MIA SETS OUT HER CASE THAT WE ARE BEING BETRAYED.


“Why then are Scot gov not making a statement about dissolving the treaty of union?”

In my personal opinion because Nicola Sturgeon never worked for Scotland and never wanted independence in the first place. She was just pretending to, biding her time to stop independence

In my view, the eight months’ period between 18 September 2014 and 8 May 2015 was politically speaking one of the most dangerous threats to the union survival the dark state faced in the last 315 years.

There was huge discontent in Scotland with the official result of the 2014 referendum and with the betrayal of the vow, which was well evident by then. It was dangerous because by that time it was already in the public domain that the people of Scotland was going to vote for the SNP in masse to castigate the colonial parties for the betrayal, and independence was the expectation among many, from sending a majority of SNP MPs.

At that point in time, yes voters still saw the SNP as the healthy, democratic, reliable pro independence party that Mr Salmond had led and whose main aim was to restore Scotland’s statehood. Sending over 50 SNP MPs in such context, and worse, led by a man who was deadly serious about independence and who was bitter after being robbed of the opportunity of a yes win because of the disgusting interference of the British state, would no doubt signify the end of a terminally ill union and worse, an end to the tories rich donors’ brexit wet dream

The support for the EU by Scotland was very obvious around the time of the referendum. It was also obvious that if Scotland had become independent at that point, it would rush back to the EU. England would have never been able to leave the EU and drop its standards unless it risked a hard border with Scotland and the loss of its market. 

Surrounded by hard borders to Scotland, France and Ireland, England would become totally isolated and with Scotland’s natural assets out of the equation, a smaller landmass and a astronomical debt without its cash cow helping paying for its vanity projects and its debt, its currency would tank, exacerbating even more the problem. 

Realistically, England could have only exited the EU as part of the UK, connected by an umbilical cord to Scotland’s assets and revenues and, of course, standing on the shoulders of Scotland to avoid sinking. That Scotland drowns in the process of keeping England afloat is just a collateral because seemingly, England’s economy and wellbeing is all what matters to every politician in Westminster and Holyrood.

But more importantly, England’s ruling elite needed to ensure a hard border with Scotland would never happen. The only possible way this could have been done, without risking being exposed to the transparency laws of tax havens, was by abusing its position as an equal partner to keep Scotland permanently out of the EU against the expressed will of Scotland’s sovereign people by unilaterally rewriting its internal laws.

In other words, Scotland had to be stopped from ending the union. And evidently, the best way to do it was by first disabling its political vehicle for independence and, in the longer term, rendering it worthless. Disenfranchised and divided yes voters would take years to reorganise themselves with another political vehicle. By then, the damage would have been done: Scotland’s assets would have been given away, its laws and policies changed to depart as far away from the EU as possible and brexit would have become the status quo.

1. What is the fastest route to disable a political party? By taking over the leadership and masking its constitution with a phony manifesto.

We saw a change in leadership of the SNP at the precise moment in time when the SNP was going to see its largest representation in Westminster since the SNP was born. Sturgeon also, for first time, in the advent of a landslide win for the SNP in GE2015, took the wheels off the SNP by claiming a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence. Instead, she included in the manifesto the phony request for “Full Financial Responsibility”, whatever the hell that meant.

What Sturgeon’s offered us was a vote for a hybrid version between Dugdale’s confederation crap and Gordon Brown’s infamous Devo Max to the Max rebranded as “full fiscal responsiblity” and repackaged as an SNP policy that has a strong stench that labour’s brainchild.

2. How do you render a politcal party worthless? By installing a trojan horse inside its democratic structures that will cause them to implode, and by removing control from the hands of the membership.

Isn’t that precisely what we saw since Sturgeon took over?

3. How do you destroy the yes movement? By provoking its division.

Again, Isn’t this precisely the objective of Sturgeon’s continuous denying us of a campaign and by forcing on us toxic, unbelievably unpopular, divisive policies? 

Remember how many times we were told by Gordon Brown and Cameron and others that “we could not have another referendum”? Well, guess what? A political fraud in control of the party to which we have given countless mandates for a referendum, has been denying us that referendum for 6 years. The problem is that with the excuse of the referendum, she has been also denying us access to any other route to end the union for 7 years.

Remember how fast Sturgeon run away from a plebiscite election in 2021? We should run bets on how fast she runs from a plebiscite election in 2024 and then watch Robertson or the replacement puppet successor beat the record and run even faster in 2026. May be her trip to the USA is not to deliver a speech in some think tank or another, but rather to Nasa to test some bigger jets to put under her feet and run away from any plebiscite election in the horizon faster.

I have tried, but the only way I can make any sense of what Sturgeon has been doing for the last 8 years and the way she has wasted every opportunity and turned a blind eye to every assault on Scotland’s rights and assets is if she is just another part of the British state whose fundamental mission was always to manage the threat posed by the yes movement by first neutering the SNP, then eliminating any route for any potential leader to get control of the SNP, then permanently stalling the yes movement to stop it growing and then finally by causing it to implode in buried in internal divisions. I am convinced this political fraud is simply waiting for the best time and opportunity to help the British state foist on us some form of enhanced devolution as an innocuous alternative to independence. 

I am convinced we have been fooled big time and that the 2014 referendum (just like the 2016 EU one) was always going to be just window dressing. A “benevolent” exercise just to demonstrate how accommodating to Scotland and “democratic” this undemocratic by design union was. Of course, everything that happened since 19 September 2014 has demonstrated that this union is not and never will be democratic.

When you look at the whole thing retrospectively, you actually wonder how on earth could yes have ever won. We had a dodgy franchise, as it was demonstrated by the gloating of the MSM rubbing on our faces that we had been robbed of a yes win by external settlers. Then, during the indyref campaign we had entities with HQ outwith Scotland pumping cash on the better together campaign, effectively giving a channel for foreign interests to trash our democratic campaign. Then we had Uk civil servants abandoning their code of practice, principles and ethics and got their hands up to their elbows in politics “to save the union”. We also had an squadron of old hasbeens and useful idiots of the British state announcing the apocalypse if Scotland ended the union. We had the “national” broadcaster and the entire MSM pumping propaganda and fearmongering 24/7. We had foreign politicians and individuals in other roles, undemocratically and arrogantly sticking their uninvited noses in our business. We had elements of the british state abusing power, sticking their hands in the process and gerrymandering it, like the case of Davidson knowing about the result of the postal votes even before the official counting had actually started, or releasing the vow in the middle of purdah. We had leaders of England parties, individuals that did not live in Scotland and could not possibly participate in the referendum, also direclty inviting themselves to interfere.

Very revealingly, on the week yes surpassed No, Leanne Wood asked Cameron, the then FM, what safeguards were in place and what plans were in place if a yes vote would win. Cameron said that none. In other words, he knew yes would never win.

The beast that was really simmering behind doors was brexit, so the independence referendum had to be taken out of the way quickly to ensure England’s elite could have their corrosive brexit.

When you put the dates of all the events related to brexit and the indy referendum on a timeline, you start to see odd things and that there appeared to be a very unhealthy collusion between the timing of both referendums. For example, an element in this timeline was the convenient trashing of FFA for Scotland in Westminser by England MPs , despite this being what Sturgeon had asked for and having a huge democratic mandate for. But then of course, if FFA has been approved at that point, England Mps would not have been able to easily steal our devolved powers with the advent of brexit.

We also had the Westminster vote by which England Mps violated the Claim of Right and every principle of democracy when they gave themselves a veto over Scotland’s vote in the EU referendum. This was of course to ensure brexit would win, because at that time should Scotland had a veto, as it should, brexit would have never won.

Then of course we had the unilateral triggering of A50 that directly violated Scotland’s constitutional rights and that should have invalidated A50. But Sturgeon and her worthless SNP chose to turn a blind eye.

More recently we had the passing of the Withdrawal bill, that directly assaulted Scotland’s sovereignty and that unlawfully included the English convention of parliamentary sovereignty in UK law when the ancient English parliament could have never conferred parliamentary sovereignty to Scotland’s MPs and the ancient parliament of Scotland could not have possibly conferred to Scotland’s MPs sitting in Westminster, what it did not have. Again, Sturgeon turned a blind eye as did the amoebas that call themselves SNP in Westminster.

Things like these signal something fishy with indyref14, GE2015 and the EU ref. There is an overpowering stench of false democracy and window dressing. 

A functional majority of SNP MPs in 2015 when the population of Scotland was most heated after the dodgy official 2014 result and with assault after assault on Scotland in preparation for the EU ref and after it, if led by a real pro independence leader like Mr Salmond, would have ended the union before the transition period had ended, frustrating brexit for England.

This to me explain why civil service, Sturgeon’s gov, the higher echelons of Sturgeon’s infected SNP, and the other tools of the british state, went after Mr Salmond, and in doing so, exposing their vindictiveness, their utter incompetence, lack of principles and corruption, undemocratic character. They did this by making up as they went along an unlawful procedure that was never designed to withstand the pressure of a court of law.

But this also explains why Sturgeon couldn’t remove the wheels of the SNP fast enough as soon as she became the leader and why Mr Salmond had to be ejected from the SNP. For as long as he remained in it, he could influence that majority of MPs.

I would be less surprised today if somebody tells me Sturgeon will be the next labour or libdem leader than if somebody tells me this individual has not been working covertly for the British state and against the independence movement since at least she took over the SNP leadership on 14 Nov 2014 and probably earlier.

For as long as Sturgeon and the next British state tool Robertson are in control of the party, the option of repealing the treaty of union will never be offered to us. If we want it we will have to pursue it through a route that completely bypasses an SNP that has been destroyed from within by political frauds.

I have serious doubts, and have had them for quite some time now, that Mr Salmond left the leadership of the party voluntarily and that he was not “encouraged” some how. The contrast in leadership from his efficient hand to the floppy and unprincipled one of Sturgeon could not be more dramatic. Watching how Ms Cherry was removed out of the way to catapult Robertson to the Edinburgh seat was sickening and suspicious. Looking retrospectively and deeply, Mr Salmond never failed to win the referendum. The result was clearly robbed. He would have won if the referendum had it been a fair exercise in democracy and if all the many dirty backdoors used by the British state’s arms to undemocratically and unlawfully stick their hand and interfere to stop a yes vote, had been properly closed.

Politically speaking, we have had since 14 Nov 2014 a completely useless pretender attempting to hide Mr Salmond’s shoes away because she cannot possibly fill them. In fact, the longer she remains in power, the larger those shoes become and the smaller her political figure as a trustworthy leader becomes. Despite her best efforts to suffocate the yes campaign, to divide it and to reverse its momentum, the only thing this political fraud has successfully managed to achieve is to stall its progression and completely taint the credibility of everything she touches, from the government she claims to lead, to parliament, the civil service, the COPFS, the Justice System and the party. 

The urgency of what looks very much like a dodgy collusion between the British state, Sturgeon’s gov and the higher echelons of the SNP to push Mr Salmond away from politics, ended up morphing into a scorched earth strategy that has exposed cabinet ministers, party executive, COPFS, the civil service, parliamentary committees, judges, press and the police as the unholy opaque, undemocratic and repressive rogue state tool and information suppression machine.

The complaints procedure and everything related to the civil and criminal cases and then the embarrassing saga of the alphabets, will forever demonstrate that Mr Salmond was seen as a huge existential threat to the union. Sturgeon by contrast is clearly trusted as innocuous and with enough lack of loyalty to make her compliant.

In January 2013 yes support was around 23% (from the guardian, article by Severin Carrell of 23 January 2013). Against all odds, Mr Salmond’s leadership put that support over 50% around a week before the referendum. Despite Sturgeon’s attempts to suffocate the yes movement, after 8 years of watching a constitutional hazard like Sturgeon bulldozing the party, women’s rights, every democratic structure and justice service Scotland, the level of support for independence remains still stubbornly around 47%.How such achievement by Mr Salmond could ever be seen as anything other than an almighty and embarrassing failure by the British state apparatus and its FM puppet to uphold the union narrative is beyond me.

The last 8 years have been an exercise in managing the yes movement to stop it growing further, to disenfranchise it and to isolate it from any real political vehicle that could be used by this movement to effect the end of the union leaving England without its brexit. This is all what Sturgeon appears to have been doing and will probably continue to do for as long as she remains in power. After many years, when all our assets had been given away, our people has been exploited and our country is left close to barren, riddled with England’s decaying nuclear waste, then we will be spitted out, but as a seceding state, mind, not as an equal partner who has dissolved the treaty. The latter cannot be allowed because England has to retain all the goodies Scotland has been contributing to and helped create.

It was always about England and nothing but England. 8 years for now will be almost impossible for Scotland to return to the EU, so England will have removed the existential threat of hard borders all around, but at the expense of Scotland’s wealth, demographics, autonomy, democratic rights and sovereignty.

The entry of Scotland in this union was by force to help England pay its debt and to be used as cannon fodder in England’s wars. In 1707 Scotland was denied a fair election that could risk sending to Westminster anti-union MPs that would terminate the union. I guess at that time the word “nationalist” was not in use. 315 years later and absolutely nothing has changed. Now, we may be able to send Nationalists to Westminster, but only after England’s dark state has placed a puppet in control of our nationalist party to render those nationalist MPs useless and nationalists only in name.

Clearly, the existence and permanence of this union relies on the continuous repression of democracy.

MY COMMENTS

Mia makes a powerful argument. I hope those who disagree will respond in a respectful manner and explain why they reject the many arguments and case Mia explains above. What Mia has written is based on actual events and timings. it is a catalogue of, at the very least, missed opportunities, some of which beggar belief. I will publish the best responses whether they agree or disagree with what Mia has written. As the SNP watch helplessly being sidelined and losing control of councils the length and breadth of Scotland, thanks to Nikkla’s inept two votes SNP and no other Party ”strategy” , it is not difficult to add to the list of ”charges”. I suspect this article will kick off a storm.

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.

73 thoughts on “MIA SETS OUT HER CASE THAT WE ARE BEING BETRAYED.

  1. I agree fully with this.

    Sturgeon’s behaviour as the leader of the SNP – given her apparternt objective – has been inexplicable…if you accept that was her objective.

    Yet if you view it as MIa sets out, then the behaviour is completely as you would expect and makes clear sense. Not only that, if it is as MIa says. Sturgeon’s played her role with considerable panache and ‘still’ hasn’t been found out/exposed.

    The latter part is of considerable worry; there is much about her to reveal, but it never sees the light of day. It appears expedient to hide her skeletons for now; that takes help and willingness on the part of her opposition and the media.

    Liked by 21 people

  2. My position since 2017. There is no doubt in my mind that Nicola Sturgeon is compromised to the British state and will never lead us to independence. The evidence is there, you just need to look and once your eyes are opened it’s horrific.

    Liked by 24 people

    1. I believe this started with being compromised – a poster who seems well informed on the national once replied to me that St Nicola had been a very naughty girl indeed. Her failure to understand legal requirements would easily place her in a position where she could face severe penalties. I think this compromise happened around the time of her betrayers speech in January 2020 – in other words, on the time line of the Alex Salmond pursuit. The splendid work being done to unpick this scandal is essential for our future. What has been done in the dark must be seen in the light. Compromise stops working when everyone knows the truth!

      Right now Sturgeon is just a global trans activist – desperate to exit the hot seat in Scotland and get UKG approval for a global trans activist role with the UN. Hell mend her.

      Liked by 16 people

  3. It’s hard to look at the emergence of NS, an incompetent lawyer, with at least one skeleton in her cupboard – that of misleading and under-representing a client who was in dire need of help, and whom she was professionally obligated to serve. When the legal profession allowed malpractice to pass they allowed the birth of a politician with baggage that could be handled.

    It’s not easy to dismiss anything of Mia’s observations above. Had there been one strengthening policy aimed squarely at the independence movement, that would have been something. But there has been no action, other than the creation of a double-parliamentary Scottish National Party elite that is making decisions that are at odds with the party membership. SNP democratic control had gone the way of the Labour Party… By design. By necessity. By collaborative effort.

    Yes… As Keir Starmer is an acceptable face for Labour, and Jeremy Corbyn was not… Even so for Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond.

    Coming out of this and finding independence for Scotland will require collective genius.

    Thanks Mia. Respect.

    Liked by 23 people

    1. “Had there been one strengthening policy aimed squarely at the independence movement , that would have been something”

      And that is what I have been going on about for YEARS at every opportunity, AND it is STILL going on even with ALBA , it is NOT rocket science , DIEHARDS like us will ALWAYS vote for independence because we have a dream for a future Scotland , and even although at 71 I will not probably see it I will at least KNOW I have helped future Scots

      BUT not everyone is a diehard some people have to be convinced or reassured that Scotland won’t be a failed state after independence , they have to be shown FACTS , and that is what convinced me that sturgeon and her cabal of morons have NO INTEREST in independence

      Sturgeon and her cabal repeatedly and continuously go with the mantra “go out and convince the undecided’s and waverers , make them listen”

      WHILST all the while they do NOTHING to educate or inform those self same undecideds and waverers that independence IS the way forward and will be better for all concerned

      SORRY they do do something and THAT is to sabotage any and all good news or conversions by running a corrupt , incompetent administration which even competes with WM for the title of most corrupt , incompetent , lying administration

      How is any undecided going to be persuaded to vote for independence when they see the BLATANT lies and corruption taking place on a daily basis in both HR and WM , WHY would people vote for the LEAST BAD OPTION

      People need reasons and EVIDENCE to be convinced and both Alex Salmond and Sturgeon have NOT given them that EVIDENCE , many , many individual independence supporters , tweeters and facebookers have produced leaflets and pamphlets that show the benefits of independence and EXPOSES the lies of the WM establishment and their lying MSM , BUT the politicians independence relies on do nothing
      THAT IS WHY STURGEON IS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT INDEPENDENCE

      Liked by 4 people

  4. “They did this by making up as they went along an unlawful procedure that was never designed to withstand the pressure of a court of law.”

    And it worked, because despite a judge declaring the process to be ” “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair” and had been “tainted with apparent bias”, and despite him being acquitted of all criminal charges, his name is still mud. Principally because many from the FM down insist in flinging mud at him and his reputation.

    There are others that could lead Scotland to independence I’m sure. Joanna Cherry is one, and guess what – she has faced bullying, threats and criminal acts against her. One man, Grant Karte, has already been found guilty of threats against her issued when he was a SNP member. At least they had the decency to suspend him afterwards.

    The FM is in the USA, auditioning for her much wanted international role but the likely successor Angus Robertson with all his baggage is not likely to be any better and potentially worse as at least he has skills other than PR and is not quite the useless article the FM is.

    I don’t disagree with anything Mia has written. Of course we can’t be sure how much is actually true as opposed to just fitting the facts. My issue is WHAT do we do about it. HOW can we persuade people who still believe in the FM that she is a charlatan at best, a Benedict Arnold at worst?

    Two English politicians Starmer and Johnson were arguing this week about what to do with Scotland’s resources. Starmer wanted a windfall tax on North Sea oil which is generating £37 billion profit per day. To put this into perspective, the annual budget to cover all devolved expenditure is £41 billion. Makes you think doesn’t it…

    Liked by 23 people

  5. I cannot disagree with any of this , I really wish I could but it is impossible not to see where we have been lead and it is impossible not to get utterly depressed by it.
    Welcome to North Britain theme park for the rich and famous, it’s resources used for those in South Britain where all the important folk live , their ‘culture’ treated as a Hey You Jimmy hat.

    Liked by 20 people

  6. In the sciences there is a principle called Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation which fits the facts is most likely to be closest to the truth.

    So rather than a complex structure of multiple conspiracy theories, how about the following:

    1. Sturgeon is not too bright. She has a Glasgow law degree; don’t know what class she got but her legal career wasn’t exactly stellar.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1418932/Nicola-sturgeon-news-snp-latest-sturgeon-legal-career

    And after exiting Bell & Craig (who?) the best job she could get was Drumchapel Law Centre.

    2. The amateur international and constitutional lawyers might like to reflect that the SNP has had some substantial legal figures in it (e.g. the late Neil McCormick) and they spent years researching and reflecting on this stuff. Isn’t it most likely that they concluded that all these ingenious “constitutional” finagles just won’t work?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Oh I would not say that, did they not achieve a very significant ruling when the courts confirmed that the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty had no effect in Scotland as the people of Scotland were sovereign?. You also need to remember support for
      Independence was never at the same level as it is today at that time.

      Liked by 12 people

      1. Are you referring to Lord Cooper’s obiter in McCormick v. Lord Advocate?

        If so, that is not what he said.

        He said “the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”.

        But what he meant by that was that Parliament’s sovereignty is limited by certain pre-existing legislation:

        “I have not found in the Union legislation any provision that the Parliament of Great Britain should be “absolutely sovereign” in the sense that that Parliament should be free to alter the Treaty at will.”

        He doesn’t mention “popular sovereignty” at all, and of course there are no actual pre-1707 examples of such actually being exercised (Buchanan’s fantasies notwithstanding).

        We should also remember that the case was actually about having QEII on letter boxes and that the court ruled against McCormick. Royal Prerogative means a monarch can use any name and regnal number they like.

        Like

      2. Nope, he said Westminster is sovereign in the entire UK but that sovereignty is limited by some existing legislation, in particular some parts of the Acts of Union.

        Feel free to read through the text using the link I gave you.

        And I really don’t think the popularity of the monarchy is affected by their choice of names and numbers. It’s long been rumoured that Charles will succeed as George VII, but I don’t think anyone will be bothered.

        Like

    2. Ockams razor, a notion merely attributed to him, is not a device for arriving at the truth of a proposition but one to minimize «complexity» and the multiplication of terms and entities. What constitutes complexity etc may be a matter of personal opinion and understanding.
      Be that as it may, I sense this paperbound constitutionalism, while offering important insights, would in the brutal political ring be cut to shreds.
      If the majority is not yet convinced is it correct to presume those in charge are at fault?
      «The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate compromise» .

      Liked by 5 people

  7. Sadly at the moment I fail to see how anything can the salvaged from the husk that is left of the SNP after the first minister has completed her task. We tried to change it from within by returning members to the NEC and those were sidelined or had to resign to protect their professional reputations. We tried to select good candidates to stand for election as MSPs and the selection process was corrupted to make it impossible yet the SNP vote holds up despite the mess the leadership are making of running the country. The council elections with the both votes SNP then stop message has let a lot of unionists back into office and in our own ward an SNP member in who got drunk and fell asleep during the hustings. In some cases I think if you put an SNP badge on a turnip it would get elected such is the strength of both votes SNP cult. I fear the SNP is over as a means to independence and it remains to be seen if Alba, Isp or some other group can fill the void.

    Liked by 20 people

  8. The key betrayal by Westminster was the lack of recognition that its MPs represent the two partners of the Union, and that joint governance meant that the two partners needed to agree every decision AS TWO PARTNERS, but instead, all recognition of that duality was deliberately suppressed. MPs voted instead as 650 constituencies, and not as two sets of partner-MPs. That lack of partner distinction gave free rein and reign to the vastly more numerous English MPs, who thus effectively made every decision for the UK.

    That was what allowed every kind of abuse of Scotland for the next 315 years, and the English MPs for the most part revelled in their ability to put Scotland down whenever they felt like it. The current Tory government and parliament in particular has gone out of it way to rub Scotland’s nose in its powerlessness.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Yes, certainly on Scottish constitutional matters, and especially on any matter altering the terms of the Treaty of Union, Scotland’s national representatives should decide matters for Scotland. Scotland’s constitution and sovereignty, which remains a condition of the ToU, has nothing to do with MPs from outside Scotland. That Scotland’s SNP MP’s do not know this suggests they should not be there in the first place. The Scottish people and nation perishes whilst SNP MP’s sit bleating like sheep at Westminster, waiting on their next instruction from on high.

      Liked by 18 people

  9. I thought Scotland had been switched on to politics because of the 2014 Ref, how wrong was I. It beggers believe how anyone in the New SNP can say or believe Mrs Murrell or her MP & MSP are working towards securing Scotland Independence because they’re not. Mrs Murrell is in the USA to promote herself and to sell out Scotland to Nato and the USA and for these nuke to remain in Scotland if Scotland votes for Independence.

    I’m sorry but I’m going to have a dig at the Alba Party here, because one of the things I was hoping the Alba Party would get right was the removel of the monarchy now, not when the standing monarch died.

    When are these parties going to listen to the general public and acto on what the public want, because I can see the benifits of removing the monarchy before securing Independence, we would be sending the strongest message that Scotland has moved on from the union and the breakup of the union is the next step, it seems logical to me and would weaken the foundations of why the Scotland should remain in the union.

    Mrs Murrell is touring because she knows she isn’t going to secure a Ref or Independence and is making herself availible for work beyond FM. There is a lot of people and companies making money out of Independence and never question a single action the SNP leadership have taken (but this would be dis-loyal) They are happy for the union to continue as long as the benifits keep flowing into there bank accounts and this is the trouble we are facing with bloggers, News Paper, MSP & MP who are happy for the idea of Scotland being Independent but in reality it frightens them to death, because how else would they making a decent living and this is why none of them question NS motives on anything.

    If I though Scotland could be free and Independent today if I’d give up my house and live on the streets I’d do it without question, the wife would take some convincing!

    Liked by 11 people

    1. we were switched on right up until the Yes Movement was sedated then neutered she turned scot against Scot with her MP’s ( excluding Neale Hanvey and Kenny McAlister ) terrified of her vengeance I am very surprised that JC is still within Sturgeons ranks. SNP diehards will only wait for so long until later this year as there is no campaign insight truth is she is planning another diversion knowing she will never receive a Section 30 and that they will not go down the ”Claim Of Right” route which the @AlbaParty certainly would this is why she refuses to hold her hand out in unity .

      Liked by 10 people

  10. I agree with the critique but not the conclusion.

    That is, there is little doubt in my mind that the SNP is betraying Scotland’s Cause given the leadership’s actions and inactions. They top echelons are very clearly characterised by “vindictiveness, their utter incompetence, lack of principles and corruption, undemocratic” behaviour, Spot on and very easily evidenced.

    However, I disagree that Nicola Sturgeon “never wanted Independence in the first place”. She joined the SNP in 1986 as a 15 year old school girl – there is no way that she joined that party in those days did not wish to restore Scotland’s statehood. There is simply no evidence for this. To advocate this is really not credible.

    However, I believe that she MAY have become compromised by the British state. I cannot prove this but it is most definitely possible.

    I also think that there will be other British state agents operating at high levels, and in positions of influence, within the SNP. No evidence other than the actions of the SNP given all these “mandates” now gathering dust.

    What I think is almost definitely true is that the SNP leadership are paranoid, arrogant, bloody-minded, high-handed and nasty. Our national reputation for diligence is also being completely undermined with almost everything – baby boxes and gender-balanced cabinets excepted – that this government gets involved in turning into a shambles.

    So Scotland is being betrayed – that is the most important point – by the SNP leadership. But we should be careful not to undermine this crucial point by impossible to evidence that the current SNP leader was always against Scotland’s self-government.

    Liked by 13 people

  11. I agree with Mia and have held similar views for some time.

    Re Ms Sturgeon, I gave her the benefit of the doubt until her capitulation speech of Jan 2020. Even before, I was uneasy about mounting evidence of her unwillingness or inability to lead Scotland to independence. I was perturbed, for instance, by the SNP’s coyness in refuting the fallacy of GERS benefiting Scotland, particularly its rejection of eminent Professor Richard Murphy’s offer to help the Scottish Government do the refuting. This was one strand of an overall unwillingness to torpedo the ludicrous premise that Scotland is an economic basket case. Another was when during BBC ‘Question Time’ and ‘Any Answers’ debates, the SNP representatives fumbled to make any case for Scotland being a viable independent country. Armed with data from ‘Business for Scotland’, I found myself shouting out the answers that they failed to deliver.

    Meanwhile evidence for the New SNP as pirate ship flying a false flag kept mounting. What kind of political party neutralises its best and brightest and replaces them with individuals with neither background, expertise nor talent? Eventually I came to understand that the SNP had been boarded by British State pirates. That although there was a history of infiltration, after 2014 strenuous efforts were invested in capturing the vehicle.

    Yet I am left with a conundrum when it comes to Ms Sturgeon. Clearly her anointment as successor by Mr Salmond was an error of judgment on his part. Personally I found her verbal communications as Depute Leader hesitant and dysfluent. As Leader, this improved as she grew in confidence due to her couthy ‘ahm a wee wummin daein’ ma best’ Covid briefings. Particularly when contrasted with Buffoon Boris.

    However, during periods of stress such as questioning by the Committee into the disastrous complaints procedure against Alex Salmond, she reverted to dysfluency and eyelid trembling. She was, of course, protected by the British State during this process, as were its civil servants, at public expense. Fundamentally I have never believed her to be the transformational leader needed to lead our country.

    But what drives her deconstruction of the SNP? She joined the party as a teenager when it was hardly on-trend. She succeeded in engaging Alex Salmond’s trust over a period of many years. Was she a British State plant from the start? Or has the deconstruction been incremental and a mix of banal reasons? Imposter syndrome, obstinacy and personal ambition over integrity? Imposter syndrome makes it impossible for a mediocre person to be comfortable among talented people. It also allows the individual to be led and manipulated by others even as they are bolstered by them. They seek approval. Ms Sturgeon has spoken about her husband’s influence on her. How a few quiet words from him calm her down. (It’s natural for a spouse to have influence. In the case of this particular spouse I shall deliver a weighty silence.) A person with imposter syndrome is also open to flattery, a need to be accepted by high profile individuals such as ambassadors. All politicians look for a support base but the imposter is more easily captured by and therefore dependent upon her fan-base. In Ms Sturgeon’s case, the Wokerati YSI. As a final piece in the jigsaw, the British State as manipulator and puppet controller of the entire scenario.

    One might say, so what? It does not matter why this woman came to deflate the independence movement and neutralise its main political party. The important thing is to defeat her influence and rebuild the movement – at pace. In my view though, to ensure that this doesn’t happen again, we must understand what has happened and why.

    Liked by 21 people

  12. “I suspect this article will kick off a storm.”

    With us it will but will the great majority of our folk ever get to hear of it.

    We are in the middle of the “Great suppression”, will there ever be a huge effort by all bloggers, Twitters, Indy shops, marches etc. etc. to all move together in one go to get this message out to the 90% of the “never heard of it pal”.

    Make no mistake about it: WE ARE A COLONY TO BE EXPLOITED FOR ENGLAND AND THE SNP/STURGEON ARE THE HOUSE-JOCKS.

    The white feather cowards are running the Kingdom of Scotland, traitors one and all. I utterly despise them.

    Liked by 16 people

  13. Dear Iain

    I have great respect for your website as unlike so many other brainless Indy bloggers, you are a genuine patriot, a man of business, an anti-woke campaigner, and someone who recognises the danger of totalitarian Russia based on your hard life experience. You are also someone who believes in robust but respectful free speech. There are not many like you anymore.

    But I could not begin to cover all the wild claims raised in this latest article from Mia, because time does not allow. It is the type of thing that Russia Today would churn out. However, consider the following (limited) points.

    1. Mia alleges that Nicola has been a traitor since November 2014 and perhaps before. Nobody could be more anti-SNP than myself despite the fact that they were my party for all of my life up until 2016 and I campaigned vigorously for Scottish independence in 2014, even addressing public meetings. Nicola may well be planning for the big NY job but I do not believe that she is a decades-long plant.

    2. Mia continues to allege that the 2014 referendum was rigged. If that is so then the individual who let us down most is blue-eyed boy Alex Salmond. And what was Kenny MacAskill doing? I lived the 2014 referendum and its aftermath on a day-to-day basis. It has now become common for extremist commentators to allege rigging and fraud. There were no such claims at the time. In fact, it was important for Salmond and Sturgeon to laud the process as being fair and transparent because it was after all THEIR process.

    3. I quote Mia

    “There was huge discontent in Scotland with the official result of the 2014 referendum and with the betrayal of the vow, which was well evident by then. It was dangerous because by that time it was already in the public domain that the people of Scotland was going to vote for the SNP in masse to castigate the colonial parties for the betrayal, and independence was the expectation among many, from sending a majority of SNP MPs”.

    Here her argument is that if only Sturgeon had opted for a plebiscitary election in 2015 there would have been a definite SNP majority and arguably the end of Union. Under Sturgeon’s leadership, the SNP plumped for a 2015 manifesto pledging only to make ” Scotland Stronger” and disavowing any mandate for independence in that particular election. Ergo, Sturgeon is a traitor. This completely overlooks the political situation in 2014 -2015. Only eight months before GE 2015 we had lost the biggest democratic vote on the Union since 1707, or ever, really. There was not a single voice that I heard of in favour of making GE 2015 a plebiscitary election. This is a pure myth. The country would never have stood for it after five years of near constant political campaigning and “once in a generation”. No, independence in 2015 was not “the expectation among many”. It was the expectation among precisely non-one.

    Iain: why don’t you ask Alex, Kenny, Neale and Phil to give their view? What about Johanna Cherry? If GE 2015 could have been a plebiscitary election, then the Ukrainians are showering Russian tanks in flowers.

    4. We see again the fantasy that Scottish independence had to be defeated before England could go for an already secretly decided Brexit. (“Protocols of the Elders of Zion” anyone?) Well, why did Indy have to be defeated? I quote Mia:

    “Realistically, England could have only exited the EU as part of the UK, connected by an umbilical cord to Scotland’s assets and revenues and, of course, standing on the shoulders of Scotland to avoid sinking. That Scotland drowns in the process of keeping England afloat is just a collateral because seemingly, England’s economy and wellbeing is all what matters to every politician in Westminster and Holyrood.”

    This is simply embarrassing nonsense. Scotland has around 10% of the UK’s GDP. Scotland is huge net recipient of UK funding as the GERS figures more than adequately show. Sorry Mia, we relied on GERS in 2014 when their figures looked good and the Scottish govt produces them now. So what exactly are our massively valuable “assets and revenues” which are so important that without them Brexit would fail? Oil and Gas? Not nearly important enough (and I should know). Renewables? They are a subsidy driven “industry”. Some “asset”. What else?

    5. And what about the scheme to frustrate Indy and then implement Brexit. The problem is that the Conservative Party leadership right up to GE 2019 was REMAIN led. We are asked to believe that Cameron and Osborne secretly connived in Brexit when Cameron has to humiliatingly resign a mere three hours after Brexit was pronounced truimphant in the early morning of 24 June 2016. What a great plan! Throw away your place in history for no gain? But you can believe anything if you want to.

    6. Brexit seemingly, was undemocratic and against the CoR? To quote Mia again:

    “We also had the Westminster vote by which England Mps violated the Claim of Right and every principle of democracy when they gave themselves a veto over Scotland’s vote in the EU referendum. This was of course to ensure brexit would win, because at that time should Scotland had a veto, as it should, brexit would have never won.”

    In 1707 the Scottish Parliament approved an incorporating union with England which provided for a Union Parliament. TOU, Article III (” That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by One and the same Parliament,…”). The Union Parliament is given full right to legislate for Scotland. Scottish members have no veto on any legislation passed by the Union Parliament. That is why Salmond launched his initiative to create such a veto which was nothing more than a publicity stunt that was going nowhere. I see that Mia in other places makes the misleading argument that the existence of the devolved administrations is in some way contradictory to TOU Article III. This is nonsense as the devolved administrations are the creatures of Westminster. The clue is in “devolved”.

    7. Scotland, as I repeatedly point out DID NOT vote to remain in the EU as an independent country. It was never an EU member and was never asked (and could never have been asked) such a question. Voters in Scotland voted for the UK to remain an EU member but they were outvoted in a UK -wide vote. Tough luck Remainers.

    I could go on and on but I do have work to do. It would be a very sad day if the noble cause of Scottish independence, once such a bright and shining hope, became hostage to hatred, obscurantism, conspiracy theories, “stab -in -the-back” and “stop-the-steal”.

    Regards

    William

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “Scotland is huge net recipient of UK funding as the GERS figures more than adequately show.”

      Absolute nonsense. The phrase lies, damned lies and statistics has become a cliche for a reason. Basically you can generate numbers and add them up anyway you like – that doesn’t mean they are accurate or realistic.

      The GERS uses the word “estimate” to describe figures used in the document more times than there are pages in the document. It does not follow established accountancy rules. It attributes via estimates spending IN and FOR Scotland but only credits incomes IN Scotland. It attributes spending to Scotland that has nothing to do with Scotland and that an independent Scotland would never make.

      The important question to ask is WHY does the government publish figures that do not follow accounting conventions and that are riddled with estimates instead of opening the actual “books”? The last time that it did – I think in 1919 or possibly 1921 it showed 81% of Scotland’s revenues retained for “imperial services”

      GERS were instigated by Ian Lang Tory Secretary of State pre devolution, who in a leaked memo said

      “I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them.”

      No way that sounds politically motivated then /sarc

      There have been many critiques of GERS – here’s one of them

      https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/08/21/the-gers-data-is-ludicrous-scotland-does-not-generate-60-of-the-uks-net-fiscal-deficit/

      We don’t know what the real figures are because they don’t tell us. But the UK’s largest drink export is Scotch, it’s largest food export is Scottish salmon, its largest energy export is North Sea oil and gas. Scotland is the only net exporter of the 4 nations. Our gaming industry is worth billions. And that is despite us being treated like a colony and deindustrialised.

      Spare me your “too poor” nonsense. There are independent countries with a fraction of our natural resources doing very well financially. Ask Iain, after all Estonia is one of them!

      Liked by 17 people

      1. Importantly, as Professor Richard Murphy has articulated, via GERS Scotland is charged a notional percentage of debt for English infrastructure – we paid, for example, for water and sewerage for the South East of England, extension to the London underground and so on – but we are not credited with the income from these capital projects – Corporation Tax, employees’ income tax, the add on benefits to local industries from the projects. This is just one example of how GERS manipulates the Scottish economic picture to show us having a false deficit.

        Liked by 15 people

      2. “I think in 1919 or possibly 1921 it showed 81% of Scotland’s revenues retained for “imperial services””

        In 1917 and 1918 the ‘Contribution to Imperial Services’ figure was 89% of Scotland’s revenues, but somehow they still spent 17% of it in Scotland, too.

        There was a table of figures covering Scottish expenditure as a percentage of its revenue, from 1900 to 1921;

        The years 1900-1909 ranged from a low of 67% spent outside Scotland, to 75% out of broadly £17m-£20m, then in 1910 it dropped to 41%, in 1911 it was 54%, climbed steadily up to 56% in 1915 and 1916, jumped in 1917 to 89%, 89% again in 1918, 84% in 1919, 74% in 1920, and lastly 72% in 1921.

        The other very notable fact was that the revenue from Scotland rose from £16m in 1910, to £26m in 1915 and 1916, then more than doubled to £58.6m in 1917 and 1918, jumped again to £92m in 1920, then £113.5m in 1920, and £120m in 1921.

        HM Treasury stopped publishing the figures after 1921, out of simple embarrassment, one reason was that some of those figures literally didn’t add up, because in several years , the % spent in Scotland plus the % spent out of Scotland was well above or well below 100%; 1909 49% in, 69% outside, 1917 and 1918, 17% in and 89% outside.

        Liked by 5 people

    2. “In 1707 the Scottish Parliament approved an incorporating union with England which provided for a Union Parliament.” Wrong, Only the parliaments were incorporated. Both partner kingdoms agreed to shared governance via a single parliament. Both their previous parliaments were abolished. Even England’s favourite constitutional jurist, one A.V. Dicey agreed that.

      “The Union Parliament is given full right to legislate for Scotland. Scottish members have no veto on any legislation passed by the Union Parliament.”

      You left out; “The Union Parliament is given full right to legislate for England. “English members have no veto on any legislation passed by the Union Parliament.”

      The UK Parliament’s MPs represent the two partners of the Union, anyone pretending otherwise will have to justify that assertion. Joint governance of the two partners’ territories requires joint agreement AS TWO PARTNERS. This doesn’t happen in practice because the English partner deems its larger representation gives it a greater share of the UK Parliament’s overall authority in spite of the fact they still represent only one partner, and as such is an abuse of the duality and equality of partnership.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Strange, my supplementary comment looked like it crashed the site, my apologies if it did. I was trying to say that I wished to withdraw the ‘Wrong’ part of my second sentence, so that it read as;

        “Only the parliaments were incorporated. Both partner kingdoms agreed to shared governance via a single parliament.”

        The ‘Wrong’ wasn’t really as justified, and I apologise for it, too.

        Liked by 2 people

    3. I usually very much agree with your posts, William, and completely share your views about Mia’s diatribes, but in this case I do think you’ve got it wrong about GERS and the Scottish economy. I think panda paws has got it right. Apart from the misleading features of the GERS figures, all of which are supplied to the Scottish Government by WM, I have no doubt that if Scotland was a genuine economic basket case the Tories would be pleading with us to leave. Richard Murphy is very good indeed on the subject.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Correct, GERS is a descriptor of the Scottish economy designed by London. The power base determines the tax base – see dismantling of manufacturing in the north and full govt sponsorship of the deregulated city of London which has tripled the cost of putting a roof over our head.
        I see more money has been thrown at these islands and other imperial think tanks. I’m feeling safe in the knowledge however that These islands are still being run by lurch and the village idiot.

        Liked by 9 people

    4. William I try to be respectful in responses to comments but TBQH if you are an example of the central core of people within the snp who organised and carried out the preparations for the 2014 referendum it is no wonder we lost . the fact that you maintain Scotland is a beneficiary through gers of the munificence of the corrupt all parties who governed in WM stands you out as someone not very aware or who is being deliberately misleading or fractious
      You state
      “There was not a single voice that I heard of in favour of making GE 2015 a plebiscitary election. This is a pure myth. The country would never have stood for it after five years of near constant political campaigning and “once in a generation”. No, independence in 2015 was not “the expectation among many”. It was the expectation among precisely non-one.”

      You are like a certain other poster on WOS who constantly asserts that he KNOWS the opinions of others , that he knows what the majority is thinking and how they would react to certain things . YOU and HE don’t have that ability you can guess but that is all it is a guess , and just like any other person who comments on any blog you are a nonentity you hold no sway , Which IMO is good because your assertions are straight out of the WM playbook

      You also appear to be a critic of Alex Salmond by your blue eyed boy comment , I personally have no faith in any politician I despise them all and no doubt he made many mistakes and continues to do so IMO , but if you were in the cabal as you make out you must also accept responsibility for the result and the gross stupidity of the franchise

      Liked by 5 people

  14. Who could disagree with `MIA? I know I couldn’t.
    I remember a post by CaltonJock, where he showed a photo taken after the Memorial memorial service in London, where Sturgeon & BORIS went on walkabouts, deep in conversation. I believe that Boris knew that he was going to be PM, & according to CaltonJock, that walks out was BORIS asking her “what would it take Nicola” I think The price was mentioned, she accepted, & was bought that day. The rest they say is HISTORY.. Just as Scotland will be soon enough when we really will be renamed NorthBritain..

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Renaming us to North Britain will bring them The Troubles x100 with a land border. This horrifies me but I am sure both Johnson and Sturgeon realise it – and don’t give a hoot.

      Liked by 4 people

  15. I cannot disagree with anything Mia has said here. I only know it makes me very angry. We have been betrayed from within, by the person who claims to be the leader of the Independence Party. I will cherish the day we see her ousted as the traitor she is.

    Liked by 10 people

  16. An independent Scotland could have a domino effect. Catalunya for one likely to follow suit. Then Wallonia, Wales, Corsica, possibly a re-igniting of Québec….California?
    The breaking apart of power blocs could be a consequence, running counter to the intentions of globalist, anti-national interests.
    With «right government» it would fire a warning shot in the direction of modern colonialists.
    By hook or by crook….

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Words fly with the wind, Daveytee19. Speeches, when they are not accompanied with meaningful action, are worthless and a complete waste of our time.

      Every single speech delivered in the last 7 years by an SNP MP has fallen in deaf ears and frankly, has progressed absolutely nothing. Thousands of SNP MPs speeches delivered from the 8th May 2015 and we are still at the same point we were on 19 September 2014. Actually no. We are worse now than we were then. At that point we still had trust. At that point we still believed the SNP would pursue independence. At that point we still believed sending a majority of SNP MPs to Westminster would mean something because we expected they would do something. Now we don’t longer do. Now we have seen the SNP MPs for what they are: nothing but weak charlatans whose only interest is to continue legitimising Westminster and who will only remember about independence when there is an election in the horizon.

      This MP, like the other SNP MPs have had 7 years of absolute majorities to make a move. They haven’t even tried.

      After 7 years of majorities, I expect far, far more than a bearable speech to add to the mile long list and that we all know is going to achieve absolutely nothing. What I expect is to see them vacating their seats, ceasing Westminster’s legitimacy to continue acting on behalf of Scotland and repeal the treaty of union.

      It has been in their hands to terminate the Uk and help Scotland to follow a better path for its people since 8th May 2015. They chose not to. They chose to force us through the wrong path. They chose to bury us in this union even deeper. They chose to force us down the brexit road and away from the EU. They forced us to endure the consequences of brexit and the hike in food prices. They forced us to watch while they handed control of our assets to England MPs or foreign corporations. They are now forcing us to endure the obscene energy costs imposed on us when our country is self-sufficient in energy several times over. They chose to take us for fools and use our pro-independence votes and pro independence majorities to continue legitimising the abuse inflicted on Scotland by England MPs instead of stopping it. If that is not fascism, what is.

      Yes, England MPs may be sleepwalking towards fascism, but by Jove The SNP MPs have their eyes wide open while they join them for the ride and drag us with them.

      I am no longer interested in SNP speeches. I yawn even at the thought of yet another one. I want to see these charlatans chucked out of our seats by real pro independence people who actually have the backbone and the determination to do the work these disappointing charlatans will never do.

      Liked by 12 people

    2. Given Scotland’s predicament, Ms Black and her SNP Westminster colleagues would do well to reflect on the words of Aime Cesaire on the origins and role of fascism:

      “Fascism is the application of colonial procedures” (and) “Civilization helps us locate the origins of fascism within colonialism.”

      Scotland has been subject to ‘colonial procedures’ since 1707. SNP MP’s need to get a grip, forget about pontificating on the UK/Britain’s problems and concentrate on securing Scotland’s independence/decolonisation, which is in their hands, and has been since 2015.

      Liked by 13 people

  17. Another very thought-provoking article from the woman with 20/20 night vision . Very persuasive , and yet , and yet when we stare through that glass , darkly , we can never be sure with 100% certainty what we’re seeing is an accurate perception of * reality * ; but this is true generally . In reality we don’t have a clue what Reality is ; well , maybe clues , speculations , intelligent guesses , but the NATURE of Reality eludes us .

    Point being ….. even if the idea of NS working for the * enemy * seems too much like the plot of a novel or movie to be credible , It’s still much more so than the idea that humans can change sex . What the * gender is a construct * mob don’t get is that reality itself is a construct , constructed by our individual and collective thoughts , shaped by archetypes but in essence dynamic .

    Determining the * truth * has never been more difficult than currently ,amid the cacophony of MSM white noise and layer upon layer of Political deceit and bad faith . Mia’s * version * has a ring of truth , for sure

    Liked by 8 people

  18. As an aside:

    Kuwait – population 4.1 million; GDP $208 billion; exports represent 20% of overall GDP; 94% of exports are oil; unemployment sits at 2.3%.

    How does Scotland compare? Well, for a start we don’t export oil. It is taken from us. There is no other logical statement, it is taken from us.

    Worried about your energy bills? renewable energy production in Scotland in surplus? Connection charges to the UK national grid:
    North Scotland – £7.30 per megawatt-hour
    South Scotland – £4.70 ” ” ” ”
    England/Wales – £ 0.49
    South England – Paid to connect to the grid.

    What is the justification for these charges? I have no idea.For sure the Unionist mantra of sharing and broad shoulders isn’t being applied. On the technical side I’m not convinced that sending wee electrons down a cable justifies such charges, yes there arguably are transmission losses – via heat generated in the cables – but surely that loss is to the supplier not to the national grid receiver?

    So why these charges? And why doesn’t Scotland export (not credited with) oil? Well because Westminster can decide, whatever suits them to decide. You will note the current discussion on the N Ireland protocol and Westminster’s response to the problem – signatures and agreements don’t apply when it doesn’t suit Westminster.

    As i recall from my time in Kuwait young couples intending to marry are given a plot of land, and financial assistance.NHS? just walk in.Young couples here in Scotland, what help do they receive?

    Meantime, we in Scotland discuss the Claim of Rights, a 2023 referendum? Mebbes Aye mebbes Nah. The world won’t recognise us as a country unless we abide by… blah blah blah.Wringing our hands whilst faced with a group of rogues at Westminster. Are we again prepared to hold a referendum under the terms set by Westminster – and Sturgeon – and so set to fail?

    “Walking in my Sleep’ has good lyrics, check it out.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Oh good grief. Here we go again.

      Have a look at this document:

      https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/235056/download

      Page 11 shows that, yes indeed, power generators in Scotland do pay higher transmission charges and those in the south of England pay less, even negative.

      So what? They are all foreign-owned – or UK-owned – companies. And those charges have no net impact on what you pay for electricity as your supply company buys it out of a GB-wide wholesale market.

      Now have a look at page 19.

      Lo and behold, Scottish demand – that is customers, you and me – pay the lowest transmission charges in the UK.

      It is the exact flipside of Scottish generators paying the highest charges. National Grid wants to incentivise (slightly) generation and demand to move closer together.

      If you have some unnatural desire to reduce transmission charges for the foreigh-owned generators, the consequence would be higher charges for customers.

      Is that what you want?

      Liked by 2 people

  19. Eight years on. Are we any closer to independence under this administration? NO! Paying the British state press millions to keep it afloat and working hand in glove with the British state to stitch up Alex Salmond and any of his supporters, does that sound like the actions of someone seeking independence? Many of those critical of this administrations commitment to independence found themselves arrested and being tried on trumped-up charges and we even got our first political prisoner, is that normal in Scotland? In a democracy? The apologists take a good look at yourselves in the mirror and then look into your childrens/grandchildrens eyes and tell them that you are happy to put their lives and futures in Nicola Sturgeons hands, such is your faith that she still has a secret plan. She does but it is for the destruction of Scotland. What will Scottish history say of those “none so blind…” I wonder? Meanwhile our resources and the birth right of Scotlands children continues to be raped and squandered by a foreign country whilst this administration, by its silence and inaction, enables that theft.

    Liked by 9 people

  20. To me It doesn’t matter if Sturgeon is a sleeper agent of the British state or a useless muppet narcissist who is self obsessed and wants to cling on to power. Every one knows Strugeon is a dud Leader and untrustworthy she cannot unite the independence movement. Whatever the case she needs to be removed from power she cannot be allowed to lead us into a rigged referendum, prehaps we could have a partition of no confidence in her and her lieutenants leadership or lack of it. I think we prehaps need an AUOB approach to a plebiscite election standing against the SNP if they will not take part. Also a petition from the people of Scotland to be recognised as a colony of England like Ireland done would stop the bias media and the UN could monitor the elections and media, free from British state interference. The Voting franchise and the situation with the MSM must be circumvented. An AUOB approach would stop the ALBA ,SNP feud which would play into the hands of Westminster , have no doubt Sturgeon is the route cause if this unpleasantness.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. bàs agus buaidh? 🙂 It really should not come to this. But tragically our “leaders” are entitled, ignorant, corrupt and could not care less.

      Liked by 4 people

  21. I agree with Mia. If anything, she is going lightly on Sturgeon. She hasn’t even mentioned Martin Keating’s being hung out to dry, and in my opinion there was much more being killed of around Joanna Cherry than her political career; there were important constitutional precedents which should have been seized upon, such as the UK Supreme Court running out of jurisdiction over Scots Law.

    But in all this bleakness, there is hope. The SSRG are right about Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty. This is the essential essence of Scotland.

    Scotland was sold a pup in 1707, and sold another 1999 with Devolution, whereby the colonial Scotland Act surreptitiously endeavoured to replace Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution and the Internationality of the Treaty of Union, with the false political horizon of Scotland the Nation being bound and incapacitated by Domestic UK legislation cynically rewritten by Westminster whenever the need arises, treated like a Region, denied resources, denied free News media, and isolated from interaction with foreign governments.

    If you find yourself perplexed by the confusion, understand this; Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution predates the 1998 Scotland Act, and all the Constitutional principles of Sovereignty, and qualified Monarchy were not removed by establishing a devolved assembly. Even the name Holyrood, now synonymous with Scotland’s “government” is a concept which didn’t exist prior to Devolution.

    IF Holyrood, particularly Holyrood under Sturgeon is failing Scotland, then free your mind of it, think the unthinkable, and understand that Scotland can decide to cut out the middleman, sidestep the entire energy sapping swamp of Holyrood fallacies, junk every word of the Scotland Act, and resurrect the Sovereignty of Scotland by fundamental principles under International Law. Holyrood is non essential. Sturgeon is non essential, (perhaps much worse than that).

    Sovereignty IS essential. Resurrect our inalienable sovereign birth right, and suddenly ALL Westminster’s colonial mechanisms, including the Scotland Act, a subordinate Holyrood legislature, every notion of “reserved” portfolios, and even the UK Supreme Court are suddenly without jurisdiction in the sovereign realm of Scotland.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. Spot-on B . Sooner or later more people will be compelled to agree with what you – and others – have been saying for * some time * . Our Sovereignty is the ace up our collective sleeve . I honestly dread the prospect of a Referendumb ( sic ) * under * NS . She would f… it up , like she’s done with just about everything she touches : other than her International image . In presenting herself as a compliant round-peg to slot easily into the round hole of Globalist agendas she’s been greatly successful . Her sole * victory * .

      It occurred to me the recent ambivalence about Scotland continuing to * host * WMD – in contradiction to long-held SNP Policy – could just be yet one more deliberately seeded source of division within the movement .

      Liked by 10 people

      1. Aye, … but…

        In 1979, the Scottish UN Commission made a submission to the UN Secretariat in New York,
        together with most of the third of a million signatures collected on the petition that
        authorised Scotland-UN to make diplomatic representations on Scotland’s behalf….

        Click to access story.pdf

        For what it’s worth, I respect the sovereignty in one signature, but unless the Treaty of Union can be undone by a material breach of it’s Articles, (such as Scotland being unconstitutionally subjugated by Brexit), then its the UN which needs persuaded that a Constitutional submission is the will of the majority.

        The recent declarations sent to the UN aren’t misguided, but they’ll bounce off and make no impression. We either crash the Union by collapsing the Treaty through some breach of conditions which render the Union unsound or unlawful, or we “elect” to leave the Union, and that requires either a democratic mandate, or a petition signed by a Scottish majority.

        It is my belief we should adopt a hybrid approach… Set up a People’s Constitutional Assembly dedicated to Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, and seek to further it’s credentials by public support and nationwide petition. – Exactly what the Scottish UN Committee did, but aim higher.

        If that Constitutional Assembly is weakly supported, it’s objective should be to instigate a Constitutional Test Case disputing Scotland’s subjugation. We crowd fund a test case and campaign to mobilise public opinion.

        If that Constitutional Assembly is well supported, (and hopefully captures the public imagination like the petition to prevent water privatisation (1996?)) – then we should aim for a petition of 3 million signatures – A Sovereign Mandate. That might sound ambitious, but Scotland’s children are sovereign citizens from birth. It’s not a vote, and it’s “our” Constitutional franchise. Let them sign. Let them engage. Let them pester their grans and grandads.

        Resurrect the 2014 YES Campaign, capture the same enthusiasm, but focused on Constitutional justice for Scotland backed by signatures rather than votes in a rigged referendum.

        In 2014 we were only just beginning to reach the “lost” disenfranchised people who’d never voted before and weren’t even registered. Let Scotland do that again, but have them sign that petition.

        Take the initiative away from London, away from Holyrood, and away from the BritNat media.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. @Breeks below or somewhere, lol … the Declarations are being “lodged” at the UN Secretariat (stress lodged) – and without writing an essay so that they are available in due course to all 193 UN Members with the eventual aim to seek out those (in particular) who have in the past gained their independence from the UK, that is when the real hard work will be engaged.It is based on asking this question:

        Are the United Nations and its constituent Nation Members bound by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, and bound to uphold those central provisions as they apply to Scotland, and its Sovereign people?

        We won’t know, we will never know, unless we ask! Thus … acta nn verba!

        Liked by 5 people

  22. Well said, Mia. I won’t repeat my comment to you the other day when we discussed this but will add that if you look at the timeline including the various aspects the English government has employed since 2014 (and before but taking 2014 as a starting point given the referendum) the objective was not EU exit though that played a big part but enacting a new English Act of Union. The bill of which was put forward in 2017-2019. Look at the wording, the key points made in it, the removal of GB and the replacement of UK, keeping in mind that the English government promoted a paper stating that England’s adopted political name was UK, the timing of EVEL coming mere hours after the 2014 vote had been declared, the attempt to write English parliamentary sovereignty into law, the enacting of the English IM Act. Again, look at the wording of the Bill. The English Act of Union (2017-2019) has been enacted in all but name.
    The EU exit is often cited as being the event that should have propelled Scotland out of the treaty but I disagree. EVEL which fundamentally changed the nature of the state parliament, the disregarding of Scotland’s national and territorial security by ignoring the resounding Scottish vote against Trident’s renewal and the vote against invading Syria and having planes leave Scotland an hour after the vote, the arbitrary removal of the Scottish nationality on legal documents incliuding the electoral register should have been the events to dissolve the treaty. Added to the 56/59 MPs elected most definitely should have compelled them to do so. Everything that has happened since has kept the timeline consistent with England enacting a new English Act of Union whereby they, as they promoted during the Scottish referendum, are sole continuator state with Scotland subsumed into it and which gives England a veto over Scotland and restores English parliamentary sovereignty. This is not only a violation of the current treaty but as you point out, that of the Scottish constitution.
    That this is largely ignored speaks of a far greater threat to Scotland given its own people are meekly accepting these acts of aggression from a foreign entity and the Scottish government is unwillingness to address, let alone remove, the threat to Scotland’s very existence.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. HI Gayle, Thank you very much for your comment and for pointing me in the direction of this new Act of Union. I have just seen that it is still in the House of Lords in its second reading.

      Needless to say my blood is boiling just now and if before reading this I already saw Sturgeon as a puppet of the British state, this just goes to confirm it.

      I will read it in detail once I calm down, but at first glance seems to add strength to my suspicion that since 8th May 2015 we have being deliberately and swiftly dragged (by Sturgeon) and pushed (by Westminster) away from our status as an equal signatory of the treaty, and therefore from our legitimate right to unilaterally repeal that treaty and end the UK of Great Britain. That is betrayal.

      The first direct implication of this new Act is that England will always remain as the de facto continuator state of the UK should Scotland choose to leave. Being the continuator state by default implies England keeping most assets of the union, assets Scotland has had to contribute to.

      The second implication is that of demoting Scotland from its current status as an equal signatory of the original treaty, and therefore an equal partner, to the status of NI and Wales as a region of the Kingdom of England. The consequence of this, as clearly stated in this new Act, is that exit from this new Uk can no longer be unilateral as it is now, but only take place with the consent of the England as the Uk gov of the day.

      This new Act of Union should be of most interest to all the so call “civic nationalists” who throw stones at us for demanding a fair franchise or the dreamers who reject the option of a GE used as a plebiscite to terminate the Uk because they claim that it would be more difficult to get a yes vote that way.

      Well, this bill states a very defined entry route and an undefined exit route. To enter this new arrangement, only those who can vote in GE can participate, so there you go, no open franchise here. The bill offers an exit clause, which is a referendum where a majority in a particular “region” will have to vote to exit, but of course this will have to be agreed between the government of the “region” and the UK government. What is fascinating here is that there is no stipulation of franchise for the exit route, none at all, only that there has to be an agreement with the UK gov. Looking at the disproportion in population between NI, Scotland and Wales on one side and England in the other, it is very easy to guess why. Creating the demand, as they have done since 2014, for a referendum where ALL the population takes part, increases the chances of temporary settlers from elsewhere to come to Scotland, take part in the vote to trash the yes vote, and then leave again. The asymmetry of the entry and exit routes highlights the real colonial nature of this Act.

      The exit path for Scotland proposed in this new Act is the exact same Sturgeon has deliberately placed in front of us since she took over in November 2014 as the only available route, when it is not. Is it therefore just a coincidence that this woman runs away from plebiscitary elections faster than I run away from big, ugly, hairy spiders, or it is part of a British state strategy that aims to give a date for the referendum only once we are trapped in this new Act of Union? I think the latter.

      The other interesting thing is that it was introduced in October 2018. That is 3 years AFTER Scotland had sent already TWO absolute majorities of SNP MPs to Westminster. Three years of many changes in circumstances that should have seen the treaty of union declared void and repealed that Sturgeon wasted The writing of this Act could have never happen happen unless Sturgeon was in agreement, because it is clear as day that any change in the conditions of the original treaty of union cannot be done unless both partners are in agreement. If there is no agreement and the changes happen anyway, it will constitutes grounds to declare the treaty void. So if she had signalled the absolute opposition of Scotland to that change, she would have stopped that bill on its tracks even before somebody started to write the title. The fact it has progressed to second reading and it is still going means that either she is backing it or she has no objection to it.

      There is another interesting thing in that Act that is conspicuous for its absence: it does not say what happens if this act is rejected – only that the Act ceases to have effect. People can vote no to this act for many reasons, not simply because they accept the current situation. Again, we see here an example of the strategy used by the British state time and time again: only present the option the state wants to keep with another that looks worse, but never against the preferred option by the people.

      Other interesting thing is that it does not devolve the civil service at all. It remains “UK civil service”. Remembering what happened with the civil service during the indyref 2014 and more recently with the case of Mr Salmond, we all know what this means. It also promotes the Supreme Court from being an English court with no legitimacy to trash Scots law to be come the ultimate court for constitutional matters. So here we go, another article of the union trashed.

      My conclusion:
      this Act is attempting to enter enhanced devolution for Scotland, NI and Wales and devolution for England by the back door, disguised as some kind of soft federalism. Yet, the real colonial nature of this is revealed because it gives England the choice of create a new English parliament or simply enact “regional devolution”. In other words, gives the people of England, and them only, the option to reject a separate parliament so it can continue, at all effects, exercising full control over the UK parliament. So, business as usual but without the inconvenience of Scotland having the power to unilaterally terminate the UK.

      We should all read this thoroughly and have as open a discussion as we possibly can and as frequently as we can. Not only because of the implications of it to Scotland, but because those lords, knowing that about half of the population in Scotland wants independence, instead of supporting Scotland’s right to choose its own path, they are clearly unilaterally working against Scotland in ways to precisely stop that. They were sent to Westminster to protect Scotland’s interests, not their own or those of somebody else.

      It can be found here:
      https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2295

      The title of the bill is “Act of Union Bill [HL]” Private Members’ Bill (Starting in the House of Lords)
      Originated in the House of Lords, Session 2017-19. Last updated: 9 October 2019 at 10:28.
      HL Bill 132 (as introduced)

      The actual document (as it is now) is here:

      Click to access 18132.pdf

      The more eyes, voices and brains we can put against this outrageous attempt to remove from us our legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the treaty of union, the better.

      Thank you Gayle.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. There is another interesting thing in that Act that is conspicuous for its absence: it does not say what happens if this act is rejected – only that the Act ceases to have effect.

        Believe me when you have read it through what happens if rejected will boil your blood even more.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. All this shows is how very stupid governments can become. Either there is a democratic path or there isn’t. But there is always a path. Law is a matter of consent – whether we consent or not is up to us, not Brown, Johnson or any other politician or privileged elite. Let them wave their wee bits of paper all they want – we need hearts and minds. The rest is simple(ish).

        Liked by 1 person

    2. HI Gayle, Thank you very much for your comment and for pointing me in the direction of this new Act of Union. I have just seen that it is still in the House of Lords in its second reading.

      Needless to say my blood is boiling just now and if before reading this I already saw Sturgeon as a puppet of the British state, this just goes to confirm it.

      I will read it in detail once I calm down, but at first glance seems to add strength to my suspicion that since 8th May 2015 we have being deliberately and swiftly dragged (by Sturgeon) and pushed (by Westminster) away from our status as an equal signatory of the treaty, and therefore from our legitimate right to unilaterally repeal that treaty and end the UK of Great Britain. That is betrayal.

      The first direct implication of this new Act is that England will always remain as the de facto continuator state of the UK should Scotland choose to leave. Being the continuator state by default implies England keeping most assets of the union, assets Scotland has had to contribute to.

      The second implication is that of demoting Scotland from its current status as an equal signatory of the original treaty, and therefore an equal partner, to the status of NI and Wales as a region of the Kingdom of England. The consequence of this, as clearly stated in this new Act, is that exit from this new Uk can no longer be unilateral as it is now, but only take place with the consent of the England as the Uk gov of the day.

      This new Act of Union should be of most interest to all the so call “civic nationalists” who throw stones at us for demanding a fair franchise or the dreamers who reject the option of a GE used as a plebiscite to terminate the Uk because they claim that it would be more difficult to get a yes vote that way.

      Well, this bill states a very defined entry route and an undefined exit route. To enter this new arrangement, only those who can vote in GE can participate, so there you go, no open franchise here. The bill offers an exit clause, which is a referendum where a majority in a particular “region” will have to vote to exit, but of course this will have to be agreed between the government of the “region” and the UK government. What is fascinating here is that there is no stipulation of franchise for the exit route, none at all, only that there has to be an agreement with the UK gov. Looking at the disproportion in population between NI, Scotland and Wales on one side and England in the other, it is very easy to guess why. Creating the demand, as they have done since 2014, for a referendum where ALL the population takes part, increases the chances of temporary settlers from elsewhere to come to Scotland, take part in the vote to trash the yes vote, and then leave again. The asymmetry of the entry and exit routes highlights the real colonial nature of this Act.

      The exit path for Scotland proposed in this new Act is the exact same Sturgeon has deliberately placed in front of us since she took over in November 2014 as the only available route, when it is not. Is it therefore just a coincidence that this woman runs away from plebiscitary elections faster than I run away from big, ugly, hairy spiders, or it is part of a British state strategy that aims to give a date for the referendum only once we are trapped in this new Act of Union? I think the latter.

      The other interesting thing is that it was introduced in October 2018. That is 3 years AFTER Scotland had sent already TWO absolute majorities of SNP MPs to Westminster. Three years of many changes in circumstances that should have seen the treaty of union declared void and repealed that Sturgeon wasted The writing of this Act could have never happen happen unless Sturgeon was in agreement, because it is clear as day that any change in the conditions of the original treaty of union cannot be done unless both partners are in agreement. If there is no agreement and the changes happen anyway, it will constitutes grounds to declare the treaty void. So if she had signalled the absolute opposition of Scotland to that change, she would have stopped that bill on its tracks even before somebody started to write the title. The fact it has progressed to second reading and it is still going means that either she is backing it or she has no objection to it.

      There is another interesting thing in that Act that is conspicuous for its absence: it does not say what happens if this act is rejected – only that the Act ceases to have effect. People can vote no to this act for many reasons, not simply because they accept the current situation. Again, we see here an example of the strategy used by the British state time and time again: only present the option the state wants to keep with another that looks worse, but never against the preferred option by the people.

      Other interesting thing is that it does not devolve the civil service at all. It remains “UK civil service”. Remembering what happened with the civil service during the indyref 2014 and more recently with the case of Mr Salmond, we all know what this means. It also promotes the Supreme Court from being an English court with no legitimacy to trash Scots law to be come the ultimate court for constitutional matters. So here we go, another article of the union trashed.

      My conclusion:
      this Act is attempting to enter enhanced devolution for Scotland, NI and Wales and devolution for England by the back door, disguised as some kind of soft federalism. Yet, the real colonial nature of this is revealed because it gives England the choice of create a new English parliament or simply enact “regional devolution”. In other words, gives the people of England, and them only, the option to reject a separate parliament so it can continue, at all effects, exercising full control over the UK parliament. So, business as usual but without the inconvenience of Scotland having the power to unilaterally terminate the UK.

      We should all read this thoroughly and have as open a discussion as we possibly can and as frequently as we can. Not only because of the implications of it to Scotland, but because those lords, knowing that about half of the population in Scotland wants independence, instead of supporting Scotland’s right to choose its own path, they are clearly unilaterally working against Scotland in ways to precisely stop that. They were sent to Westminster to protect Scotland’s interests, not their own or those of somebody else.

      The title of the bill is “Act of Union Bill [HL]” Private Members’ Bill (Starting in the House of Lords)
      Originated in the House of Lords, Session 2017-19. Last updated: 9 October 2019 at 10:28.
      HL Bill 132 (as introduced)

      For those who are interested in reading it, you just need to do a google search with the words

      “Act of Union Bill [HL] AND 9 October 2019”

      it should bring the UK parliament website from where you can download it.

      The more eyes, voices and brains we can put against this attempt to remove from us our legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the treaty of union, the better.

      Thank you Gayle.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. It is worth pointing out also that the new Act of Union for the very first time brings NI and Wales in to the treaty. At the moment they come under England as a province and a principality respectively and not in their own right.

        Liked by 3 people

  23. https://archive.ph/voZtz
    No it is not what it seems. Read the text, just more «non commital» from an expert.
    In the Sturgeon verbiage a preparedness to accept a reordered British status quo rather than absolute sovereignty.
    It’s the choice of words .
    «The importance of maintaining peace on Ireland is MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE and I think that should be the sentiment that really governs all of the decisions around this.
    It is deeply concerning, and I think deeply reckless, for Boris Johnson’s government to threaten unilateral action because that could trigger a chain of events that will have a seriously detrimental impact on ALL OF US ACROSS THE UK»
    «That really brings to the fore that that system of government that’s been at play in the UK for some time now is not serving all of our interests.You hear these questions in Scotland, you hear them in Northern Ireland. Increasingly, you’re hearing these questions being asked in Wales, as well.
    I don’t think these questions are going to go away»
    Questions, questions but never an answer.

    Do not trust this Brit mole.

    Liked by 4 people

  24. I always enjoy reading Mia, but she greatly exaggerates the love the average Scot has for the EU.
    Eventually the EU will take more and more power to itself .
    I have been in unions before

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Don Carr is correct. 38% of voters in Scotland voted to LEAVE the EU (despite the fact that all Holyrood parties wanted us to remain), including around 35% in the SNP according to recent research. Powers centralise in unions including political control towards Brussels.

      EFTA basic membership would be suitable for Independent Scotland.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. As someone who was once a big fan of Nicola I regret to say that I now believe Mia’s hypothetical “this individual has not been working covertly for the British state and against the independence movement since at least she took over the SNP leadership on 14 Nov 2014 and probably earlier.”

    What I can’t get my head round is how she fooled her mentor Alex Salmond, or whether or not she did fool him like she fooled me?

    I tend to think he knew she was a phoney, but was induced by some form of British state kompromat to move aside.

    Whatever the case we are where we are now and must support Alba/Salmond to unseat the SNP if we want independence while there is still oil in the North Sea.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: