Unfortunately some pro Indy sites operate censorship if a blogger dares to criticise the SNP, no matter how justified that criticism might be. This transforms them from being pro Indy sites to being only propaganda sites for one Party. By this very act they damage Independence by limiting freedom of speech. Never a very wise action. Sensible people enjoy debate and like to decide for themselves and not have this determined for them by others. This site promotes Independence and does not censor except in exceptional circumstances where abuse or known falsehoods are submitted. Please share articles from this site to overcome all attempts to close down free speech in Scotland.


Free subscriptions are available on this site from both the Home and Blog pages. This will ensure you will be notified every time a new article is posted. Each article already gets posted to many thousands of people, I hope you will come and join us. You will be most welcome.


Now that Salvo has been launched it needs everybody to join and get behind this important, vital even, development. I have never encouraged readers to donate to Yours for Scotland indeed I operate a limit that even when people are overcome and demand the ability to donate I operate a strict limit of £3 per donation. I said that any excess to the costs of running this site would go to worthy Yes events. I have made some donations in the past but yesterday I gave a three figure sum to Salvo. I want to do more so while I am keeping, at this stage, the maximum donation to £3 I am now encouraging readers of Yours for Scotland to donate regularly with the assurance that every penny raised, over the running costs of this site, will be donated to Salvo. Salvo is a people’s movement and it needs us, the people of Scotland, to give them the funds they need. Thank you.


    1. As I said previously you should all be working together for the goal of Independence this separating Scot against Scot will ruin our chances join together for the common good help each other get independence! Scots don’t turn on other Scots wanting the same as you!


  1. Thank goodness there was an alternative recording. Brilliant. Finally light at the end of the Indy tunnel thanks to #SSRG and #SALVO instead of Sturgeon’s journey into darkness.

    Liked by 13 people

  2. I just Love Sara, oh god if she were just our FM..I thought there could never be anyone better than Alex, But Sara & Alf Baird are right up there as to what this country needs and how it should be run..

    Liked by 15 people

  3. Yesterday evening, after I read in the blog what Mr Hanvey said, I was in total despair. I could not believe that after watching how Sturgeon wasted us already 7 years with the nonsense of the Section 30 and watching how little by little the England as the Uk government was collapsing before our eyes and dragging us close to the status of a failed state, the only comfort ALBA could offer is to ask us to gather together for another push to get an S30.

    The S30 aka devolution route for Scotland to terminate the UK has been dead since 31 March 2017. That is the day Sturgeon submitted her first request for England Mps to transfer OUR powers to hold a referendum BACK to us.

    The refusal in 2017 by an England MP parachuted to the position of PM by a party without the mandate from Scotland to act on our behalf, to give BACK OUR powers, should have immediately triggered a constitutional stand off with the threat of immediately repealing the treaty of union. Scotland is not just “a devolved nation” like Wales is. Scotland is a sovereign state that entered voluntarily into a treaty of union to form a union of equals with another partner.

    One of the fundamental conditions of that treaty was that Scotland’s constitution and the Claim of Right, which is part of it, was to be respected in perpetuity. Denying us OUR powers when we are asking for them to be returned can only be interpreted as retaining OUR powers against our will and this is akin to exercising absolute power. This refusal, actually REFUSALS because we have had 3 of them already, are not only undemocratic. They are a direct violation of our Claim of Right 1689 which is the most fundamental condition over which the treaty of union retains its legitimacy.

    Instead of a FM who understands Scotland’s sovereignty and constitution and reasserts it, what we appear to have had for the last 8 years is a loser who has been, at every opportunity, handing OUR sovereignty back to England MPs and English courts, seemingly, to remove from herself the responsibility of repealing a treaty of union, drilled with so many holes in the last 8 years that would be put to much better use as a sieve than as the excuse which continues to legitimise a union between the kingdoms of Scotland and England. 5 years later after the first unlawful retention of OUR powers by England MPs and two more failed attempts by this loser at begging for a Section 30, have not changed the situation one bit.

    It was therefore beyond depressing to read how ALBA appears to support this FM continuous undermining of Scotland and its sovereignty. An action which has been, for the last 7 years, since May 2015, continuously forcing us through the blind alley of the devolution route the exit key for which is, and will always be, held by England MPs. In the meantime, the real route outwith devolution Scotland as an equal partner should be taking, and which we should have taken on May 2015 and which is for Scotland to exercise its legitimate right as an equal partner in this union to terminate the treaty, has been left abandoned, forgotten, and growing spider webs for the last 7 years.

    I am fed up of watching our so called pro-independence politicians and parliamentary representatives undermining the treaty of union, undermining Scotland’s status in it, undermining Scotland’s sovereignty and rights and undermining our Claim of Right by insisting in following the devolution dogma of demoting Scotland’s power to Westminster’s when under the treaty, it is from continous Scotland’s consent that Westminster gets its power over Scotland in the first place. Scotland is not England’s property. So why do our representatives continue to treat it as such? England MPs and the unelected lords have no democratic mandate to rule over us, even less to steal our powers and then deny them to us when we ask for them back.

    If we do not see any action from our so called pro-independence representatives in both parliaments in the next few days to reassert Scotland’s sovereignty and rights, then it will be clear as day that the political vehicle for Scotland to end this union is totally useless. At that point we will need to find ourselves a different one.

    It seems Ms Salyers and Team have found that alternative ride. I think it is time to find a seat on it, strap the seat belt on and let the driver move us forward. The present political ride has done far too many fake run ups in the last 7 years but always without engaging the forward gear and without lowering the handbreak.

    Time to get moving.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. The damage done to our status by Holyrood can be limited by placing Holyrood in its correct context of a child of Westminster – lacking any authority on constitutional matters. Westminster recognised the Claim of Right and that is the one thing I do thank the SNP for. The Scottish constitution is restored – we just have to use it

      Liked by 6 people

      1. I agree with your view of Holyrood at present. For as long as those sitting in it help to restrain it with the Scotland Act, it is not Scotland’s old parliament reconvened. It is a product of Westminster designed to rein in and limit Scotland’s power

        My problem is that every route we have been seemingly presented by politicians as available to us with for the last 7 years, since the campaign for the GE 2015 started, has been one through the context of devolution. I ask why. This demotes us to the status of Wales and, while I have an awful lot of respect for the Welsh people and support their right to choose their own path, Scotland is not just “a devolved nation” nor a country that was annexed militarily. Scotland is an equal partner to the kingdom of England. It is an equal signatory in the treaty of union.

        This union is based in an international treaty and therefore can only be sustained with continuous consent. This was stipulated by Scotland’s MPs in 1707 making the respect of the Claim of Right, which declares forcing on Scotland absolute rule unlawful, a fundamental condition, in perpetuity, for the treaty to stand and remain valid.

        The moment a request for the powers to hold a referendum has been made by Scotland, backed by a democratic mandate from the people of Scotland to hold a referendum on independence, it is no longer possible to claim Scotland is giving that consent for the union to continue, unless our MPs are handing that consent on our behalf behind our backs. Sturgeon’s claim in 2015 “a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence, nor even a vote for a referendum” is like an annoying wasp inside my brain.

        There are at least two clear routes to exit this union. One is the devolution route, which for as long as Scotland’s MSPs are determined to uphold the Scotland Act will require Westminster’s consent. The other route is by the power put on Scotland’s MPs as the custodians of Scotland’s Old Parliament and the custodians of Scotland’s sovereignty.

        One could argue then that Scotland’s MPs have used our sovereignty and power to allow this union to continue for the last 7 years while, simultaneously, sending us through the blind alley of devolution hunting for an S30 that England MPs will never put there for us to find, perhaps because it was never needed in the first place to terminate the union once Scotland sent a majority of pro independence MPs.

        I am asking, is this what is happening?

        If the devolution path did not undermine Scotland’s will, Scotland’s status in the union, nor that Claim of Right, for example because the powers to hold a referendum were returned to Holyrood immediately after they were requested by our legitimately elected representatives, then I would have no problem at all following the devolution route.

        But this has not been the case, now for three times in 6 years. So my question is, what exactly is keeping this union going without apparent consent from Scotland? Is it the short-sightedness of Scotland’s representatives that is insisting in forcing us through a failed devolution route, or it is actually our MPs who, for whatever reason known to themselves, are keeping this union going while letting the MSPs/PM send us on a goose chase pretending Scotland does not have the power to terminate this union?

        A violation of the Claim of Right, for example by forcing absolute rule over Scotland is not only unlawful, it is a violation of one of the fundamental conditions of the Treaty of Union. In other words, it is a reason to seek an immediate repealing of the treaty under international law. Scotland was first denied its right to self-determination in 2017, 5 years ago.

        But this apparent violation of the Claim of Right would not have been such violation at all if our MPs, custodians of our sovereignty in the union, had given consent for that “seemingly” absolute rule to be cast on us by, seemingly, Westminster.

        So, I ask, is this what is happening? How does a UK PM decide if an S30 is granted or not, is it a personal decision, is it a decision made by the English establishment, or is it possible at all that the PM actually asks the Scottish Mps as a whole if that section 30 should be granted? Because, let’s face it, if this were a functional union, that S30 is taking those powers from Scotland’s MPs and handing them over to the people of Scotland.

        Could this be the reason why our majorities of SNP MPs have not even moved a finger to challenge the validity of the Treaty of Union after so many, alleged, breaches for the last 7 years? Is this why brexit was allowed to happen while Scotland was still welded to England?

        Scotland’s MPs are the ultimate custodians of Scotland’s sovereignty. Therefore, from where I am standing, seeking to use the devolution route to exit the union only makes sense when Scotland does not have a majority of pro-indy MPs representing it in Westminster. Like when Mr Salmond planned to hold a referendum with a majority in Holyrood only, but not majority in Westminster. The need to follow the devolution route in that case when there was a majority of unionist MPs representing Scotland in Westminster, cannot be disputed.

        But that has not been the case since 8th May 2015. There is something here that does not quite add up. Being denied a S30 for first time is, in my personal view, a breach of our Claim of Right, and by default the Treaty of Union, unless it is our MPs the ones who are endorsing that denial and therefore agreeing for the union to continue. Was this the case?

        Requesting a second S30 when the first was denied is, in my view, either agreeing that England Mps have in any way or form any right to deny Scotland its legitimate right to remove its consent for this union to continue, or an excuse to hide the fact that it is our pro-indy Mps themselves who are prolonging the union against our will. Which one of the two is it, then?

        Requesting an S30 for third time and accepting it to be denied for third time is, either not believing in Scotland’s sovereignty at all, or taking us for complete fools.

        So, at this point I am beginning to wonder who is really responsible for denying us our right to self-determination. Is it England MPs and the English establishment, is it those who are supposed to be on our side claiming to be pro-independence representatives in both parliaments, or is that all those groups are colluding on the decision? Who is really forcing this union to continue, despite the people of Scotland, by means of the 2016 mandate, having at all practical effects removed their consent for the union to continue until that time they cast a vote in a referendum?

        Sorry, but I have to ask this: Has the Section 30 been a massive smokescreen that has been covering up the fact that it is our own pro independence MPs, custodians of our own sovereignty and custodians of our old Scottish Parliament, who have been stopping us exercising our right to self-determination? And if the answer to that happens to be a terrifying yes, is it because they have been knowingly giving consent for this union to continue instead of putting it on hold until the people of Scotland make their decision, or it is a sign they do not actually believe a single word they preach regarding Scotland’s sovereignty and are simply fooling us to remain electable?

        Liked by 10 people

      2. Mia I am sure the answer is a terrifying YES – it is Holyrood and the SNP SG that is blocking our path, Whether it is because they are gutless, treacherous or actually believe the tripe they spout no longer matters: whatever the cause they clearly must be taken out of the process.

        Consenting to the abuse of union yesterday does not mean consenting today: the Claim of Right underpins the Treaty of Union – it is not the T&Cs of the Treaty of Union. It is our written constitution – it is the right that we retain to give or withhold our consent to anything, including this union. Only our consent is required – or withheld. We need to create the vehicle for the sovereign people to express their will. At first this will be within union, causing apoplexy for Westminster and it is good this will have gone past the UN first … once folk understand we have our own written, extant constitution the whole game changes. Right now everyone in Scotland would welcome a written constitution – and one that will hold Sturgeon to account!

        As Westminster are expressly seen ignore our expressed wishes the people will rise in anger – and it will be game over.

        Liked by 6 people

  4. A long time coming, but well worth waiting for! We must be careful, however, to interlink all the aspects of the Scottish constitution with the Treaty itself. The Claim of Right is conditional upon the Treaty and vice versa. The numerous Treaty breaching and, more crucially, its misinterpretation from day one, by the English MPs, needs to be highlighted and built into the case to be put forward. Some believe that the Treaty was not a political document; I believe otherwise – that it was both a trade agreement and a political union based on a partnership of so-called common interests, and it is precisely her that we must be very careful not to get tripped up. That is why the misinterpretation of the Treaty and the Act that translated it from international law into domestic law must be covered, too. Therein lies the source of our present-day troubles because this Treaty and this Act misinterpretations are embedded in the very foundations of the UK constitution we have today, including the bendi-flexi Scotland Act that is suborned at Westminster’s will.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Good points lorncal but the Scotland Act only binds Holyrood – not the sovereign people. We can use the fact we have a nationalist government in Holyrood to get the Convention of the Estates up and running without argument – it is far harder for Westminster to step in and dismantle this once it is up and running and recognised by the UN. Possession is nine points of the law …

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Yes, I agree, Marion. However, the Treaty and the subsequent Act go to the heart of the Union. There is no way to by-pass the Union without reference to the Treaty and Act: they underpin the UK of GB. If the Treaty is not part and parcel of the whole, we will be severely disadvantaged at the negotiations stage. We cannot, however much we might want to, ignore the Treaty as if it never existed. Two sovereign states agreed the Treaty, and, yes, it was way before universal suffrage, but it underpins the UK. The Scotland Act and Holyrood are creatures of Westminster. If Westminster is acting ultra vires according to the Treaty, then the whole shebang can be made to topple. The lawyers in the HoL who want to renegotiate it as a domestic act are very aware of the power of the Treaty and its international nature, and we should be no less aware. I am not having a go at SALVO and SSRG. They have done sterling work for a number of years, and I agree with their direction of travel. Absolutely. I am trying to point out that we were a sovereign, independent state when we agreed the Treaty and that could come back to haunt us. We must be careful that we take every minute detail into account.

        Liked by 7 people

      2. Agreed we need to be extremely careful – the stakes could not be higher. Restoring the Convention of the Estates while we are within union would be a major step forward – Westminster agreed to recognise our constitution and it is outside the remit of Holyrood to change that. That opens many doors – let it sink into the fabric of our society that we are a country with a written constitution and Holyrood must answer to that. Of course this will conflict with Westminster dictats and this is the very conflict that previous, competent UK governments who actually bothered to find out what the UK really IS made great efforts to avoid because those conflicts cannot be resolved in Westminsters favour in the light of day without destroying the union.

        Liked by 6 people

      3. Indeed, Marion, I take all your points on board. The problem remains that we were a sovereign, independent people when we agreed to the Treaty – or, at least, our representatives did, as universal suffrage did not exist then. However, the Treaty remains extant. It should have been ‘sound’ in Scots Law long since and our path might have been very much easier today. We also accepted that the English doctrines, conventions and principles of constitution should prevail. All the workings around the Treaty show that to have been the case. It might have been reluctantly and it might have been a railroading, but the law has to take that into account.

        The fact that there was no universal suffrage speaks in our favour today, but the Treaty terms (Articles) cannot be overturned without laying us open to the accusation of wishful thinking. I promise you, I am not trying to pour cold water on what has been a remarkable and praiseworthy effort, but I think the recognition of Scotland’s part in the Treaty and the subsequent Act has to be acknowledged. The breaching of the Treaty from day one, almost, proves, in both law and politics, that England acted ultra vires from day one, even if the misinterpretation was not deliberate (I rather think it was, as was the purloining of the court of last appeal from the Court of Session and placing it in the hands of the HoL very soon after the Treaty was signed for reasons that soon became evident: the civil law is where most of the powers lie).

        However, we need to show that the persistent breaching of the Treaty in England’s favour HAS been done knowingly and with deliberation, or, if not, the breaching has been extremely detrimental to Scotland for over 300 years, and the misinterpretation itself has led to our subordinate status in relation to England’s and England as the UK’s superior status within a Union that was intended, in black and white, to be a partnership. When it comes to the eventual negotiations for recompense or for the reinstatement of our sovereign territorial waters, the minerals under the sea bed, our fishing waters, our borders, etc., being sound on the Treaty/Union will be crucial, because acquiescence and retrospective ‘consent’ can be a stumbling block to proving your case.

        Again, when it comes to the negotiations, we should be prepared for every rUK spoiler and hold their negotiators to account. I simply do not trust the SNP to do that, and much can be lost in compromise or lack of nous. The convention in the Scotland Act that allows for Westminster to by-pass our parliament has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and, although some warned that it could be used against us, few listened, believing that Westminster would honour the terms of the Act in spirit as well as in law. It didn’t and the rest is history, as they say.

        Liked by 7 people

  5. This seven minutes is the most inspiring seven minutes of our independence seeking lives. The only way to go.
    Sara’s eight years of dedication and unbound passion, laid out for all Scots, and I mean all Scots, to get all Scots, to understand where Scotland needs to be There is a small booklet of encouragement we can get now for our stalls and help make people aware of this work. Now we need a well constructed film made of the Salvo launch day on the 3rd of July 2022 . I”m in and you can be too at

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Can we include the link to sign the declaration of a sovereign Scot in the booklet? I can’t find this anywhere 😦

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I commented on that very idea on the “Time to get moving ” post and also previous posts but it appears that not many people are interested in discussing it, Mike Fenwick has already stated that he had the Declaration of A Sovereign Scot on the Internet but had to remove the link due to it being messed about with , he now attends all the AUOB marches and personally signs people up who are interested , I have stated openly and repeatedly that I admire and respect Mike’s hard work over many years and his dedication to the cause but I simply do not understand his reluctance to combine his Declaration and efforts with SALVO and SSRG and maximise the opportunity of a wider audience and increased signatures
        If Mike determines that he wants to remain unattached to SALVO and SSRG it will mean once traction has been achieved on the COR it will then require SALVO or SSRG to CREATE their own DECLARATION which could delay and confuse independence supporters , AGAIN causing disunity and fracture

        Liked by 2 people

  6. The sovereign people. The rules set out by the Claim of Right – power lent, not handed over. I REALLY like the suggestion we jail our politicians for violating the Scottish constitution.
    The Convention of the Estates is our far far better alternative to the House of Lords to oversee the unicameral parliament. We need the ground force to restore this – and what a fine structure to have in place for Scotland when our independence is restored!

    The case Sara proposes is taken to the UN is solid – so much better then begging for recognition of our independence – brave, researched, brilliant!

    And using our Claim of Right shows Scotland we are a distinct country – one where democracy cannot be destroyed by the current cancer of entitled, incompetent and over -promoted politicians – the charge of the light brigade does sum them all up. They will be held to competent, fair account by the people.

    Restoring the Convention of the Estates is essential to our safe path to independence but we don’t need to be independent to do this – this is supposed to be a nationalist government so we can follow the path Sara so eloquently outlines and see if this “nationalist” government will stand in the light of day and deny the Scottish constitution that the UN recognises (won’t look good on Sturgeons job application …). We need to put this in place as soon as possible – this solid rock that will withstand the storm ahead of us as we demand our right to self determination is respected.

    As a further thought, once we get the Convention of the Estates restored we can use industry representative groups to provide the expertise we lack within union as we have no meaningful access to the ministries. Imagine if Alf had this leverage in the ferry farce!

    Liked by 6 people

  7. Thank goodness, finally!, A plan that does not require the spineless Sturgeon to deliver Independence.
    A plan that will unite Scots.(and New Scots)

    Well done! A great deal of Work has obviously gone into this – Thank you very, very much.


    Liked by 7 people

  8. Two sovereign states agreed the Treaty, and, yes, it was way before universal suffrage, but it underpins the UK.
    Eh Naw.
    They voted for union without informing a number of parliamentary representative who were deliberately not informed of the vote taking place because it was known that they would vote against.

    These individuals violated the claim of right and therefore the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Let’s not give these bastards any more sticks to beat us with. The process in 1707 was a crime against the Scottish people. Our present representatives are continuing this crime.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I’m afraid it does, Wullie. Not just my opinion, but the opinion of learned constitutional lawyers. As far as I can discover, the Scottish parliamentary representatives voted both for and against. Yes, I agree, the Claim of Right was violated, but no one really did much about it until now. Acquiescence again. There is no point in getting annoyed when patent truths are pointed out.

      It was HM Queen Anne, the last of the legitimate Stuart line, who instigated her Commissioners to draw up the Treaty, not the parliamentarians of either country, and she did so as titular head of both countries separately. That does not mean that it is was a legal fiction. It underpins the UK of GB to this day. The Treaty has to be dealt with or we will find ourselves in a mess of our own making. All aspects of our Scottish constitution must be pulled together as one entity, headed by both the Claim of Right and the Treaty and subsequent Act.

      The Union was created in international law (the Treaty) and ratified in domestic law (the Act). Repealing the Act (secondary legislation) leaves the Treaty intact and it is the primary legislation from which all else flows. Repealing the Act does not resile the Treaty. The Claim of Right was guaranteed before the Treaty was signed off, and both have been neglected and breached by our partner in the Union. Yes, I agree it was a crime against the Scottish people and I agree that the Claim of Right was violated, but the Treaty stands in international law and the Act stands in domestic law.

      You can wish them away if you want, but England as the UK won’t, and that, at the end of the day, is what really matters. The Crawford and Boyle Report (intended to grant England the UK successor state status in the EU if we voted YES in 2014, by claiming, in law, that Scotland had been subsumed by a Greater England in 1707) should have been a clear alarm bell for the future. Professors Walker and Campbell demolished it with clear, constitutional, legal and provable facts, but prepare for its resurrection. England as the UK will never let us go without a fight and we must have every detail under our belts if we are not to lose our precious resources and assets., both maritime and terrestrial, not to mention being forced to host Trident forever.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. regarding the Stuart line:
        I believe a baby s skeleton was found in the walls of Holyrood wrapped in expensive cloth with ‘I’ embroidered on it. ‘I’ would be Latin for James. It is suggested that James died as a baby and the son of a Scottish lord was substituted. The Stuart line may have ended with Mary.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. You could be right, Marion. This was a common enough phenomenon throughout the ages. I believe that Anne herself, and Mary, may have suffered multiple miscarriages, also very common. A simple DNA test would solve the mystery, as it would, in England, if the bones of the two small boys found in the Tower were DNA tested. Unfortunately, the royal family do not appear to be interested in discovering these things, and you can appreciate why. Although Anne was the end of the official Stuart line, there are relatives of the Stuarts living abroad, and the present royal family will also have Stuart DNA from Sophie, Electress of Hanover, mother of George I, and cousin (second degree) of Anne herself.

        Liked by 3 people

  9. I feel the same way about Sara & Salvo the same way I once felt about Nicola & The SNP, so I’m not letting myself get carried away, I couldn’t bear that level of disappointment again, The way I see it right now SSRG/Salvo are not only our best route to independence they’re our only route and we as a nation need to get fully behind it because our existence as a nation depends on it, I have absolutely zero faith Sturgeon will ever deliver Independence, I don’t think she’s capable and I’m not even convinced she wants it, Not for the first time in our history we’ve been betrayed by our political leaders, It’s time to take the power back and out of their greedy grasping hands and sack them and take back what belongs to us and our children. they need a reminder we do not elect them to feather their nest

    Liked by 8 people

  10. Gone but not out. That was the result of today and how long Jonson continues is an unanswered

    And the succession selection. Not by the people. Rather by something Johnson describes as by Darwinism. Of course Darwinism could be described as the survival of the fittest. Or put another way – a jungle where the big beasts survive.

    Yep, we get the message.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Should have said, Marion that a number of the nobles of Scotland would also have had some Stuart blood in their veins, but, as commoners, were not eligible to contest the throne. Bruce’s daughter married a Stewart (the High Steward of Scotland) to found the Stewart, later, Stuart, line. Most magnates at that time would have had illegitimate children. Indeed, Mary Queen of Scots’ own cousin, James Stuart, might have made an admirable king but was disqualified on grounds of illegitimacy. Probably noble women, too, gave birth to illegitimate children, and it was hushed up, or they were quietly done away with. I’ve often thought how wonderful it would be if we could go back to a certain time and actually witness the events as they happened.

    Liked by 5 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: