the members of the Royal Family still hold different royal titles for the Kingdoms of Scotland and England?

      The only thing that Scotland needs to end the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” is to end the treaty of union. If Sturgeon and the SNP were real pro independence politicians instead of pretenders they would have ended it on the 8th May 2015.

      The Kingdom of Scotland will only disappear when the people of Scotland vote for Scotland to become a republic or when the Royals renounce to the Scottish crown, whatever comes first.

      Liked by 10 people

    2. Mia has given a fabulous answer in response to your comment so I will simply suggest you read the Scottish law society journal articles by the late esteemed professor David Walker -The Union and the Law; and the follow up article The Union and the Law Revisited by Ian Campbell. In addition, the numerous references they provide then look on the Monarchy’s own website. Read the parliamentary records of Scotland and the Treaty of Union. Article one for example does not say that Scotland forfeits it’s inalienable rights and ceases to exist. It cannot. It merely states the name that the new state in lieu is to be known as and who the parties to it are.

      Liked by 4 people

  28. Sorry

    I did not see Mia’s response. Wow, there is a lot of substance there. I can only make a few principal points, or else I would be here too long.

    1. I quote Mia:”The UK is not an independent entity from Scotland”. The VERY opposite is true: “Scotland is not an independent entity from the UK” The UK was the member of the EU and only the UK could withdraw from it.

    2. If England and Wales had voted for Brexit by 1000 votes (out of all votes cast) and Scotland and NI had voted for Remain by 2000 votes (out of all votes cast) then the result would have been a Remain victory. The point is that the UK voted as a whole, and funny results could have occurred which Alex Salmond himself speculated on during referendum night.

    3. I was outraged when I found out about the Vow because it was much too speculative but not against the technical rules. “Devo-max” doesn’t actually mean anything. But Better Together was precisely correct to claim in 2014 that the only way for Scotland to stay in the EU was to vote “No”. Had “Yes” won, then Scotland would have had to apply as a new member. No one doubts this, as Scotland was not a member. What Mia is trying to argue is that Better Together somehow guaranteed that the UK would stay in the EU eternally.

    4. In the case of the 2015 general election, the SNP explicitly ran on a “Stronger for Scotland” manifesto which ruled out independence for that Parliament. Very few people believed that the Tories would win a UK majority in that election. Other than neatly decimating the Unionist parties, the 2015 UK election result represents very little, and it certainly does not bear the huge weight which you foist on it.

    5. As I already pointed out, the 62% Scottish Remain vote was a vote for the UK to stay in the EU. It couldn’t have been anything else as that was the only question that was asked. The Scots did not reverse 2014 by voting 62% for an independent Scotland to stay in the EU. It wasn’t on the agenda.

    6. Scotland as an “equal partner” in the Union is a total fiction without a shred of supporting evidence. Was it Theresa May who made up this nonsense?

    Regards

    William

    Like

    1. ““Scotland is not an independent entity from the UK”

      No. Scotland, the same as England, IS “the UK”. What this means is without Scotland’s consent for the UK to exit the EU, the UK as a bipartite political union cannot exit legitimately the EU. England cannot unilaterally determine what the UK is, because if it does, the UK ceases to exist as the UK and becomes England.

      “he UK was the member of the EU and only the UK could withdraw from it.”
      The UK could only withdraw legitimately from the EU if its constitutional parts gave consent for it. The constitutional parts of the UK of Great Britain are Scotalnd and England. Scotland did not give consent for the UK to exit the EU.

      “If England and Wales had voted for Brexit by 1000 votes (out of all votes cast) and Scotland and NI had voted for Remain by 2000 votes (out of all votes cast) then the result would have been a Remain victory.”

      I invite you to take a calculator and find out how on earth Scotland with a population only 8 times that of England and Wales with even less could ever overturn the result of England,

      “The point is that the UK voted as a whole”

      Says who? The England politicians who knew that if Mr Salmond’s amendment asking for a quadruple block so the UK would only exit the EU if ALL the nations had voted for brexit would mean brexit would never happen, therefore they voted to give themelves the right to ignore Scotland’s vote?

      Considering that the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” is a bipartite union between Scotland and England, if “the Uk had voted as a whole” then the vote would have been 1 to brexit and another to remain in the EU, therefore the status quo, which was remaining in the EU, would remain.

      What we had was not “the UK voting as a whole”. What we had is England MPs unlawfully passing laws to legitimise the silencing of Scotland and rendering its vote nil so England’s vote could prevail and be taking as if it was “the UK vote”. Brexit was England’s vote, not “the UK as a whole”. If your idea of “The UK voting as a whole” is for England MPs to find a way to gag Scotland, then there is no point at all for Scotland to ever take part in a Uk vote again. Why wasting the energy? Better let England vote on its own. At the end of the day, that is what a “UK voting as a whole” is interpreted to be by England MPs.

      ““Devo-max” doesn’t actually mean anything”
      For you it may not. For many it mean full fiscal autonomy. For others federalism. It does not matter what devo max means. What it matters here is that Devo Max was used as an untrue statement of fact to lure if not mislead people into voting no, thinking they were going to get something that would be impossible to be delivered because the England MPs would later on vote against it. Devo Max in that context, the same as the promises that to remain in the EU Scotland had to vote to remain in the UK, became a vitiating factor that rendered the contract void.

      “Better Together was precisely correct to claim in 2014 that the only way for Scotland to stay in the EU was to vote “No”. Had “Yes” won, then Scotland would have had to apply as a new member.”
      Actually no. If what you claim that if Yes had won then Scotland would have to apply to become as a new member is true, then considering the Uk is a bipartite union, unless England became the UK sucesor state (which would have to be agreed by Scotland as it was the only other partner), then this means that England would have exited the EU too.

      The implications of this are huge. Why? Because it effectively means two things:

      Scotland was coerced to vote no in order to keep England in the EU – considering the tories are brexiteers this is very unlikely, or

      Scotland was coerced into voting no in order to allow England to drag Scotland out of the EU so England itself could survive out of the EU. Why? Because there is no way on earth England would have been able to cut its deals with Australia, New Zealand or USa or downgrade its own standards if Scotland was part of the EU and a hard border was placed between Scotland and England, meaning that England would no longer profit from the huge Scottish market that is currently being used as an extension of England’s own domestic market.

      Better together were lying. They did not want to preserve Scotland in the EU. They wanted Scotland to remain in the UK so England could exit the EU in its own terms, which included Scotland out of the EU so a hard border could not be placed between them.

      “Very few people believed that the Tories would win a UK majority in that election”
      Among ordinary voters? sure. Among politicians? I doubt it very much. The ITV debate between Sturgeon and Carmichael in 2013 already hinted that them both suspected the tories would win.

      “the 2015 UK election result represents very little”

      For you, the SNP devolutionists and Sturgeon? Sure. For serious independence supporters like me it represented the point where, should we have a real leader heading the SNP instead of a political fraud, trying to covertly foist brexit on us and some form of enhanced devolution, Scotland would have become independent.

      “he 62% Scottish Remain vote was a vote for the UK to stay in the EU”
      Yes. Considering that Scotland is an equal partner in a bipartite union of equals, that should have been enough to stop the UK leaving the EU because the UK did not have consent to leave its EU membership.

      “The Scots did not reverse 2014 by voting 62% for an independent Scotland to stay in the EU”
      The 2014 “contract” was void by the fraud of Devo Max. The Scots reverted their no vote in 8th May 2015, the day they handed 95% of their UK parliament seats to what we all thought it was a pro indy party but turned out to be another brand of New Labour.

      “Scotland as an “equal partner” in the Union is a total fiction without a shred of supporting evidence”
      Where exactly is the “shred of evidence” that proves that, legally, it is anything other than an equal partner in a bipartite political union based on an international treaty of union?

      I know Scotland is treated and seen as a colony by England MPs, Nicola Sturgeon and her brigade of devolutionist amoebas pretending to seek independence for Scotland, but legally speaking, where exactly is the piece of law that states loud and clear that Scotland is a colony and a part of England?

      “Was it Theresa May who made up this nonsense?”
      I am not sure what it is that you refer as “nonsense”. I am talking about the international treaty of union signed by representatives of Scotland in the 18the century. This is a treaty that is still extant. Nowhere in that treaty it is stated that Scotland is anything other than an equal partner.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. “If England and Wales had voted for Brexit by 1000 votes (out of all votes cast) and Scotland and NI had voted for Remain by 2000 votes (out of all votes cast) then the result would have been a Remain victory.”

        Sorry, I meant to write:

        I invite you to take a calculator and find out how on earth Scotland with a population 11 times less than that of England, and Wales with even less, could ever overturn the result of England.

        Without democratic safeguards, unless England intention of vote was the same as Scotland’s, there is no way the end result would be what Scotland voted for.

        England Mps deliberately removed those democratic safeguards because by then there were sufficient polls to show that Scotland would never vote for brexit. The day they removed those safeguards it was clear that brexit was the only acceptable outcome even before the referendum had taken place.

        Liked by 6 people

  29. A lot of brilliant people are wasting a huge amount of time fighting each through keyboards.

    Realpolitik means we, i.e. SCOLTAND are OUT of the EU. Now, what are we going to actually DO about iNDEPENDENCE?

    Liked by 2 people

  30. “Realpolitik means we, i.e. SCOLTAND are OUT of the EU.”

    No. Realpolitik means that for as long as we have amateur dictators and colonial administrators like Sturgeon and her brigade of devolutionists passing as “pro independence” leaders, it does not matter what Scotland votes for, what Scotland needs or what Scotland wants. It will always be what England wants what will be foisted on us. Therefore there is no point in continuing voting unless the offer changes. Doing the same and expect different results is futile. and a waste of our time. The offer has to change.

    “Now, what are we going to actually DO about iNDEPENDENCE?”

    The only things we can do

    1. find a way to take away from the SNP the MP seats and hand them over to a political party that is committed to independence enough to include permanently in its manifesto that a majority of pro indy Mps is a mandate to end the union.

    2. Refuse to engage in any election unless we are allowed to cast a vote for independence

    3. To refuse any offer of a referendum that is based in the current flawed franchise, allows England as UK structures to stick its fingers in the process or allows political parties or entities with HQ in England to participate and put money in a plebiscite that is only for the people of Scotland.

    4. To demand an immediate change in the franchise of the UK in a way that it is not possible for hundreds of thousands of pro union activists from outwith Scotland to register to vote in Scotland to frustrate our vote and maintain the illusion Scotland wishes to preserve the union.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Re MIA

      I don’t agree with Mia about the real world around the EU. In Scotland, the UK took us IN and now we are OUT.

      However, I do agree with her about “the only things we can do” but HOW to make it actually HAPPEN?

      Liked by 1 person

  31. I love this Blog , it keeps my Hope’s and Dreams alive . The message is getting out their now, disillusionment with Queen covid is rife , her reign nears its end , Yeah but her rotten cabal will lurk in the background continuously putting a spoke in the wheels of the independence bus. Quisling till the last , Alba Rising.

    Liked by 7 people

  32. A treaty of two countries – of equal status? – vote on leaving the EU. One country votes by 62% to remain, and it’s decision ignored. The “guiding lights” of administering the treaty should have paused to seek to accommodate the views of the remain country’s decision – in a democracy and between equal partners.

    Liked by 4 people

  33. Apologies for going OT , I eventually managed to watch a broadcast I had recorded made by the scum bbc called Disclosure/ Priced Out I would recommend people watch this ABUSE and MISUSE of Scotland’s housing situation , although I despise the bbc I have to admit their exposure of this CRITICAL situation irrespective of their motives is excellent and educational and will literally infuriate and sicken you at the same time

    Aged 71 and having been brought up alongside my parents and 2 brothers on the 3rd floor of a three storey tenement in a room and kitchen with an outside toilet in Govan I have always been aware of the desperate shortage of quality housing in Scotland , at aged 10 we all moved to a luxury 2 bed accommodation with a bathroom in Easterhouse built by liebour , don’t get me wrong it was luxury compared to the Govan residence , there was only one quibble liebour FORGOT about shopping , medical centres , doctors surgeries , community centres or ANY social provisions , there were NO FACILITIES locally everyone had to travel back to their old places for ANY social interaction or even to shop for the basics , Castlemilk and Drumchapel were exactly the same

    NOW 60 years later having had different political parties governing Scotland there is NO improvement , if anything it has WORSENED , the situation regarding social housing is despicable despite all the FANTASY PROMISES of these different political parties

    In the programme there is a mixture of interviews of families with children and young single people the only thing they have in common is their INABILITY to access AFFORDABLE housing , affordable housing advertised at £1000 a month for private rental or social housing that doesn’t exist
    They interview a councillor from Orkney who rents out 2 properties on his land for short term holiday lets and admits he makes good (great) money from them , he indicates 2 other houses in the distance and tells the camera one is also short term holiday lets the other is a holiday home , a councillor FFS definitely NO conflict of interest (he is working hard for his constituents) ha ha ha
    Meanwhile the interviewer is talking to a young local who still lives with his parents and he points out 10 houses being built locally one of which he has applied for , the 10 houses consist of 6 for sale and 4 for rent , he is asked what he thinks his chances are he replies very slim ( I would say NIL, NADA, Zilch)
    The liar Shona Robison is interviewed re the despicable situation of social housing Shona responds that the previous liebour govt only built 6 houses in their term in govt , the snp have built 110,000 since 2007, a period of 15 years , does that equate to 7.3 houses per year ,if wrong please correct me , if right WAY to GO Shona

    The SG attempted to set up a licensing and regulatory body but Air B&B and the rental landlords group threw their toys oot the pram and walked oot the meeting they then sent a nasty nasty letter implying the SG where incompetent ( who’d a thunk it) , there still ISN’T a licensing or regulatory body set up , the rental landlords group only wanted NEW landlords answerable and licensed , the old established parasites sorry landlords were to be exempt , I think I remember something similar with taxi licenses where the old taxi owners sold their licenses for mega mega dosh , then the LA’s said you couldn’t do that so now they sell a partnership in the taxi company for mega mega dosh even though the original licensee is not there
    SO it appears Air B&B and the landlords group have the SG by the short and curlies and have more power than those stupid voters
    And to all the people demanding we keep giving a vote to all and sundry in a referendum have a watch of this programme and realise you are complicit in defeating indy and encouraging outsiders to make housing unaffordable for our youngsters

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.