MIA PUTS FUEL ON THE FIRE OF THE SUPREME COURT FARCE!

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:, , ,
Photo by moein moradi on Pexels.com

MIA comments on the Ewan Kennedy article published earlier this morning.

This is a very interesting article that, in my view, hints beautifully at the conflict between the Treaty of Union and the Supreme Court and also at the conflict created by cases where ruling from the HoL appears fairer than the ruling from our own courts in Scotland, giving this breach of one of the fundamental conditions of the treaty, a veneer of pretend legitimacy.

With regards to the situation of the referendum bill, I humbly ask:
how can the position of Holyrood having sufficient power to pass that bill and call that referendum can possibly be represented fairly and convincingly when it seems the individual tasked with doing so either does not believe it herself or does not want it to happen?

If the Lady Advocate actually believed the position she is pretending to defend, the bill would have been brought and passed in Holyrood already. In other words, it appears what we have here is not a real court case, but rather an exercise in managing expectations. Or putting it more plainly, a stalling exercise. 

The treaty of Union is clear: A “Westminster Hall” court cannot overrule the highest court in Scotland. So, I ask: Is this the reason why this was sent directly to the English court, instead of to the Scottish courts, which would be the logical thing to do? 

Was the objective on such move to give free rein to this English court to trash the bill without risking another breach of the Treaty of Union at a time when far too many eyes in Scotland and beyond are already watching like hawks their every move and waiting for an excuse to declare the treaty of union void?

Love or hate Sturgeon and her SNP government, the truth is they represent the democratically elected government of Scotland. Given the majority of pro-indy seats in Holyrood, it is not difficult to guess that if they were to bring that bill to Holyrood, it would have passed. 

So why didn’t they bring the bill forward?

Let’s look back at the case of the Continuity Bill. The English court trashed it under the principle of “parliamentary sovereignty”, and only because the tory executive rushed through a bill to rewrite law and then applying it retrospectively.

But there is not such a bill just now in parliament regarding forbidding Holyrood to hold that referendum, is there? What we have is a constant denial but from the UK gov (the executive power), not parliament (the legislative power). If I am not mistaken, the Supreme court is not dictated by the executive power, but by what the legislative body has put in law.

And let’s face it, how can England MPs convincingly pass such bill in Westminster without causing a massive uproar in Scotland leading to even more demands for the immediate end of the treaty of union? It would be a pyrrhic victory.

If they felt they could, they would have already done so ages ago. I mean, is not like Sturgeon has not given them plenty of time to pass this through.

In other words, if there is not a bill/statute that has been passed by Westminster specifically removing from Holyrood the power to pass that referendum bill, the Supreme Court cannot use its favourite “one tool for all” parliamentary sovereignty to trash the referendum bill.

So what could be the best solution to this conundrum until some other statute/bill can be thought of?

Well, managing the expectations of the Scottish voters by stopping the Referendum bill even reaching Holyrood would be an option. We have the precedent of Martin Keating’s case, so one can guess what their response will be.

Now, if you are a clever politician and you are prepared to be seen as an undemocratic ruler who happily blurs the boundaries between the executive and judiciary powers by willingly opening the door to an unelected representative of the crown to your government cabinet, then you at least ensure such individual is on your side. 

There is nothing to suggest Ms Sturgeon is not a very clever lady. I am sure she is, far more than the average person. So if, and I mean if, this is the strategy that has been followed, one only can conclude she is perfectly on board with it.

A Supreme Court, constrained by a pro-union crown and parliament and who hides behind “parliamentary sovereignty” any time that something needs to be swiftly brushed under the carpet, will only rule in favour of Holyrood if the alternative is far worse. And what could possibly be worse than Holyrood passing that bill and Scotland holding that referendum?

I can think in two things:

1. Scotland bypassing all the bullshit from Westminster and its self-awarded parliamentary sovereignty, and exercising its legitimate right to unilaterally repeal the treaty of Union and Act of Union with England. It is no secret that the patience of the Scottish people is wearing off and demands to bypass Sturgeon’s “gold standard” and directly terminate the treaty are increasing. 

2. The re-emerging of the Convention of States from its own ashes to reclaim its right to issue another Claim of Right and remove the Crown of Scotland from a monarch who may have abused their position of power to exercise absolute rule over Scotland. 

Now the caveat here is what you understand as “absolute rule”. How many people in Scotland see giving royal assent to bills passed by the England as the UK parliament when an absolute majority of Scotland’s MPs opposed and when the majority of Holyrood has also explicitly opposed as absolute rule, matters here. It also matters how popular a particular monarch might be and how much the people of Scotland is prepared to forget and forgive.

Equally important is how many people see deliberately stopping a bill entering Holyrood by the direct intervention of the unelected Head of the COPFS (representing the crown) and by a bunch of England judges (also representing the crown) as an attempt to frustrate democracy by exercising abuse of power to impose absolute rule. Denying Scotland its legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the union is akin to imposing absolute rule.

SALVO is up and running and heading towards the reinstating of such convention.

One thing is clear: the ruling of that English court will not be determined by the establishment’s fear that Sturgeon will ever deliver independence through that referendum. It will be determined by the fear the establishment has that the people of Scotland might have already found an alternative route to independence that does no longer include a referendum the establishment can manipulate. 

I am a cynic and totally convinced that this crazy management of expectations we have been subjected to for the last 8 years is because there might be already an agreement behind closed doors to move the UK towards some kind of federalism with Scotland getting FFA or something like that. I am of the opinion the stalling exercise might be because they are still trying to find a way, that is acceptable to either the majority of a large minority, to present what would be a cosmic stitch up by Sturgeon’s SNP as “the will of the people”.

At what point of the game “Act of Union Bill [HL] (originated 2019-19)” or something of the sort enters the scene, remains to be seen.

MY COMMENTS

MIA sets out an argument about how we have reached the point where England’s Supreme Court can rule on Scotland’s constitutional future without it first being ruled on by Scotland’s highest court, The Court of Session. Worryingly and I think correctly she suggests it is political trickery devised by rogues to escape proper scrutiny and responsibility and to avoid a true showdown with Westminster. To put it in fewer words…cowardice!

I am, as always.

Yours for Scotland.

BEAT THE CENSORS

Unfortunately some sites, which claim to be pro INDY are not as they appear but secretly filter out any comment that is not 100% supportive of the SNP and their leader. This has got worse in recent times and most bloggers are completely banned from these pages. We rely on our readers to combat this blatant censorship and I am extremely grateful when readers share our articles and ensure others have the opportunity to discuss all topics freely and without censorship.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Another way to avoid censorship is to take out a free subscription to this site which are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. This ensures you are the first to get new articles sent to you directly by email each day. 

SALVO

One of the most exciting steps forward during 2022 has been the work of Salvo which is very much driving our cause when most of the politicians have been disappointing. They require funding. I don’t. So the donate button on this site which allows small donations of only £3 will now send all funds raised on to Salvo to help them continue and expand the great work they are doing.

LIBERATION.SCOT

If you have not already done so please sign up to Liberation.Scot. It will be from that body that people will be able to apply to become members of the first Scottish National Congress which is currently being organised and which will be launched early in 2023. The SNC will debate and organise Scotland’s case to DECOLONISE our country.

55 thoughts on “MIA PUTS FUEL ON THE FIRE OF THE SUPREME COURT FARCE!”

    1. @ Jan Cowan

      I read a blog sometime ago by Calton Jock, that showed photo’s of Sturgeon walking in London with Boris Johnson in 2015, after attending the remembrance day ceremonial in London..

      Johnson who was nowhere near being PM at the time, (but must have known he WOULD be one day) is supposed to have been asking Sturgeon “what will it take Nicola” in reference to what will YOU settle for? I have the photo’s of those two walking closely together & deep in conversation..

      The same man she pretended to NOT like or shake hands with when he visited BUTE house when he did become PM..

      I believe that 2015 was the start of the BRIBE that BOUGHT Sturgeon, & has been the reason that all her TALK of changes in circumstance, & NOT being dragged out of the EU by Englands vote. is just that…”TALK”.

      Sturgeon has been bought, & Scotland has been sold all over again..

      That same year, Alyn Smith stated in a newspaper interview. “we lost the referendum, now we have to move on, DEVOLUTION is the route we should be going, and he added..that is also the opinion of those at the very TOP of the party” not exactly the exact quote.. Although I DO have that saved as well, but can’t upload to these blogs..

      It is a cop out for Scotland to settle for either DEVOLUTION or FFA, Because England is always going to need Scotlands resources..
      FFA or federalism (as Brown liked to refer to it) should actually mean the ONLY money that leaves Scotland for England should be for defence and foreign affairs..

      BUT that would still mean Scotland dragged into Englands illegal wars, & still being stuck with Americas Nuclear Subs..

      So FFA should be ruled out, even if FFA meant we were responsible for our own resources.. Because when you think of what Sturgeon has handed over to WM already & even to the new Un-elected KC111, Scotland really has NO resources now do we? The UNELECTED Monarch own most of Scotland. And if left to this SNP government. WE really will be relying on England Keeping OUR lights on, by selling us back what is resourced here.

      Sturgeon & her cabal should be rotting in jail for what they have done to this country..

      MIA is right in that a DEAL has been made by Sturgeon, & I believe it goes all the way back to 2015..

      Liked by 19 people

    2. If Sturgeon’s end game is to capitulate to some form of “DevoMax” with NATO membership and Trident on the Clyde assured (and that most definitely is the brief from her case handlers in Foggy Bottom), what are the wages of treachery?
      Two informative examples.
      In recompense for losing out in the Labour leadership election to his (comparatively) socialist brother, David Miliband was hired as CEO of the International Rescue Committee. Starting salary in 2013 reported as £300k pa, rising to a reported £768k in 2021.
      On losing the Danish GE in 2015, Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt (wife of NuLabour / Forward, ghoul, Stephen Kinnock) became CEO of Save the Children, reported starting salary $300k. That was just the start.
      Thorning-Schmidt’s current list of Directorships is a wonder to behold. A caricature of the NeoLiberal, global elite. A checklist for believers in the illuminati. Atlantic Council, check. Council for Foreign Relations, check. Centre for Global Development, check. Global Forum, check. Etc, etc..
      Most lucrative of all will be full board membership at Facebook.
      If the pitchforks and burning torches ever do appear, a résumé like that’ll get you a prime seat on the first tumbril.

      Liked by 13 people

  2. Mia:

    “ how can the position of Holyrood having sufficient power to pass that bill and call that referendum can possibly be represented fairly and convincingly when it seems the individual tasked with doing so either does not believe it herself or does not want it to happen?”
    ————
    Possibly in the same way that any KC might defend a client while believing, personally … the client guilty”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Imagine a murder case. If a defence solicitor is defending a client who they believe a serial killer and who they do not want to see free in the streets, the most likely scenario is that this solicitor will encourage/negotiate for a reduced sentence if their client pleads guilty.

      Solicitors also have a reputation and a job to think of – I doubt a solicitor would interpret as a boost to their cache being seen as the solicitor who puts serial murderers back in the street for a living

      Same thing applies here. If that KC does not believe it should be brought to Holyrood, they don’t want the bill passed in Holyrood and worse, they work for a entity that does not want it either (the crown), the more likely scenario is that they will build a weak, watered down case on behalf of the client so as to reach a middle point deal that somewhat avoids the conflict.

      Now there is a huge difference between the murder case and the case of the referendum bill. You could argue that the defence can be fair and just in the first case, but not in the latter. This is because it has all the appearance of a deceiving political move to bypass democracy and remove, from our elected parliamentarians, even if just temporarily, the right to debate and decide if that bill should pass or not.

      Scotland has already given several democratic mandates for a referendum, the first one being in 2016.
      It is obscene from a democratic perspective that England judges have been handed now by the crown represented by this KC the power to decide which bills our democratically elected government in Scotland should bring to our parliament in Scotland. If this is not a blatant assault on Scotland’s democratic rights, what is. If anything, this is even more proof that Scotland is seen as a colony by those working for the crown.

      Liked by 18 people

      1. Mia
        7th Oct 2022 at 3:16 pm
        Imagine a murder case. If a defence solicitor is defending a client who they believe a serial killer….
        —————
        I said nothing of a serial killer. That your strawman.
        ———

        “It is obscene from a democratic perspective that England judges have been handed now by the crown represented by this KC the power to decide”
        ———
        I think you will find that the lead judges in this UKSC hearing will be Scots.

        I am genuinely bewildered by your seriousness here. The dogs in the street (including Parliament Square) know that this is the latest Sturgeon stunt to maximise the SNP vote at the next GE.

        Like

      3. “I said nothing of a serial killer. That your strawman”
        And I think deliberately misrepresenting my comment and taking it out of context is your very own strawman. It is clear as day that in my comment above I was giving you an example in a different context (a extreme one, absolutely) to demonstrate that solicitors are not necessarily impartial to their clients. They might not always pursue what the client perceives as their best possible outcome because the interests of both might be in conflict.
        Expecting that the solicitor is going to prejudice themselves for the sake of their client is expecting too much. When the interests of both are in conflict, the best case scenario will be the solicitor seeking a middle point between what the client wants and what they want. But that is just the best case scenario.
        If you read Mr Craig Murray’s blog entries “Dorothy Bain: incompetent or corrupt” (published 29 September 2022) and “Independence, Justice and the Unionist Lord Advocate” (published 30 July 2022), you will understand what I am talking about.

        “I think you will find that the lead judges in this UKSC hearing will be Scots”
        This case has absolutely NOTHING to do with England, therefore ALL the judges in this case should be Scots and the case should be heard exclusively under the context of Scots law. English law and English principles have no place here. Because of this, this case should have never been taken to an English court, it should have been heard in a Scottish court.

        “I am genuinely bewildered by your seriousness here.”
        I don’t think anybody commenting on this blog considers the way Sturgeon is frustrating independence, destroying the democratic structures of the party, surrendering our assets and rights, and viciously dividing the yes movement as a laughing matter.

        “The dogs in the street (including Parliament Square) know that this is the latest Sturgeon stunt to maximise the SNP vote at the next GE”
        Well, the dogs and cats in my street can see from a mile away that keeping Sturgeon and her version of SNP in control of the seats is the current establishment’s strategy to frustrate independence and preserve the integrity of this failed union. In fact, a few dogs and cats in my street are of the opinion Sturgeon’s SNP is in fact the much trumpeted Labour revival in Scotland albeit hiding under a different flag to avoid another stampede of votes.

        Liked by 13 people

      4. Mia
        8th Oct 2022 at 7:53 am

        “And I think deliberately misrepresenting my comment and taking it out of context is your very own strawman.”
        ———
        I’m not clear if you mean the entire comment that Iain later promoted to a full post, or the sentence which I quoted in full and in context. For the avoidance of doubt I meant the latter. I thought my point pretty uncontroversial- but you can’t keep a good contrarian down!

        I have read the Craig Murray piece that you reference. I am an admirer of Craig‘s, especially his exposure of The Alex Salmond fit -up and defence of Julian Assange. Occasionally I post comments on his blog. On this matter however he is dead wrong: Dorothy Bain is neither incompetent nor corrupt.

        She is, however, a minister in the Sturgeon cabinet as well as being Scotland ‘s top law officer – an appalling violation of the doctrine of separation of powers much deplored here and elsewhere.

        As a law officer she obviously knows, as I (and I suspect you, also) do, that Sturgeon’s stunt is a load of mince, designed to beef up the SNP vote by attracting pro Indy voters from other allegiances, including us here.

        As a cabinet minister she is bound by collective responsibility. Sturgeon’s nodding dogs, led by Swinney and census hero Robertson have, I hear, persuaded her to craft this approach rather than resign.

        So, she will make the case for the foredoomed UKSC petition in an attempt to ride both horses-Law Officer and Cabinet Minister. I am surprised CM did not make THIS argument rather going down the rabbit hole of international law. That could tie us up for ANOTHER 300 years!

        =======
        “ALL the judges in this case should be Scots and the case should be heard exclusively under the context of Scots law.”

        I’m afraid it IS the UKSC that has ultimate jurisdiction over constitutional matters. That is the fact, much as we may deplore it. The great fallacy at the heart of your argument in this (and other instances) is that neither the Scottish government’s Parliamentary nor executive arm is a sovereign entity. They are wholly owned subsidiaries of Westminster and Whitehall/Downing Street. Legally, our southern friends and neighbours could suspend or prorogue them- as has happened with NI in the past.

        Frankly, I wish they would do just that. It might then focus the wider Scottish electorate on the SNP as naked emperor, its parliamentarians as devoYOONs on the make, and allow the rest of us to build a genuine independence movement

        Like

      5. @cynicusinexile
        Sorry for butting in but I suspect Bain and Murray both know the UKSC is arguably a (republican) political construct and thus, by definition, an anathema to UK constitution.

        As such its simple existence might constitute a far more radical or concerning violation of the separation of powers than the one mentioned but either way it cannot have final say over the constitution until its own standing in the matter is agreed (ie by the King of England and the people of Scotland)

        The only way to get the latter being a vote in Holyrood or (ironically) a referendum, the court can argue its standing on basis that (Bain being a member of cabinet :)) it was the Scottish Government itself that asked the question* but any failure to deliver its verdict within the required time scale (end of this week?) would expose enough bias as to allow SG to retract its request and proceed with the bill in any event (were it so inclined).

        * .. and if it does it must surely follow its own logic to agree that the legality of any constitutional referendum held by that government is sacrosanct in strict accordance with any mandate given it to that effect by the Scottish electorate..

        Liked by 2 people

      6. —“On this matter however he is dead wrong: Dorothy Bain is neither incompetent nor corrupt”—
        I cannot say if the submission she sent is the consequence of her being incompetent or being corrupt. The only thing I can say is that her submission was crap and certainly not up to the standard you expect from a professional, knowledgeable and rather expensive Lord Advocate who should be presenting a fair case for the bill to enter Holryood but instead she didn’t. The reasons as to why she chose to embarras herself, her profession and Scotland with such pathetic submission are known to herself.

        —“She is, however, a minister in the Sturgeon cabinet as well as being Scotland ‘s top law officer – an appalling violation of the doctrine of separation of powers much deplored here and elsewhere”—
        You say she is not corrupt. Well, from my point of view, accepting such a position in Scotland’s cabinet, which as you correctly point out is a direct violation of the separation of powers, a direct assault on democracy and something that does not even happen in Westminster, puts a huge question mark on the integrity of this individual, the integrity of her title, the integrity of the whole system of government in Scotland and of course, her democratic credentials.

        —“As a law officer she obviously knows, as I (and I suspect you, also) do, that Sturgeon’s stunt is a load of mince, designed to beef up the SNP vote by attracting pro Indy voters from other allegiances, including us here”—
        I completely agree with you this stunt is a load of mince, yet the Lord Advocate willingly went along with the farce and the attempt to fool the Scottish voters. I disagree with your view however that this is to “beef up” the SNP vote. Many yes supporters are at the end of their tether and gave the SNP one last chance hinging on that referendum taking place in 2013, so not delivering this referendum, no matter what tired excuse Sturgeon tries to hide behind this time, is not going to inflate the vote, it is going to deflate it (unless of course some helping hand from the crown or Whitehall somehow finds a way to change the “official” result). I am of the opinion this move, as it has been every move Sturgeon has made since 2015, is a deception based on handing yet another fabricated veto to the UK powers that be to stall the delivery of independence.

        After using the same strategy since 2015, it is now evident Sturgeon is nothing but a monumental coward and a political lightweight who always has some of her ministers/”senior” members of the party dishing out the bad news on her behalf to avoid tarnishing her fake image of “competent leader”.

        It is obvious Sturgeon has never had any intention to deliver independence, and for 7 years she has been fabricating vetos to hand the powers that be because she does not have the spine to tell us herself she has no intention whatsoever to deliver independence. Either that or saying so will bring down the entire fake edifice, which since Mr Salmond left the party, has been built up to transform the SNP into another version of New Labour but preserving the credentials and flag of the SNP to keep yes voters on a leash. For what some people commenting here have written, it seems this coward had now Robertson “breaking” the news that the referendum might not happen next year. She does not have the guts to be the first to tell us herself.

        —“As a cabinet minister she is bound by collective responsibility.”—
        And that includes
        1. delivering a fair submission which is up to professional standards and up the scrutiny of the public, which she spectacularly failed to do
        2. to respect Scotland’s democratic and constitutional rights.
        Bypassing Scotland’s courts and handing a veto over our democratic rights to England judges and an English court is not acting on “collective responsibility”, it is acting against it. Willingly or unwillingly, in my view, she has, with that action alone, attempted to frustrate Scotland’s democratic and constitutional rights. It is not for England judges to decide what bills are brought to Scotland or if Scotland can exercise its legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the union. Handing them such veto is a blatant abuse of power.

        —“Sturgeon’s nodding dogs, led by Swinney and census hero Robertson have, I hear, persuaded her to craft this approach rather than resign”—
        If this Lord Advocate was persuaded to present a submission that is not rigorous enough and it is not up to the expected standards so as to weaken Scotland’s case, then she is nothing but another nodding dog and therefore you can no longer credibly claim she retains professional integrity or that she is neither incompetent or corrupt.

        —“So, she will make the case for the foredoomed UKSC petition in an attempt to ride both horses-Law Officer and Cabinet Minister”—
        She didn’t ride any horse with that submission. She exposed herself as either an incompetent Lord Advocate, a corrupt one or an unprofessional one. If she was prepared to embarrass herself and do the undemocratic dirty work for Nicola Sturgeon to have that bill stalled before even entering Holyrood, then she deserves all criticism she is getting.

        –“I’m afraid it IS the UKSC that has ultimate jurisdiction over constitutional matters”—
        Sorry but I disagree. If the imposition of that court actually violates one of the fundamental principles of the treaty of union, it has jurisdiction over nothing. That pretend jurisdiction is just a fudge build over foundations of air, as much of the UK constitution, designed to solve the constitutional precedent in Scotland and England by forcing England’s convention, appears to be.
        That English court can only claim it “has jurisdiction” over Scotland for as long as the representatives of Scotland continue to play by the rules of an oppressive power and continue to stab Scotland in the back as they have been doing for the last 7 years. That this English court has been imposed on us by an England political party and our own hopeless representatives continue to inflate that jurisdiction does not mean it is not a direct violation of one of the fundamental conditions of the Treaty of Union and therefore a direct violation of Scotland’s constitutional rights under the treaty.

        No matter what angle you look at it from, It is not and will never be constitutional, never mind democratic, for England judges to ever decide if, when or how Scotland exercises its legitimate right to unilaterally terminate an international treaty. That is for a Scottish court, under Scots law and ultimately an international court to decide.

        —“The great fallacy at the heart of your argument in this (and other instances) is that neither the Scottish government’s Parliamentary nor executive arm is a sovereign entity.”—
        I have never claimed the Scottish government or the Scottish parliament are sovereign entities. You have added in that yourself. I have frequently said the SGov is nothing but a branch of the executive power in WEstminster and Sturgeon placing the Lord Advocate in the middle of the cabinet helps to prove that. I have always sustained the sovereignty of Scotland lies with its people and in this union the custodians of such sovereignty are Scotland’s MPs, also the custodians of Scotland’s old parliament and who should have been watching like hawks for every violation of the fundamental conditions of the TReaty of union but which they have spectacularly failed to do. Neither the branch of the executive in Scotland nor a pretend Holyrood parliament which insists in embarrassing Scotland by constraining itself within the boundaries imposed by the Scotland Act even after it has been completely butchered by England MPs, hold any sovereignty.

        —“They are wholly owned subsidiaries of Westminster and Whitehall/Downing Street”—
        They are only “owned” and “subsidiaries” for as long as they keep failing to represent Scotland and they keep playing the rules of the game Westminster, Whitehall and the crown establish. They day they start to act as real representatives of Scotland instead of the representatives of the interests of the crown and England, they will cease to be “owned” and “subsidiaries” of the crown/Whitehall/Downing Street. But that will never happen under Sturgeon’s regime. I am sure at least we can agree on that.

        —“Legally, our southern friends and neighbours could suspend or prorogue them- as has happened with NI in the past”—
        I couldn’t disagree more. They can only claim to do that “legally” for as long as our utterly useless anti-union MPs continue to hand their English counterparts and the crown the power to sht on us and violate our democratic and constitutional rights, as they have been doing since 1707 and letting Scotland down for all this time.

        Every time any SNP MP or MSP opens their mouth to blame the tories for what the SNP itself has allowed them to do, is both, a cowardly attempt to displace from themselves the responsibility for failing to act on the interests of Scotland and for deliberately failing to uphold Scotland’s constitutional rights for the sake of continuing to preserve this union.

        Liked by 5 people

      7. Apologies for the typo. Where I wrote
        “Many yes supporters are at the end of their tether and gave the SNP one last chance hinging on that referendum taking place in 2013…”

        I meant to write
        “Many yes supporters are at the end of their tether and gave the SNP one last chance hinging on that referendum taking place in 2023…”

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Mr Kennedy is keen to portrait his former profession and Scottish colleagues in a most flattering light whilst also calling attention to examples where English courts of appeal have behaved more decently than the primary, Scottish court. Why would the Scottish court produce the original, incorrect and inequitable verdict?
    I’m sure oor very ain senior Judges are highly intelligent and appear superficially, entirely reasonable and without bias. We are all however the products of our background and upbringing and in that respect our senior Judges are very definitely not representative of the greater populace.
    Senior Judges in Scotland are almost eight times as likely to have been privately educated than to have been State educated in comparison to the general public (David Hume Institute; Elitist Scotland?, 2015).
    We can all appear personable and unprejudiced in dispassionate, general conversation. When we are called upon to form a binary decision our innate, partisan prejudices are exposed. You can share a room with a racist for some time before they reveal their true nature.
    Ask Craig Murray how fair and impartial Leeona Dorrian (St. Margaret’s school, Edinburgh) is.
    The Scottish elite caste is perhaps proportionally smaller than its southern equivalent due to our more egalitarian history.
    What it lacks in size it makes up for in elitist viciousness.
    A review of the Scottish aristocracy and ennobled Lords from the 1930’s and 40’s, reveals them as having been the worst of the worst.
    Archibald Maule-Ramsay, Scottish Unionist Party MP for Peebles & South Midlothian was interned from May 1940 to September 44. They let Oswald Mosley out before Maule-Ramsay.
    Sir Thomas Hunter, Scottish Unionist Party MP for Perth campaigned against allowing Jewish refugees from Germany.
    Walter Douglas-Scott, 8th Duke of Buccleuch, Scottish Unionist Party MP for Roxburghshire & Selkirkshire led a racist campaign against Honduran forestry workers being shipped to Scotland to assist the war effort.
    Our elitist caste are perhaps more viciously inclined towards their fellow country folk because they are more aware of the hot-breath of revolution on their necks than their southern counterparts.
    The Anglo-Irish aristocracy was particularly callous towards their own. The Duke of Wellington was reportedly especially inhuman towards his estate tenants.
    Our elitist caste are strident in their opposition to independence as they perceive independence as threatening their relative privilege. Tellingly, their material advantaged status would be unlikely to be impacted, it’s the thought of the peasants gaining political power that repulses them.
    Their position as colonial administrators secures their hereditary, unearned privilege. They’ll fight to defend this.

    Liked by 20 people

    1. Your first sentence is a wee bit unfair to me, Vivian. If you read my piece carefully you’ll see that I wasn’t positive about all the people mentioned, just four of them, and in the four modern cases the judges were all found to have got things wrong. And I’ve been around long enough to have come across some real horrors!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. A person with Bain’s known connections within the Scottish establishment and the Edinburgh haute bourgeoisie, who is also on the payroll of the British state, whilst less than enthusiastic about her brief, into-the-bargain, can represent nobody or anything other than her class and its interests. Even in terms of the SNP’s amateurish standards hitherto, this latest faux, legal production is pretty flimsy, blow-away stuff. Both amusing and disgusting, simultaneously.

    Liked by 15 people

  5. “ I am a cynic and totally convinced that this crazy management of expectations we have been subjected to for the last 8 years is because there might be already an agreement behind closed doors to move the UK towards some kind of federalism with Scotland ”

    I agree with that assessment and part of that deal is how to sell it North and South of the border without any uproar. We are being herded into a “Sturgeon Success Story” and Gordon Brown is standing in the Wings ready to make his entry.

    However as Alf stated earlier we await the ruling of People who do not live in our Country and who represent the Colonial Masters. It is Theatre and that is Sturgeons arena.

    These legal rulings we await are from the same breed who
    Divided Ireland
    Divided India
    Divided the Middle East
    All legal in the view of London at the time and all simply to poison the Well for the future advantage of London..
    We should have SNP MPs raising points of order one after another during every minute of the day grinding Westminster to a halt…but Nicola has told them to be nice House Jocks.

    The SNP will have a nice polite Conference discussing nice polite motions of carefully selected issues that the leadership will nod through on nice comfortable votes.
    It makes you wonder why so many Countries went through the turmoil of armed rising or civil disobedience campaigns to win their Freedom when all they had to do is be nice!

    The descendants of “The Empire where the Sun never set and the Blood never dried” must be terrified of a Court case!

    Liked by 20 people

    1. I recall the deplorable Johnson making some sort of remark along the lines of ‘if you want something you have to dip your hands in blood’ – and look at him getting his jollies in the Ukraine. It is still the Great Game for him and his waste of skin class.

      Liked by 10 people

  6. Mia has highlighted a fear that I have had for some time.

    Just as devolution was a tactic to prevent further strides towards full independence and the infamous “Vow” a last ditch attempt to steer the Scottish people away from what Westminster dreads most, the delaying tactics used by the FM and her cabal affords to Westminster the time and opportunity to devise another scheme that will delay, or as they hope, stop the inevitable.

    Mia has stated what is already underway but not yet well-known by the electorate. The people of Scotland are tiring of the continual delays and excuses given by Nicola Sturgeon for not taking the mandates given to the SNP and advancing rapidly towards self-determination and independence.

    It is almost unbelievable that the main obstruction to the SNP achieving its prime objective is their own leadership!

    However, people are now seeking alternatives to the SNP that will use the mandate and take back what is rightly ours!

    Liked by 16 people

  8. Another excellent article Mia, and yes, I tend to agree that some sort of plan is in the making such as Full Fiscal Autonomy, to try and further divide the indy movement, what a treacherous shit Sturgeon is.

    Also, no more indyrefs, (open to abuse) when, not if, its shown that Westminster has breached the Treaty of Union Brexit being a nail on, (It cut clear across the sovereignty of the Scottish people) the union must be dissolved immediately.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Agreed – declare the union violated and then allow a vote on the terms of a new union, when the time is right, but not now, maybe later … much later 🙂

      Liked by 10 people

  9. My belief in the Scottish judiciary’s ‘Independence’ and ‘probity’ ended the day they were handed the poisoned chalice of the Lockerbie Inquiry. You couldn’t see them for dust, scurrying like bewigged crossdressing turkeys towards a Christmas slaughter. Camp Zeist, a former US air force camp became a setting for the Scottish High Court Judiciary to be used as the arm’s length puppets to stitch up Al Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber. Primping and pimping as the colonial clowns that they are, sending a Libyan patsy to jail to cover up the real criminals. It took Kenny Macaskill to free the man, even though a pretext was required to do so.

    Then there was their supine compliance with the creation of the ‘Supreme Court’, an oxymoron in terms, of the Treaty of Union. But sling a couple of placemen ‘Jocks’ on it and it can justify calling itself a ‘UK’ institution, despite the fact that it has a minority Scottish representation, like the H.O.C. and is therefore breaching the supposed Union of equals both judicially, as does the latter in its role as the executive ruling body of this ‘kingdom’.

    Since then, vexatious prosecutions of Scottish nationalists both high and low in society have demonstrated the utter corruption and collusion between the subordinate Scottish accounting Unit in Holyrood and the judiciary. This political persecution places the Scottish legal system in a shameful purdah amongst its western European counterparts. Politically biased and malicious, the direction of travel is one of autocratic rule. Dorothey Bain exemplifies this in her public utterances, her complete lack of good faith in her submission. Yet again the truth behind Sturgeon’s faux stance of leading an Independence movement is revealed again as nothing more than a delaying tactic in her never-ending con played on the blind faith of the remaining supporters in the NuSNP. While Scotland cries out for leadership in the darkest moment of a cost-of-living crisis unheard of in living memory, she and her despicable intellectual pygmies push through legislation allowing the medical mutilation of minors and permission of crossdressing perverts to invade female spaces.

    Yet the Scottish judiciary sit back watching the failed lawyer and successful narcissist deceiver push legislation and prosecutions that have and will continue to rebound back on the Scottish people with punitive financial damages. But hey, if we get knocked back by the bogus S.C. then we can have a plebiscite election which will exclude all the 16-18 year old majority of young voters but allow all the ‘New Scots’ ( numbers yet undisclosed by the missing census figures) who have bought thousands of homes in the last 8 x years, to vote us again back into our tartan box like last time ( 73% of RUK ‘NO’).

    Liked by 16 people

    1. Lochside.

      This is where we’re heading, I already think it’s too late, I read somewhere (I should have archived it) that at least 500,000 English folk have already registered with doctors in Scotland and that was a few years back.

      If you thought the Welsh voted for Brexit, think again.

      “Despite being one of the biggest beneficiaries of EU funding, Wales voted leave by a majority of 52% to 48% in the 2016 referendum – a result that took some analysts by surprise. However, work by Danny Dorling, a professor of geography at Oxford, found that the result could in part be attributed to the influence of English voters.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research

      Liked by 12 people

  10. Yeah you have to laugh at Sturgeons postering before the SNP conference still trying to play the crowds
    that she is for independence with the help of the state broadcaster. Even the ministry of disinformation the can’t fool us anymore. Sturgeon has been an asset to our colonial masters plotting to keep us in atheir unwanted coercive Union. They British state will do anything to protect her and keep her in place. People are awkening to the level of her Betrayal.
    Dissolve the Union.

    Liked by 13 people

  11. I think the essential problem is that Sturgeon is a monarchist and as such supports hierarchical government and not the equality of people or the law. She is inculcated with the Unionist mindset that English law is superior to Scots law on the basis that might is right. Therefore, her every act (and non-act) serves to strengthen English law at the expense of Scots law, not only traducing our independent constitutional history, but taking every opportunity to weaken Scots law and encourage its Anglification through her petty vindictiveness.

    The appeal to the UKSC is quite obviously another stalling tactic but in addition to the reasons laid out by Mia, there is also the rapidly shifting demographic of uncontrolled Anglo resettlement into Scotland which Sturgeon has done nothing to prevent and indeed everything to facilitate. We also need to be aware that with Sturgeon in charge, Irish reunification is likely to occur before independence and you can be sure that Westminster has a fallback plan in place for that eventuality. Where do you think all the disgruntled Unionists and Loyalists will be resettled? It won’t be the green fields of England and will, coupled with Anglo immigration, further drastically reduce the indigenous, pro-independence vote of an already declining population. It is also of concern that the GRA, if passed, will lead to an additional influx of people into Scotland from the rest of the UK many of whom will be undesirables and whose main priority certainly won’t be independence.

    All of this is clearly observable and easily intimated from following the patterns of British imperialist/colonial policy over the centuries. I sincerely hope that Salvo have a trick or two up their sleeve to revive our ancient constitution, otherwise Sturgeon will be quite happy to preside over the death of our nation.

    Liked by 15 people

    2. “Where do you think all the disgruntled Unionists and Loyalists will be resettled?”

      In the case of Irish Reunification I doubt if money will be available for “resettlement” that is to enable the NI Unionists/Loyalists to move to the UK (Scotland)
      Many will move there of their own accord and at their own expense
      Many more will want to move and probably will over the years as friends and relatives of the first wave settle down in homes and jobs and stretch out a helping hand to the left behind
      Scotland (2nd home of the Orange Order) would suit them perfectly.
      It would suit the English too, cementing their hold on Scotland
      Unionist/Loyalist exodus to Scotland would suit Ireland, making for peaceful governance in a United Ireland, though the Irish would beg them not to leave
      It would not suit Scotland at all.
      It would foster sectarianism and put a big, big spoke in the wheels of her drive to Independence
      But . . . . needs must and who cares what Scotland thinks?
      Up to Scotland to make her voce heard . . . .

      Liked by 8 people

  12. Some folk might recall the auld pre-devolution Scottish Office and a colonial Scotland then run by Forsyth and Lang with just a handful of Tory MPs, who proceeded to appoint all their Tory friends to head up most of Scotland’s institutions, from health boards to heritage bodies and a’thing else. This practice came in for much criticism at the time from Labours ‘feeble 50’, and the then handful of SNP MPs.

    Holyrood was supposed to alter this practice but New Labour kept much the same unionist establishment elites in post, and the SNP has done precisely the same, with appointments mostly based on recommendations of senior civil servants, the latter still reporting to Whitehall. I saw the weakness of this practice first hand in the ferries fiasco, with state appointments often of people well known to each other but lacking the necessary expertise or knowledge to head up ‘institutions’ such as CMAL, CalMac, Transport Scotland and now also state-owned Fergusons.

    Postcolonial theory tells us that colonies have a ‘mediocre meritocracy’ primarily because of the rather narrow stream from which it is drawn, and includes the same culture and values as well as social class, and prevailing dominant political ideology (i.e. a ‘one-nation Britain’ of course). Successive SNP elected governments had a democratic right and duty to fundamentally change the culture of institutional Scotland away from an embedded unionist/imperial Cultural Hegemony but refused to do so. That failure helps explain why mostly everything the SG touch is a mess, the lack of progress on independence, mystification policies on everything else to make them look busy and using the ‘arms of the state’ to hound leading pro-independence campaigners.

    I’m not sure the daeless SNP elites even quite appreciate what they have done as their understanding of independence as decolonisation remains rudimentary.

    Liked by 16 people

    1. Essential for a successful Independent Scotland is getting rid of the unionist establishment elites in post and their way of “working the room”.
      Otherwise, independent or not, Scotland will always be in their thrall

      Liked by 11 people

    2. Spot on Alf.

      There needs to be a clear out of these gatekeepers after indy, also when they named Scotland’s flagship hospital (the Southern General) after the queen I was flippin beelin about it, especially since there was meant to be a vote on the new name by the public. Scotland has many historical medical figures that we could’ve named the hospital after.

      Liked by 8 people

  13. From the English Supreme Court, the apparent softening on fracking, the great wind giveaway, and the continued adoption of the growth commission, it does seem that she’s hell bent on burning the Indy house down. Is there no one in the party with a spine?

    Liked by 12 people

  14. Despite all this I feel that it’s going to be okay. We are getting to see the truth and what needs to be fixed. If each day that you feel like everything is going badly change your thoughts based upon what you feel in your heart. Come on Sturgie with a union jack etc and saying that she is proud to be British. I think that someone loves us and is helping us to see. The acceleration of energy prices and everything else. The constant telling of not allowing us another referendum. 😁

    Liked by 6 people

    1. If ever we needed evidence of just how we have been wronged it’s right there in our faces for all to see. Even Liz Truss and her statements it’s just providing everything that we need to put an end to this. Perhaps the stalling is until we get the signatures that we need. People keep saying that the independence movement is divided and destroyed but I disagree. The political parties are but not us. So you just need a wee leader or two to lead this from the folk along with willing politicians and anyone else who wants to.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Unfortunately Fae presently there is no one on the horizon that has the cojones to call out the truth and name names for the despicable rancid evil that has taken command of our country , people in Scotland are too focused on being nice and respectful especially the political middle class who clutch their pearls when the truth is put to them in layman’s terms
        You cannot talk about immigration without being labelled a racist , you cannot talk about religion without being labelled anti semitic or anti Islam or sectarian , you cannot talk about same sex marriage or same sex adoption without being labelled anti gay or anti lesbain , you cannot point out that the SG is deliberately trampling over and blatantly ignoring the views and objections of the wider electorate against the reviled GRA and HCB without being called transphobic , you cannot point out that the decision on Scotland’s independence should be restricted to indigenous Scots without being called nativist , hateful , anti English , anti civic nationalism (whatever that is ) or is it just camouflage to shut people up and allow incomers to determine Scotland’s future
        ALL these things and more have become hate speech and having opposing views is not only frowned upon but illegal where you can be prosecuted and jailed for having an opinion or a contrary thought
        We have allowed the thought police total control and they now rule our lives

        Liked by 2 people

  15. Yes, this FM is compromised… And gallus with it.

    I am constantly amazed by Mia’s insight and facility in highlighting so many details. Thank you Mia. You are performing historic service.

    And yes, we have a scenario… NS sold out to devolution/Fiscal Autonomy/Unionism soon after the referendum, and given carte blanche to treat political enemies any way she liked, so long as they were enemies of the state too.

    SNP you area charade.

    Liked by 8 people

  16. The «parcel of rogues» is now a rogue virus. Its major symptoms are division and disorientation.
    This is an old disease spread by colonizing powers. Scotland is getting what the MidEast, Africa, Iran, Mexico, Venezuela etc are experiencing with the aim of keeping the subverted subject suggestible, compliant and weak. If you are not with them, they will aim to destroy you.
    The current BritState régime is so very with «them».
    Fluella dear, do you think our friends in Rwanda could take 5.5 million Scots?, muttered the PM.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. O/t Lesley Riddock tweeted that the SNP conference has

    “Vote on land reform direct negative was 529 for 619 against. Complicated framing but G McCormick ”

    Is that the G McComrick that posts here? I’m disappointed that the resolution failed. I’m just hoping more people will see through the nuSNP now!

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Yes it is the same guy. I think he hopes the SNP will change but he has suffered another setback today. But to be fair going against the leadership and getting as close as he did is very credible and he deserves credit for his efforts.

      Liked by 7 people

    1. I read that article the other day . It indeed ” pulls no punches ” , and SHOULD serve as a warning klaxon to where Scotland is heading under the utterly ( Globalist ) compliant Nu SNP .

      But won’t . Unless Scotland wakes-up from the Sturgeon narcotic torpor : and soon .

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The state of America is a reflexion of the state of the rest of the world. Systematic failure, disguised as «progress», with consequent social and political turmoil, functional disenfranchisement of the citizen and increasing poverty, is planet wide. The ubiquitous and simplistic Americanist «heresy», old style imperialism with almost monopoly hi tech backup, is the problem.
        The solution to it is draconian root and branch extirpation and breaking the hold US plutocrats and their ancillaries have over «information.». Easier for small countries than large.
        Scotland’s future must be Scotland’s very own not a ride hitched to somewhere on someone elses transport because it happens to be offered. There truly no is such thing as free gift from these «Greeks».
        The transport provider Scotland must urgently quit is also self evident.

        Liked by 3 people

  20. O/T.

    I can’t confirm.

    Rumour going around that Angus Robertson of the SNP, said at the conference that there won’t be an indyref next year.

    If true, he’s telling us something we already know.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. It’s been reported in the Herald though obviously we know msm can twist things. I’ve not seen the original interview but well, it’s not like we don’t believe it to be the case!

      “The SNP Constitution Secretary said Indyref2 would happen “sooner or later” but not necessarily on the First Minister’s preferred date of 19 October 2023.

      “A referendum will come at some stage,” he said.

      Mr Robertson made the comments in an interview with the France24 TV channel on the eve of the SNP’s annual conference in Aberdeen.”

      https://archive.ph/PFM4E

      Liked by 4 people

      1. A refendune sand will come at some stage… stage right enough! Build your stolen land on sand angus wife of evil ms. You’ve held us back…but not for ever. Just pure evil and traitorous. Despise you all.

        Liked by 3 people

  21. We, the general population, through the generations have been complacent and allowed politicians to assume the power to determine policy without the requirement to receive our endorsement.

    Should we consider the body politic to be the chair of a board, and we, the population the board of directors? I have stated a few times here that I have no idea of the views of my MP and MSP and that is not how management properly functions.

    Broadly, few politicians have the technical ,and economic qualifications to enable them to make informed judgement. Consider – was the decision taken in 2017 to abandon gas storage facilities correct? To build two aircraft carriers? HS2? London Crossrail?

    In Scotland, to route 40% of the energy of the future offshore wind farm East of Dunbar to England correct, and in Scotland’s best interests? Do we want Trident in Scotland?

    We, “the board of directors” have no say.

    Terminology – the whips of political parties- what kind of management organisation uses whips?

    SNP skills recognition and utilisation – a surgeon removed from her health remit, and set to roam around Europe on business development. A successful lawyer removed from her remit, and left to “flutter”.

    Vexatious litigation of persons seemingly considered to be “not one of us”. -would we, the board of directors, have supported the pursuit of Mark Hirst, Alex Salmond, and Craig Murray.?Endorse the behaviour of the two policemen in Edinburgh demanding the address of a woman because she ….well what did she do to draw their attention?

    And we, the board of directors can do no more that tut tut. Doubts are expressed in this article about the motivation of FM Sturgeon, she is remote from us, we have no means to hold her to account

    We need the Convention of the Estates established asap.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. I wholeheartedly agree that the convention of the estates requires IMMEDIATE formation BUT once again we are at the behest and timelines of politicians , WHEN the convention is set up it then becomes the MOST POWERFUL group in Scotland , it holds politicians , local government , local authorities and most important of all the Scottish parliament to account , is there any wonder why there is no urgency from sturgeon or any other politician
      TBQH one of the first things I would introduce is MANDATORY voting which MAY force people to realise that they have a part to play in the success and future of their country , surely the DROSS of ALL the parties infesting the current SP is not the best we have to offer in Scotland, they IMO are professional troughers picked by a political party head that rewards sycophancy and the old pals act , can anyone honestly say that Scotland and Scots are being served by politicians who have a grasp of reality that ordinary people experience every day

      Liked by 3 people

  22. Let’s keep it simple! What happens to SNP once independence is achieved? Its no longer , gone closed down . NS has no intention of doing that she is after long term prime minister and retiring to a cushy UN position. SFA to do with independence. That was obvious when she practically ruled the roost in scotland and did nothing!
    Then she wanted scottish people NOT to vote for alba with there 2nd vote.
    Whilst she is busy marching down the street with LBQT? and wasting at least £35m on court cases with our tax payers money of which £26m went to the RANGERS FC directors as a settlement for MALICIOUS PROSECUTION and Scotland lost a QC.
    Followed by Mark Hirst, Craig Murray, Alex salmond and which I wait with baited breath BUTTERSTONE SCHOOL.
    SO ( PARDON THE LANGUAGE ) WHERE THE FK DOES INDEPENDENCE FIT IN TO THIS FKN LOT?
    I SAY A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE AND GET RID OF HER SHES A WESTMINSTER BOUGHT WOMAN.

    Liked by 3 people

  23. «There is nothing to suggest Ms Sturgeon is not a very clever lady»
    Clever in that she has managed to convince so many that what she wants is what «nationalists» and indeed the people of Scotland wants and effectively muzzled the skeptics.
    The «muzzling» that came with so called Covid-19 left an ugly, authoritarian mark on the face of the body politic.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Mia
    9th Oct 2022 at 11:05 am

    Thank you for returning with that lengthy response.

    I am something of a connoisseur of diatribes and greatly enjoy yours on YFS, even one aimed against me. I have to caution you, though, they can be the enemy of clear-headedness.

    Your attempted “not corrupt” rebuttal is a case in point. Taken to its logical conclusion it effectively argues for not having a Lord Advocate at all.

    No proven sea-green incorruptible (not even Duncan Hamilton KC?) should accept the offer unless there was separation of powers. That would require both an act of the Scottish Parliament and amendment to Westminster’s Scotland Act following a petition by the SG.

    “I completely agree with you this stunt is a load of mince”

    Thank you. But you then proceed to refute a purported objective by claiming the opposite would happen in practice. You may be right. I hope so.

    But, again, you miss the point.I claimed only that the Sturgeon stunt AIMED at inflation- not that it would succeed.

    You really need to read more closely what others write. To attack what you think or, worse, hope they wrote is at best moving the goalposts.

    I will leave it there for the moment. Otherwise this post will rival War and Peace or Les Misèrables in size. I realise there are points you still may want answered. If so, please come back. But, before you do I respectfully suggest you Google “strawman.”

    You need to.

    Like

Comments are closed.