The UK government is reeling. It is like a boxer already knocked unconscious before hitting the floor. The wheels of the civil service continue to turn, but there is no longer any connecton to those at the top. Authority has simply disintegrated in Boris Johnson’s hands. Everybody knows he is no longer in charge, and nobody yet knows who will be.
The time to act is when your opponent is at their weakest. This is the moment for Scotland. With a majority for Independence both in the Holyrood Parliament and – massively – among Scottish MPs at Westminster, this is the time for Scotland’s elected representatives to declare that Scotland is now an Independent state. They should set a date for a confirmatory plebiscite, I suggest in September this year. That plebiscite to be held within a Scotland already independent, held on Scotland’s terms and in Scotland’s way, with no interference from outside of Scotland.
The declaration of Independence could be made now by the Holyrood parliament or – perhaps better – by a National Assembly to be convened in the old Parliament Hall of Edinburgh, consisting of all Scotland’s MP’s and MSP’s, in other words all representatives elected at the national level. The Act of Union would thus be repealed in the building where it was passed.
Scotland should declare Independence because it is continually governed by parties for which it does not vote, has indeed been forced out of the EU against its will, and has witnessed the polity of the United Kingdom become a cesspit of lies and corrupt malpractice which Scotland should never have to suffer.
How would the UK be able to react? Who could lead the campaign against Scotland’s new Independence? The utterly discredited Boris Johnson? Rishi Sunak as his tax increases and coming sky high energy bills destroy his artificial popularity? The hopeless Liz Truss? Michelle Mone if not in prison?
The massed supporters of Anas Sarwar and Douglas Ross would hardly fill a bus. A few toothless wonders might be found to wear union jacks and smash up George Square in Glasgow, but their activity would not extend much beyond closing time.
The SNP let the golden opportunity of Brexit slip by through a cowardly acceptance of Theresa May’s claim to a power to veto any referendum. The SNP never used their Westminster parliamentary leverage to forward Independence during months of May’s effective minority government.
The SNP believed that, rather than win an Independent Scotland still in the EU, it was their duty to try to prevent England and Wales from leaving the EU, even though England and Wales had voted to leave.
Now apparently the SNP believe it is their duty to strengthen the United Kingdom by working towards the replacement of Boris Johnson by a more honest and effective leader of the union. Who will enjoy a honeymoon period, may get a post-Covid popularity boost, and will probably be less toxic to the people of Scotland than Boris Johnson. Rather than act now on Independence, the SNP seek to strengthen the union.
In short, the SNP seem far more intent on maintaining their position on the gravy train of governance inside the UK than on actually attaining Independence.
It is simply astonishing that, with the United Kingdom government falling apart before their eyes, it has not occurred to any of the SNP leadership to act now for Independence. Instead they wish to act to shore up the United Kingdom.
Now is the moment for the Scottish MPs to walk out of a Westminster parliament which is already on the verge of collapse. It should be simply unconscionable for any genuine Independence supporter to do otherwise.
———————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Come off it, Craig. The SNP declare independence? We both know the party has no interest in that since they became the establishment in Scotland. Once that happened, the wokerati flooded in and the only things they are about are unisex toilets and laws requiring people to snitch on each other at the family dinner table.
Scots pretend no one dislikes the English more than them, yet reality is they are the only people on this planet happy to be ruled over by the English. They fake rebellion by repeatedly electing some Langley technocrat, who they angrily insist is bound by Clause 16, Subsection 5 of some English bullsh*t. This is why there is no great movement of solidarity across the world demanding Scottish independence.
ronan1882
” they are the only people on this planet happy to be ruled by them”
Political Islam is absolutely overjoyed to be ruled by the fairy mythology of Jesus flying round fixing things like superman or Beowulf if underwater. Exceptionalism is delicious , especially for those who have a rather strict rule book against committing major sins. We are proxies for Anglistan, and we fight under Queen’s rules of engagement.
People will always flock to a belief system which cancels all normal rules of human existence, and specially one where the leader is a cad. Rah rah Bullingdon boy, we love you, no more rules , rules ok? Who is this turbulent priest who wants the world to be run by international Law, Putain goody two shoes? And who is this so-called former British ambassador who got cold feet about boiling people alive in Uzbekistan,?
We don’t want any of that crap. Vote caviar vote Sturgeon.
Party political broadcast for Murrell Taliban Corp the re-launch logo of the SNP.
The BBC today found an overflow pipe pouring sewage into the Thames. Everybody envies Tory Britain where petty red tape has been slashed , newly purchased flats with inflammable insulation under 15 metres have to.pay for the repairs themselves , and all all promises, clauses ,agreements, treaties, social contracts and even reasonable expectations , have been completely banned.
How would the UK react? With the SNP having resigned as the devolved government by declaring themselves the government of a new independent state, I would expect the UK to centrally fund Scottish services – health, education, police, councils etc.
Without any means to generate income, and nothing to do, this new SNP government would be just a paper exercise. The SNP would be acting against the law and the democratic result of the independence referendum. Fewer than half of Scottish people want independence – I think it’s a safe assumption that fewer still would want it on UDI terms. UDI that means no EU membership (see Spain’s comments about not vetoing Scottish membership providing independence is achieved with the agreement of Westminster), and no UN membership (as the UK has a veto). No means of generating income – tax is collected by HMRC and nobody would lend them it. No means of enforcing this new state. Maybe it would get recognition from Russia, which I’m sure would be more than satisfactory for you, but not enough.
It would be a comical farce that would result in the ringleaders being
Meta removes Iran-based fake accounts targeting Instagram users in Scotland – by Elizabeth Culliford (Reuters, 20 Jan 2022)
– at the very least I’d expect them to be unable to stand for future elections in the UK – and new elections called to select MSPs who are focussed on their job.
“How would the UK react.” — Like bully boy fascists is what you are saying.
“As the UK has a veto.” — The UK would no longer exist.
” Fewer than half of Scottish people want independence -…” — try and get your facts correct. More than 50% of Scottish people voted for independence in 2014. Polls for independence were showing > 50% for well over a year recently – 19 polls in succession with a high on more than one of them at 58%. The most recent poll shows a 50/50 split.
I am pretty sure it was against Westminster laws when a lot of ex-colonies of the British Empire gained their independence. I am sure it was against German laws when D-day happened.
Only House Jocks and colonial English accept British laws are valid in restricting a country’s right to freedom.
“More than 50% of Scottish people voted for independence in 2014.”
That’s not true. Less than 38% of the electorate voted Yes.
Ebeneezer it seems you can say that to me me but my comments to you are deleted.
More than 50% of the Scottish people WHO VOTED in 2014 voted for Scottish independence. There you are clarified it for you. Although I suspect you knew fine well that is what I meant.
“Less than 38% of the electorate voted yes.” — So we are back to the old Britnat gerrymandering approach of the 1979 Referendum when someone not voting/indeed the dead not voting counts against you. That is Britnat democracy.
Ebeneezer you are deliberately being obtuse.
1. To include people who did not vote is irrelevant but normal for people who want to ……
2. It is a fact that plenty of people who voted no in 2014 in the referendum were not Scottish e.g. English, Irish, Welsh, EU citizens.
3. The majority of Scots who voted – voted yes. Not fantasy but you being in denial. Even a newspaper (Daily Mail), which is probably a favourite of yours, declared that it was the English that won the referendum for us.
“someone not voting … counts against you” and so it should.
In particular, not being counted undermines any residual democracy, especially in FPTP elections. Voting NONE is a positive protest, to say: ‘I believe in democracy, but I do not support any of the candidates. I want better politics in the UK’.
Register to vote. Write NONE across the ballot paper, so your intention is clear beyond dispute. If NONE wins it would force better options on ballot re-run.
https://www.votenone.org.uk/index.html
Natasha we are talking about referendums not elections.
If you can’t get the vote out, you deserve to lose. You need to find abstainers and make it worth their whiles.
“That’s not true. Less than 38% of the electorate voted Yes.”
Wrong.
Counter-factual assertions, or delusions, are not healthy
Look at reality instead of fantasy:
1,617,989 people voted Yes.
The electorate was 4,283,392.
Do the arithmetic. 1,617,989/4,283,392=0.37773*100=37.77%.
That’s less than 38%, just as I said.
Somebody here expressed a mistaken belief that “More than 50% of Scottish people voted for independence in 2014.”
Less than 38% of qualified Scottish people who voted yes. Ergo, it cannot possibly be true that more than 50% of Scottish people voted for independence in 2014.
The turnout of actual votes counted was 3,619,915.
Once again, do the arithmetic.
1,617,989/3,619,915=0.4469*100=44.69%, which is less than 50%, not more than 50%.
Self-delusion is most unhealthy. Acceptance of Reality is so much more healthy.
R o S
In a referendum , yes or no, in or out the voters who didn’t vote are irrelevant. 44.6 % of participating voters voted Yes.
Ignoring principles, and ignoring vote rigging and assuming that people make choices based solely on self-interest, one could say that the majority of Scots calculated that the ancient colonial power which had been accumulating profits from colonialism for over 500 years, was more likely to be solvent than an independent Scotland.
But what Craig and Alex Salmond have continually stressed is the power of principles and the prosperity that would flow from detaching Scotland from England’s colonialism, as England ought to have done after the lessons of two World wars. The path of criminality is highly likely to be interrupted by long , unproductive spells in jail, during which you lose your ill-gotten gains, as Britain did in two world wars.
Recidivist, backward looking Tory neo-colonialism is today, now , this second, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. USUKIS has clearly stated its intention to continue to colonise the world as far as the Pacific Ocean.
The moral choice for those who believe in any kind of karma or moral retribution is to detach Scotland from England’s criminal path. For people who take oral responsibility for their own decisions the obvious choice is to leave the criminal UK whatever the financial cost.
Those who don’t take moral responsibility will of course get sucked into the vortex of populism, nationalism and colonial theft.
Then wonder like Germany how they got there.
An independent Scotland could ally itself with Russia and China and eave the corrupt EU to fight its USUKIS NATO dirty wars.
Ebeneezer Scroggie.
This gives you a breakdown of local government are results.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/results/2014si
“Somebody here expressed a mistaken belief that “More than 50% of Scottish people voted for independence in 2014.”
— Ebeneezer Scroggie
I pretty sure Scots did vote for independence in the 2014 indyref, but the EU voters and incomers from South of the border helped win it for No ironically the EU voters in 2014 voted no to remain in the EU. They would be shafted two years later by Westminster.
“UK would no longer exist.” – the UK without scotland would still be the UK. Nobody serious would suggest it wasnt the continuing state. Though if it werent, that would have interesting implications for how the UK’s national debt was shared amongst the two successor states.
“More than 50% of Scottish people voted for independence in 2014.” Your blood and soil is showing.
“The UK without Scotland would still be the UK”
Silly silly of course it wouldn’t. Tell me Phil would the UK without England still be the UK? Careful with your answer your blood and soil may be showing.
“Like bully boy fascists is what you are saying.”
What I’ve described is a very measured response to a separatist insurgency. I suspect many countries would be far harsher. See: Spain.
‘Fascist’ these days seems to be the go-to word for describing anybody who you don’t like.
SNP is NationalSocialist, or what in German language is called Nationalsozialismus.
Sure, the German version was both nazi and fascist, but the two terms are not synonymous or interchangeable. For example, the US is undoubtedly fascist but it’s not at all socialist.
When Wee Nippysweetie’s fledgling career as a junior solicitor collapsed she got into a new line of business in the Yoof Wing of the nationalsozialismus and she’s never looked back. There is a long history of nationalsozialismus connections between fascist Germany and the SNP’s Yoof Wing. Likewise, there’s a history of a leader of the Yoof Wing rising to the very top of der partei, so Wee Nippy isn’t exactly breaking new ground.
https://postimg.cc/SXTZQcxN
What you describe would be almost certainly (part of) the UK’s response to such a declaration, Phil Nicholas.
Perhaps more significant than Craig’s question is “how would the international community respond?” You mention the reaction of Spain, Russia and the UN in this connexion. I suggest that Craig is well aware of these likely outcomes and is not entirely serious, at least I hope so.
Another question Craig didn’t ask is “how would the majority of Scottish people respond if they read this article?” I’m not sure what the mischief is in writing it, if any, but I think I know the answer to that question, too.
Or did he? Certainly, Craig knows the majority won’t be reading it, which may be a good thing for Scottish independence, paradoxically. I’m struggling to ascertain his purpose in writing it, though.
Richard Kopf
Craig’s purpose in this would surely include the fact that Lady Dorrian used her perch as a senior Scottish Lawyer allied to the SNP to denigrate Craig as a journalist and analyst, to denigrate his character his politics, his career, his personality and integrity and send him to prison.
As a child he was taught by his mum to accept all life’s little challenges, and he has borne patiently with all of what has been thrown at him by Lady Dorrian. But they can’t oppress the soul. Lady Dorrian and the bigwigs of the Scottish establishment fell like a herd of elephants into the trap, behaving exactly in the corrupt and uncivilised way Craig has always told us they would behave.
The moral high ground will always be targeted for persecution. But by writing this piece he at least demonstrates to these pimping pomposities the clear two fingers up that the message about Scottish independence remains.
The scandals of this Tory government have been severely limited by covid, but there has been enough gross negligence seeping through in the msm to have shown anyone who has given them the benefit of the doubt in the past where the Tories are headed now. The bungs to the rich, the penalising of the nurses, the resignation of the Brexit negotiator, the tiddly compensation demand from the construction industry billionaires to correct decades of Tory turning a blind eye.
And Craig is right, the Tories and unionists in the SNP have been fully exposed in the last two years for the nasty lying site they are. Life has changed.
And it’s time for Scots to show them the door, especially since Mrs May’s missing money tree has now been found in Kew Gardens and can easily now be propagated in Scotland and cloned.
A much more effective “two fingers up that the message about Scottish independence remains” (Giyane) was evident in Craig’s Nicola Sturgeon’s Motivation a month ago. Not that his message was ever in any doubt; Craig’s uncowed emergence from HMP had already demonstrated strong defiance and a resolve to continue the “good fight” augmented not diminished.
As andic and others have already pointed out in this thread, that message is if anything undermined by this article. Plainly, as Craig might put it, he isn’t being entirely serious about UDI, although I know he has suggested it many times before.
Were she to read it, I expect Lady Dorrian would be wholly untroubled, if mildly entertained, at the warm glow that prison may have detrimentally affected the balance of Craig’s mind. I’m being a bit facetious with that last bit – it must be infectious, Giyane! – but I’m quite sure Lady D was not the target audience.
Other than to highlight the pitfalls of excessive alliteration, I also can’t see where “Mrs May’s missing [sic – it was magic] money tree” is relevant to my query. Since you mention it, and as Mr Shigemitsu will doubtless be happy to point out (and Kew Gardens too, to over-extend the metaphor), such trees need to be fully mature before bearing their gilt-laden fruits. That takes a very long time.
Sorry, Giyane, and thanks for your suggestions, but my curiosity about Craig’s motivations for writing the piece remains. Over to Craig?
Richard Kopf
Sorry about my scrofulous, infectious facetiousness. Yes indeed the magic money tree must be fully mature. It works like this. Before Mr Shemgistu’s explanation of magic money making there has to be copious applications of manure.
The manure is made by finger in the mouth total insouciant sincerity, threatening your earmarked bankroller which is Saudi Arabia by having a quiet word in the ear of Iran that it might be in their best interests to attack KSA’s neighbour , Yemen. We will help you every step of the way. The you go to KSA via your other mate Israel and offer protection and military assistance against this existential threat from Iran.
Hard cash starts to flow. Other dirty tricks involving other malignant allies, Turkey, Bahrain, Dubai follow. Your fiendish financial system requires only a sprinkling of real value money to produce vast quantities of interest leveraged fake money through, God forbid banking interest, which you as a Christian country are allowed to do.
In addition to this, more hard cash flows from bombing and proxy jihadist colonisation of Somali oil, Sudan oil, Iraqi oil, Brunei oil, Libya, Syria , Kazakhstan.
Yes, I know , oil is rotted dinosaur forests , and you must leave your colonial crap to rot for a few decades so that people have forgotten why this magic money tree manure which was given by God to the Muslim countries and Scotland, is suddenly found to belong to you.
No wonder the infenctiously facetious Cheshire cat has a broad , rather pained ,
grin on its face. This colonial process was already ancient in Victorian times when the Cheshire cat grin of smug colonial facetiousness was first defined.
You don’t want to believe anything from Reuters.
Reuters is funded by the CIA offshoot the National Endowment for Democracy; prior to this the British secretly funded it.
With regards to those U.K. people who say everyone in the UK should get a vote on whether Scotland or indeed any of England, Wales or N. Ireland should be able to leave. Did all the 27 EU members get a vote on whether the UK could leave? NO.
A colonial mindset is what is behind the comments that say people in England can vote to hold on to Scotland. Colonialism walks hand in hand with fascism. Scotland is not England’s possession even if many in Westminster may express such views.
The EU isn’t a state, it’s an organisation of sovereign states that has an agreed exit mechanism. The other EU members agreed to the EU referendum when they ratified the Lisbon treaty.
The UK has an exit mechanism for Scotland or England. It’s repealing the Treaty of Union 1707.
The EU has an agreed process for leaving the EU that can be triggered unilaterally. The UK – like any other state – does not.
Phil,
The Treaty of a Union 1707 is an international Treaty. Any International Treaty can be abolished by a party to it. Indeed this is what the Brexiteers said on many occasions during Brexit debates.
Indeed the 2014 referendum was an agreed process to terminate the treaty of 1707.
So Phil looks like your are declaring yourself to be a Britnat and not a Unionist. Sadly for you the Smith Commission signed by the British parties and the SNP after the referendum declared that there is no impediment to Scotland being independent in the future. The UK is not a unitary state now and never has been. Wishing it to be so does not make it so. Hey even Johnston refers to the 4 nations of the UK.
The treaty of union dates from 1706, and is not an international treaty. It’s also not what created the UK, and neither party that agreed to it currently exists.
Independence for Scotland wont be achieved with wild eyed fantasies about UDI, but nor will it be achieved with legal and historical ignorance.
Phil, does “international” not mean “between nations?
“Separatist insurgency”
your blood and soil British Nationalism is showing Phil.
Phil
I am aware that the Treaty dates from 1706 but it was ratified in 1707 but what is the relevance for you raising this? Do you think it gives more gravitas to your nonsense? It doesn’t.
There will be a lot of English people who will disagree with you that England does not exist.
Was the UK created by Harry Potter then, by waving his magic wand?
Casuistry, The EU is not a state and if it was the principle of subsidiarity would apply. Instead of traducing the UK electorate, make the case, which Salmond didn’t do in the Ref campaign. Sort out the currency question, nuclear question and EU question so that unionists can’t make you look likenincompoops and sore losers.
You’re right, Cubby, that there’s no reason for the UK as a whole to get a vote on Scottish independence. A people has a right to self-determination. Only the Scots should get a vote on Scottish independence.
But, as an Englishman, I’m pretty sure that if the UK as a whole did get a vote, most of us would either abstain, or vote in favour of Scottish independence. We used to be well-disposed towards the Scots. But in the last 30 years or so, I (and probably most of us) have become increasingly irritated by the BS emerging from certain Scottish quarters to the effect that the Scots are “oppressed” by the horrible English. If that’s how you feel, then please leave the Union. At least you’ll have no more excuse to whinge about the English.
Robert
So I take it you don’t think England oppressed the Irish either or the Welsh or many peoples across the world. Well they do say the conquerors write their own history.
The sun never set on the British Empire or the blood never dried in the British Empire.
More than happy to leave the Union pity others controlled by Westminster fill Scotland full of propaganda via control of the media.
Scotland needs independence from the corrupt, secretive, sleazy, elitist Tories at Westminster. However the problem Scotland faces is that an Independent Scotland under Sturgeon and her hopeless acolytes in the SNP would be no better.
I agree that the time should be now, especially with Westminster in disarray, but regrettably have no faith in the SNP.
We are between a rock and a hard place.
So what you’re saying, Simon, is that independence is no guarantee of good government. Indeed. There’s no natural ban on banana republics. Perhaps you’d be trading a nearly totally unaccountable Westminster parliament, for a somewhat less unaccountable Scottish one. That’s always the danger and one of the fears I have myself. Independence is no panacea to protect democracy. That’s a huge failure of Scotland at the moment, not discussing in detail its future constitution or governance. The Scots are just not serious enough about all this. which makes me doubt Scotland will ever be independent. The most likely way it would become so is the complete meltdown of our neoliberal globalised economies, and / or some serious threats to the people of Scotland from some outside agency or breakdown in international relations.
However, the SNP ascendency you’re seeing / suffering in Scotland would not exist in an independent Scotland, indeed the SNP might find itself irrelevant and fade away, or retain a presence as a minor nationalist party. There would be a big party of the right, the (Scottish) Conservative (and non unionist!!) party, and a big party of the left, Labour, More minor parties would be the Greens and some form of middle of the road Social Democratic / Liberal party. Under a good PR system, you’d probably have one or two other relevant parties, maybe anti-nuclear / disarmament, or land reform party or a more right wing party than the Conservatives. In NZ under our MMP system, not that dissimilar to your AMS, we have two main parties – National (= Tory), Labour (= Labour) after these two are the Green (=Green) ACT (no equivalent in the UK but a pro-business, neoliberal, anti-“nanny state” and somewhat libertarian party) and for a while we had NZ First, a sort of mildly nationalistic party mostly steered by its charismatic and ageing leader, now probably permanently absent. . The Greens in NZ would be the nearest thing to a more socialistic radical party on the left. So that’s the sort of mixture you’d expect. NZ doesn’t have a written constitution though MMP has helped democracy immeasurably up to now. NZ is a socially progressive nation in many ways, but in the last forty years has got itself into difficult social and economic issues from its capitulation to neoliberalism, monetarism and globalisation.
So perhaps I’m arguing against myself in this matter, as I’ve suggested elsewhere that Scotland should be exploring its new constitution now. I am conflicted about all this. Perhaps a Scottish constitution could straddle the divide between written and by precedent by providing the rules and principles and the ethics, on how governments will work, but leaving the detail to continue through Parliament than through some legal process. I don’t know, I’m not clever enough to work this all out, but there’s the beauty of independence, there are 5 million Scots, and among that lot there must be quite a few people who can construct a worthwhile governance for the new nation. The Scottish Enlightenment took place with a population of about 1.25 million.
John-If Scotland ever achieve Independence and I hope we do, I think it is a bit naïve to think that Sturgeon and her incompetents will simply walk away saying ‘Job Done’. If one thing is crystal clear it is that Sturgeon loves the power and control and will look to bolster it even further. Any challenge and dissent will be squashed before it starts. The judiciary, civil service, media and police already look under her thumb with further legislation due.
The Westminster SNP MP’s are the only ones likely to offer any resistance when their gravy train ceases. However looking at the incumbents there, the majority fill me with horror. Do you really want the likes of Blackford or Black anywhere near power in Scotland?
We appear to have a vacuum in Scottish political talent which is deeply worrying.
There is a core support of SNP supporters who seem to worship Sturgeon who can do nothing wrong in their eyes. Ferries, hospitals, airport, malicious court cases, selling of our assets etc etc does not even register with them.
To my mind, Sturgeon has to go before progress can be made. Not easy when she has surrounded herself with weak yes men and women.
Alex Salmond seemingly has the means to start the ball rolling in her removal. If he really has, he has to disclose what he knows and get the media involved so it is out there in the open. Alba is going nowhere at present and is starved of any coverage. Maybe he is waiting for the forthcoming ‘court cases to ‘tell all’ but he is not getting any younger and Alba is fading fast.
Depressing times!
John Monro
Not sure who you think is claiming independence is a guarantee of good governance. Not sure why anyone would claim that. The point is independence would allow Scotland to get the government it wants and not the government England wants. It would also give Scotland the ability to remove said government if it was not happy with it. Scotland would also have control of its own revenues and resources.
Brilliant idea …. you’d save Boris’s bacon !
As an Englishman, I support Scottish independence because:
Robert, unlike Ebeneezer you are only spouting untruths in 2. above.
Electricity flows from Scotland to keep the lights on in England. Oil and gas revenues flow from Scotland to England and then on to to tax havens. You know the oil fields that English politicians kept saying since the 70s would run out in 5 years time .
In a future independent Scotland England will not be allowed to just help themselves to the water in our lochs to quench their thirsts and water their crops. They will have to ask permission.
It would make no difference if Scotland had double the MPs in Westminster. England will ALWAYS outvote Scotland.
So Robert just why do you think your politicians desperately want to hold on to Scotland?
Scotland’s last nuclear power station closed earlier this year. Scotland no longer produces enough to power itself let alone export to England. North Sea gas is landed in England, at Easington and Bacton, so forget about that. Total North Sea oil and gas revenue in 2020 was a measly £650 million; an improvement on a few years ago when it was actually negative, but not much of a contribution to Scotland’s £41 billion budget
Anyone who thinks oil is still going to make Scotland rich is deluded. If you haven’t notice the world is trying to ‘de-carbonise’ so soon nobody will want your expensive oil.
Pears Morgan
You are wrong electricity flows from Scotland to England. Scotland is resource rich but Scots Pay exhorbitant prices because we are in the UK. This is the real union dividend. People like Sturgeon and Osborne sell off our assets to private industry for peanuts. Norway has an National oil fund worth over £1 trillion. Scotland has zilch. Our resources stolen. The revenues you quote are what Westminster has achieved. Tax breaks for the big corporations. It’s colonialism and neo liberalism = rip off Scotland. Westminster history is ripping off other countries resources around the world. You may be aware of it. It was called the British Empire.
“North Sea gas is landed in England.” Exactly – thanks for agreeing with me. Gas that belongs to Scotland going direct to England. The expansion of wind farms along Scotlands coast is not needed to provide electricity for Scotland. I have seen the cable being laid on the sea floor in the North Sea off the coast of Angus and Fife in recent times. This again will take power direct to England.
You finish with the classic dismissal of the oil in Scotland. The oil that Westminster has been desperate to hold on to all these years. “It’s expensive” – it used to be worthless. It used to be the wrong type of oil. It used to be running out with only 5 years left – that was the Britnat mantra in the 70s. Oil is used in the production of many many products. Only silly people would claim that there is no market for oil or renewable energy which Scotland has in abundance.
Britnat colonial robbers.
Really? How much electricity?
Check on a map and you’ll see that the gas fields are well south of what would be Scottish territorial waters which is why the gas is brought ashore in Yorkshire and Norfolk; unless you think Scotland has a claim to all of the North Sea as far south as the channel.
It’s no good bleating on about Norway’s oil fund, as far as the UK or Scotland is concerned that ship has sailed, yes it was a missed opportunity but the glory days are over and not coming back. Production in the North Sea will close not when the last drop of oil has been squeezed from the ground but when it ceases to be economic. That might not take even 5 years. The principle use for oil is transport followed by heating, 4-6% is used to make plastics (something else we’re told we need to cut down on or eliminate altogether) with about the same quantity used in industrial lubricants. A small quantity is used in the production of pharmaceuticals and other chemicals but that’s it. Not really enough to sustain the industry at it’s current levels is it? Twelve thousand jobs have already gone and they won’t be coming back. Many are or were support roles based in England.
Pears Morgan
If some one mugs you and steals your wallet and you go to the police would you be happy if the policeman at the desk says that’s gone now stop bleating about it. I find your comments offensive.
Blair illegally moved the North Sea border between England and Scotland. That is the type of disgraceful action that Westminster carried out to try and be able to say part of the resources are English.
Pears Morgain
“That ship has sailed” wrong – at least 50 years worth of oil remaining.
Sophistry this time, several post-war OK governments have been formed dependent on the support of MPs from Scotland. To be indifferent to over-representation is to be indifferent to democracy.
Robert.
I think you’ll find that its Scotland that bolsters England’s economy, why on earth do you think Westminster will apply every dirty little trick in the book to keep Scotland within this rancid union.
Robert.
Here’s how Westminster steals from Scotland, and has been doing so for a long time.
https://www.businessforscotland.com/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/
ROS
The Britnats/unionists ain’t got anything to say on your post. Funny that.
There are several reasons why a Rhodesia-style UDI is not going to happen. Reasons, that is, besides how badly UDI worked out for Rhodesia in both the short-term and in the long-term.
The first is that 54% of votes cast in the last Pygmy Parliament election were cast for pro-union parties.
The second is that all sides were agreed that the referendum was a “once in a lifetime” thing, albeit somewhat confused with “once in a generation”.
The third is that Wee Nippysweetie knows how screwed we’d have been by now if we’d cast ourselves adrift. All that lovely jubbly, ten billion last year alone and plenty more to come, would have dried up.
The fourth is that when the Estates of Scotland voted for the second phase of the Union they did so in exchange for £400,000 to be shared among themselves to compensate for their greed, stupidity and fecklessness when they inflated the Darien company’s bubble. The Royal Bank of Scotland was set up to disburse the loot. Undoing that deal would be quite impractical if not impossible.
There are other reasons, such as the lack of a central bank and the lack of a currency. A country which lacks any control over its currency isn’t really “independent”. I think it was the Rothschild patriarch who said “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws”.
Yet for all their troubles the number of Zimbabweans who wish they were still being ruled by London is the same as the number of countries who wish that.
… zero.
ES –
‘Once in a generation’ is a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. Just as ‘a golden opportunity’ – is not literally golden, nor is ‘ a one in a million shot’ intended as a definitive accurate estimation of the odds involved in something.
The unionists have made this throwaway remark into something akin to a sworn written guarantee, when it was never intended as such. It was a rallying cry in the campaign by a man who is no longer the leader of that party.
Both Salmond and Sturgeon were unequivocal in stating that it was to be a “once in a lifetime” or “once in a generation” event.
It was never a throwaway remark. It was most emphatic and was endlessly repeated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iIMbt-B558
The Scottish Government published a formal 650 page propaganda piece called Scotland’s Future. It’s there in black and white on pages 3 and 10.
It says, and I quote verbatim:
“A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.”
And:
“It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”
These are not throwaway remarks. They are a formal statement of policy.
Sure, we could debate just how many years constitutes “a lifetime” or “a generation”, but what is unequivocal is the number of referendums we will have in those stated time periods. One.
23 years elapsed between the two devolution referenda. 41 years elapsed between the EEC referendum and the EU one. 32 years would a be a reasonable compromise between those two periods. We are nowhere near there yet.
In all likelihood the SNP sincerely believed it was a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity… at that time.
They probably held the same view as all the political pundits; they believed the SNP would never get another pro-inde Holyrood majority under the AMV system, allowing them to proceed. You can perfectly understand that thinking in 2014, for they couldn’t have anticipated Labour’s dramatic decline in Scotland, esp. in the 2015 GE. Who would’ve predicted the SNP would take 56 out of 59 Scottish Westminster seats?
Arguing over the importance of that nearly decade-old statement now, just makes the unionists look desperate. In the final analysis, the Scottish people are the ultimate arbiters of their own future, they’ll decide through their votes whether or not it’s too soon for another vote. And public polling has shown Scots open to the idea.
“Both Salmond and Sturgeon were unequivocal in stating that it was to be a “once in a lifetime” or “once in a generation” event.”
That may well be the case, but it wasn’t written into the Edinburgh agreement so it holds no water, and besides circumstances have changed dramatically, such as we were promised in 2014 if we voted yes that we wouldn’t be allowed into the EU, only for England to drag Scotland out of the EU at a later date.
Very good point.
Unionists sold a ‘No’ vote as protecting Scotland’s status within the EU, and specifically guaranteeing continued access to the single market. They made a big play in the debates on the difficulties Scotland would face outside it.
If words are to be taken literally….
“Both Salmond and Sturgeon were unequivocal in stating that it was to be a “once in a lifetime” or “once in a generation” event.”
That may well be the case, but it wasn’t written into the Edinburgh agreement so it holds no water
The Edinburgh Agreement, which bears the signature of both Salmond and Sturgeon, is also unequivocal that there was to be a referendum, not a neverendum. Just one referendum, to be held before the end of 2014, not a series of referenda after that date.
Here’s the actual wording:
>>>>
AGREEMENT
between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland
The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments are agreed that the referendum should:
The governments have agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments to allow a single-question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014
<<<<
Note that it is very explicitly a single referendum. It absolutely does not mention any prospect of further bites at the cherry beyond 2014.
As I understand it, Craig Murray's idea is to say 'To hell with the referendum. We don't need no steenkin referendum'.
Quite apart from the fact that we've had our referendum the problem with his argument is that the beautiful hall in Parliament Square has no constitutional status whatsoever. A parcel of rogues saw to that. The place to parley devolved matters is in the Canongate. The place to parley constitutional matters is the palace of Westminster.
SNP's best hope is to behave so loutishly and so stinkily that the English (and the Welsh and the Northern Irish) collectively tell us to piss off. That certainly appears to be the policy and the modus operandi of Blackford and his shower of shite. It's a shonky form of 'democracy', but we appear to be stuck with it
Ebeneezer
Good try but no prize. You do not get past first base. I’ll try again are you counting votes for both the Constituency and Regional list added together? It’s quite a simple question. How is your 54% calculated? What parties do you define as Unionist?
Or do you not know what you are talking about?
Ebeneezer
The Smith Commission was signed after the Edinburgh Agreement so supersedes it. I’ll say again the Smith Commission stated there was no reason for Scotland not to become an independent country in the future.
Also the Edinburgh Agreement was broken by the Vow. The Britnat parties by putting the Vow forward broke the Edinburgh Agreement.
“Note that it is very explicitly a single referendum. It absolutely does not mention any prospect of further bites at the cherry beyond 2014.”
Ebeneezer Scroggie.
Again the above does not exclude another indyref being held in the future, Northern Ireland can hold an indyref every seven years if it wants to. Now if the seven year rule applies to NI, then surely it must apply elsewhere, however I don’t agree with this, there is no route through London that leads to independence for Scotland, dissolving this union is something that Scots must decide and decide alone.
There is no other treaty in the world where one party has to ask the permission of another party to leave before doing so.
Ebeneezer
“A formal statement of policy” absolute nonsense.
The White paper was not implemented.
What was signed up to by all British Parties and the SNP was the Smith Commission and it clearly states that there is no future impediment to Scotland gaining its independence in the future.
You are sadly ignorant of the facts. It is very tiresome to continually refute propaganda. Sadly you also exhibit some characteristics of Borus Johnston.
Ebeneezer you say 54%. You do not say if this is in the Constituency vote or the Regional list vote. Or have you strangely added both together. You do know each voter has two votes in this election. Please clarify or you will have to be regarded as not knowing what you are talking about and just punting propaganda.
54% of votes cast were cast for unionist parties. That’s all votes, of course. Every vote counts and every vote was counted.
More than 50%. A majority, in other words.
It was an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament, not a referendum on whether to hold a nationwide opinion poll on a matter which was democratically settled in 2014.
The Britnats and many of the English who post on this site just do not get it.
Scotland is an older country than England.
Scottish people will always be outvoted by the English in Westminster. There is no democracy for Scotland in the House of Commons. There is no democracy for Scotland in the U.K. – it was designed to be that way in 1707.
The lack of democracy for Scotland allows England to make decisions to the detriment of Scotland and to the benefit of England eg plunder Scotlands resources, slowly eradicate Scottish culture and language.
It’s really that simple. END LONDON/ENGLAND RULE.
[ MOD : Untrue. State your case, refute what you feel is incorrect, but don’t dismiss another’s post as all lies. Simple enough.]
___
Craig, I am sorry to say that just like the House of Commons when someone on your site is posting a lie you are not allowed to say so.
What’s next – you cannot mention the Queen/Royal family like the House of Commons.
I find the moderation to be light touch here. it is unlike other blogs. It is very evolved.
The ur-Independent sites don’t like any successful deviation from their Narrative function – especially after their trolls have been bested. I won’t mention who they are now as have made my view explicit many times on these boards.
I myself have had many of my rants … moderated. With clear explanation of why.
It is best to take that guidance, calm the anger and try again. Often someone else has got there to do so after my moderation and I don’t need to do it.
The boiler plate at the bottom of each article about the foes of CM and such real human rights experts and investigative journalism explains why it is difficult to not be triggered by expert trolling.
I try to get better at understanding that; appreciating this site; its great genuine readers; the moderation and of course our host. I hope that helps. And keep that fire in the belly spewing.
Craig – you have often written than the SNP and its governance of Scotland are corrupt and indeed allude to that belief in your article above (‘gravy train’ etc.). If the Westminster Government’s corruption deprives it of legitimacy, why is the corrupt Scottish Government not similarly deprived?
It deprives it (Westminster) of its legitimacy over Scotland, not England, yes Sturgeon and her government are bent as the road to Gourock, but they are our problem to vote out, and replace them, being governed by one bent government is enough, without being governed by another foreign one 500 miles away in another country.
So you’re saying the government of the UK had legitimacy over Scotland prior to becoming corrupt. But now that it is corrupt, it retains governing legitimacy over England but not over Scotland, whose people must turn to its own corrupt government to declare independence from the UK on the grounds that they can no longer tolerate corruption. Got it, thanks. As for resisting corrupt foreign government 500 miles away, I agree entirely with your pro-Brexit sentiments.
No, I’m merely pointing out that because Holyrood is as bent as Westminster it doesn’t mean that Westminster has or had any legitimacy over it to begin with.
The union was brought about by bribery to begin with, the agreement signed in a basement of a corner shop in Edinburgh away from prying eyes, as the crowds above rioted in the streets above against the illegal union.
Thanks for replying, RepublicofScotland. My point is that Craig (who I admire but whose views on separation I disagree with) argues that a reason for elected representatives to declare an independent Scotland is that we have “witnessed the polity of the United Kingdom become a cesspit of lies and corrupt malpractice which Scotland should never have to suffer”. Given his belief that the UK has for a long time been corrupt and that the Scottish body politic is also corrupt, this argument appears to me to be more worthy of Blackford, who sees everything, including the day of the week and comparative cloud coverage of England and Scotland, as justification for independence.
Jim Doran
Blackford is a fake. He is a devolutionalist who puts on an act – a Punch and Judy show with Johnston to keep people in Scotland voting for the SNP. The SNP is really the NSP and Blackford being a devolutionalust is in your camp as a Unionist/Britnat (take your pick).
Jim. Firstly you’re welcome.
Basically Jim, the people of Scotland are beginning to realise that the best people to make decisions for them are themselves, yes Scots will made bad decisions in government for the people sometimes, but they’ll be our decisions and not the decisions of a foreign parliament five-hundred miles away.
Brexit highlighted this beautifully.
As for Ian Blackford, at Westminster at one point the SNP had 56 of 59 Scottish MP seat in the House of Commons, it made not a blind bit of difference, the SNP MPs are outnumbered and cannot change anything significant by remaining at Westminster for Scotland.
What’s just as concerning is that Blackford and his SNP MPs albeit Joanna Cherry and Angus B .MacNeil aside play to the masses back home in Scotland especially at PMQs, we haven’t moved one step closer to independence since 2014, Scottish MPs at Westminster are irrelevant, and are only in the HoC to give of an appearance of democracy at work.
No work has been done on setting up our independent state. What would happen once a national assembly declared independence? All reserved powers would still in effect be reserved, and reserved to a hostile power. Or have I got that wrong?
Correct, SNP government business for 2022 doesn’t include anything to do with Scottish independence.
Of course the high heidyins of the SNP won’t push for independence. The Murrell family firm is in clover. They’ve got all the trappings of power that they could possibly want.
Anyone who wants independence for Scotland should vote for any of the several parties which campaign for independence, not for the SNP.
Has Wee Nippy walked at the head of one of those sporadic Saltyre-wagging marches in Glasgow or Edinburgh? Ask yourself: why not?
Vote for Alba for Scottish Independence.
“Of course the high heidyins of the SNP won’t push for independence. The Murrell family firm is in clover. They’ve got all the trappings of power that they could possibly want.”
Ebeneezer Scroggie
For once we are in agreement.
Brexit has kicked Scottish “independence” into touch. It is not remotely viable now that a hard border would be required.
It was a pipedream when we were in the EU. Now it is finished. Grow up.
A hard border would mean nuclear convoys will not be remotely viable. ‘Grow up’
How would a hard border be required? EFTA membership would allow Scotland to access the EU market, and trade with rest of the UK, you’re not going to say that the rest of the UK wouldn’t trade with Scotland after independence are you? that old chestnut is well out of date.
Good luck with that.
The Monty Python-esque rule following legal nonsense is just astounding. Am I watching Life of Brian or a serious attempt at leaving an illegitimate Union?
Openly call for a “convention” or congress of representatives, duly elected under English rule or not, draft a declaration of independence (I’m certain a model or two exist to draw from), run it up the flag pole, and wait for the results.
It shouldn’t take long.
No matter what avenue is taken, Westminster/England/Royals are never going to accept independence anyway.
Neither will Nicola and the SNP Politburo, for that matter.
Enough of the “but….”
So be done with the dance, let’s get on with it.
This is all pie in the sky for you know as well as I do and many other do that Sturgeon has absolutely no intentions of holding an indyref period, infact such is the obedience of her MSPs that not one has come forward and challenged her or whistleblown on what’s actually going on within the party.
You have in the past Craig shown us the route to indy which is great, but knowing the route and forcing Sturgeon to travel down that route is another matter.
Just how do we compel Sturgeon to get a move on, on the indyfront when she doesn’t want to.
To moderator: Please remove the first four lines, for not being up to a worthy standard.
Shocked and saddened to hear you’d been added to Nicola’s shrunken-head collection. (Like Biden with -is it Kennedy’s? trophy head on a spike on the table in his window-ledge chats.) Unconscionably dirty play from contemptibles on the ropes. Heard just after the New Year, by which time you were out, now find you’re thankfully on-form and writing again compellingly. Heard only indirectly from a friend who told me of seeing ‘Free Craig Murray’ banners, somewhere in Scotland. Lots of people are just catching up, waking up from their doze, surveying the scene and frankly have had enough, want a new Scotland, new institutions. Just govern honestly and competently, is all we asked and look at what we got. Independence soonest and disband political parties, elect a representative parliament annually, by ballot.
Most of what I’ve read about the Scottish independence campaign has been in this blog, and so I’ve been inclined to take the issue more or less seriously, despite the obstacles it obviously faces, but this piece reads more like the musings one occasionally sees about this or that U.S. state seceding.
Dave G
Scotland is one of the oldest countries in Europe. How many US states ever existed as a country.
Several, with Hawaii being the one with by far the longest history of independence before absorption (which was both more recent and less legitimate than the England-Scotland union, but that’s not going to get them their sovereignty back).
With that non sequitur addressed, my point was that I was struck by how different this post appeared to me compared to earlier ones on the blog. Total armchair stuff, not relating to anything in the real world of politics, as far as I can see.
Having read this, if Scottish independence does come, I don’t think it’s going to come from anyplace connected with Craig Murray, I’m sorry to say.
“Having read this, if Scottish independence does come, I don’t think it’s going to come from anyplace connected with Craig Murray, I’m sorry to say.”
What makes you say that David? Craig has been informing people in Scotland of the benefits of independence for years now, if anything Craig’s blog and its info on an how independence would be good for Scots has bolstered the numbers who voted yes in 2014, and will bolster the numbers when our next chance to dump this rancid union arises, hopefully its sooner than later.
I didn’t mean to knock Craig the journalist, who I said above is the main reason I (as a non-Scot and non-Briton) know much of anything about the state of the independence movement (not even to mention the great coverage on Salmond and Assange). And I believe you that others with a bigger stake in the issue have indeed been strengthened in the cause by reading it. In that sense, as you say Republicofs., yes, he can be said to have been part of a successful struggle, if and when such is achieved.
However, at a moment that Craig characterizes as brimming with potential for making independence happen, I am struck that his call is directed, not at a motivated and organized mass movement, but at incumbent SNP politicians who even I know – and you and Craig know much better than I – have absolutely no intention of doing anything remotely like it.
If the best Craig can do at a time of such crisis and possibility (as he sees it) is to call upon the gang that got him locked up for the crime of having exposed how they tried to lock up an actual independence leader – to call upon them to get going with UDIs, plebiscites, and National Assemblies, well it seems to me that he is not speaking from a place that looks likely to play an active role in achieving independence.
From his prior coverage, I expected more. (For my part, I want everyone on your island to be free and happy, but I have no position on whether Scottish independence is a good idea.)
David G,
“Having read this, if Scottish independence does come, I don’t think it’s going to come from any place connected with Craig Murray, I’m sorry to say.”
I too do not believe in either Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
There are times when I think the uk constitution ought to be written in the form of a federation of states. National parliaments, an elected house of lords, a federal PM and ministers, with the Queen nominally at the top of the tree of a federation, rather than a kingdom, or united kingdoms.
Yes, with or without Scotland still in the UK, I’d prefer a German-type federal system. I sincerely believe it’d allow our regions of England to breath and increase prosperity. Do things differently, make mistakes, yes, but learn from them. The UK is the most centralised, secretive country in Europe because of the power hoarders in London.
As Simon Jenkins observes in his latest, v.good guardian piece on the tense Ukraine situation, in relation to Kyiv’s reluctance to grant autonomy to Donbas :
“Across Europe, the biggest threat to national peace and stability lies in the inability of central governments, of any colour, to tolerate regional decentralisation and diversity. Ask them in Belgrade, Madrid, even London.”
Breathe*
And logically, Simon Jenkins should have probably put : Ask them in Tirana, Catalonia(or Barcelona), even Edinburgh.
Since that’s where those frustrated by unyielding central governments actually live.
The Russian Federation has more than 120 ethnic groups, 85 federal subjects (including 22 republics). One wonders how they get on without tearing each other to pieces. If Kiev would only implement Minsk, it would all be fine, but the US, NATO and some Ukrainian Oligarchs will not let them. I do not think Russia will invade anyone, unless the Ukrainians go mental and attack the Donbass and or Crimea. It is far more likely that if they do attack, then the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk will hold referendums on applying to join the Russian Federation. Ditto Ossetia and Abkhazia. The US hysteria is designed to prop up Biden.
Leaving aside for the moment questions of Welsh etymology (that company and good company and companion and Cymru are all of the same origin) most would agree that a country is more important than a company and the right of the citizens are more important than those of the shareholder.
Many here probably assume that the dastardly English establishment cares more about the interests of shareholders than its citizens (or subjects as once were and probably still are). Its worth having a look at shareholder protection.
The law looks to protect the minority shareholder from the whims of the majority by requiring a vote of 75% to change the articles / the company constitution.
If the minority shareholder is so protected against the majority then shouldn’t the minority citizens be similarly protected.
The law also allows for the minority shareholders to sue the majority for unfair prejudice. Unfortunately it does not yet allow the minority citizens to sue the majority for unfair prejudice. Why not? Surely that should be allowed. is that part of the SNP agenda? If it were possible and if judges could hear such cases as neutrally as they hear minority shareholder cases then many of the wrongs of our society could be addressed and the parliamentary majority or referendum majority would not be able to bully the minority. Of course we would have to determine what would count as unfair prejudice against a minority of the citizens mean and remedies might be more tricky than the minority shareholder’s buyout with a compensating adjustment mechanism, but why not explore the concept. What is the difference between a company and a country. They are essentially companions with a common interest. The minority always needs protection.
This header is suggestive of mental problems.
All the “becauses” it offers in support of Scottish independence are rubbish. They indicate a person thrashing around for “reasons” to hold a view they obviously weren’t reasoned into in the first place.
Scotland is not “continually governed by parties for which it does not vote”. Every time there has ever been a Scotland-wide official vote on anything, there has always been a Unionist majority, including 12 times this century. No, I am not a c*** for making that true and relevant observation. It wouldn’t be nice to call me a race traitor either.
Scotland has not “been forced out of the EU against its will”. You might as well say the same about London. That’s not how voting works, as any fool knows.
@Craig – Your arrogance in thinking people wouldn’t decode your oh-so-clever clues landed you in prison. It’s good that you’re out now. But get a f*cking grip on yourself.
The Best Of Satire There Nu.
Well,that’s good you got that baggage off your back, I sincerely hope you better for it.
However, we have to think of the 5m odd Scottish residents who deserve to be involved in choosing the right course for them.
The one thing that unites all who frequent Scotland is the common desire to live in a fair and decent land.
Overy 5m people here all agree with that.
It’s when we choose the direction of change, then we differ.
Why is there so much fear about democracy?
What a nice relaxed chap that Nu person is..
Is that all you can bring to the chat, fear and loathing?
How about you give us your calm and slightly reconsidered views on all things, in your own time of course..
Independence for Scotland by whatever method cannot happen because there’s no planning for it. Everything, and I mean everything, that I’ve read from independence supporters consists of ‘Aye, we’ll sort that out after independence’. There’s no road map, strategy, nothing.
What WOULD happen if Scotland got its independence is that everyone would stand around looking at each other asking ‘Right. What do we do now?’
Scotland would be a third country nation without any assistance from the EU or anywhere else, because why would they? At the same time, barriers and obstructions would be thrown up left, right and centre by Westminster and in a short matter of time, not only would Scotland be a third country nation, it would effectively become a third world nation.
No planning = no independence.
Every Norwegian effectively owns a share of around $200,000 in Norway’s oil wealth fund of $1.15 trillion.
My share of the Scottish wind sale-off will be about 140 quid. Well actually, £105 once Queen Lzzie has had her cut.
Well played the SNP.
Scotland has sold its offshore wind rights for less than it cost to build a nine-mile tramline in Edinburgh
Well played the SNP
So the freemasons can continue robbing the public with their deception. It is not for the toffs to decide the fate of a nation and many people simply do not want ind. Nor do they want scumbags like the SNP. Nor do many of them want endless immigration. Nor do they want a political union with the EU. But to you people who reject endless immigration are racists. There are things you are not saying that you must be aware of that creates suspicion as to why? Are you a freemason?
Barry
My Kurdish brother in law fled Iraq a few years ago because of the increasing bankrupcy of the country because Britain steals its oil. He now runs a mini-supermarket in Glasgow which employs three sons and sends large chumks of money back to his family. What’s wrong with that? When I first went to see him in Glasgow all the shops were closed. Why do you think that foreigners bring negativity?
Good luck to them, they’re welcome.
you went right off script there. Britain has always welcomed those in genuine need. We don’t need or should be the dumping ground for failed nations in their largest export. I know a bit about the middle east. How can I say that people are still not getting it, how dark our future has become, the endless 24/7 deception. You have eyes but they do not work.
@Barry? I wonder if you live in the same country as me? Do you blame Syria for dumping Syrians? Iraq Iraqis? Palestine Palestinians? Egypt Egyptians? Yemen Yemenis? Libya Libyans?
Can’t you work stuff out without asking questions? i think you have answered your own question. Many of those countries the English & the NATO destroyed. The most part of immigration is a plan to divide and destroy the west. you failed to mention rape gangs and not just from Pakistan but from all those countries. it is not okay to be an immigrant and coerce young people to commit crimes which the government ignore. You have not speculated why certain countries don’t take any. Saudi Arabia & Israel. They do not integrate as suggested many years ago and why would or should they. They bring their own culture and traditions and for the good ones that come that is interesting. Like going on holiday without. the cost.
People who reject immigration are branded racists as are those quite happy refusing medical tyranny. Those are both hate crimes. But smoke and mirrors won’t hide the destruction of western society. It is of concern to hear people talking about a future free Scotland who cannot work out the economics and use European integration as cover for their shit economics. Some believe it is up to the grunting toff to declare independence without consulting the people. Independence is easy but if you think many people want the same as before you are kidding yourself. The same foul entitled people. No. But this is all pie-in-the-sky as if you had been paying attention you will notice the tyranny and the deception is out of control. The role was to obtain information where it was deemed unobtainable. Anything anywhere. You mentioned Syria. Did you consider how Syria did not fall? That is a story that starts in December 2011.
The Scottish independence movement needs to look beyond the SNP, which has been hijacked by the Woke-authoritarian wing of the Bay City Rollers fan club.
A good number still clinging tight to Madam Bull’s skirts judging by these responses. That’s despite it now being clear English rule will in perpetuity be by one of two ideologically neoliberal parties. It is a slave mentality extraordinarily at odds with the popular image of Scots depicted in the national anthem and on the big screen. What do these trembling wee men think when they look across at Ireland or at all the other even smaller and far poorer nations standing up on their own two feet? Ah Craig, we’re no big boys like Comoros Islands or Laos. How could the land of Hume, Smith, Watt, etc, survive without the Bank of England or Home Counties subsidies? You’re not taking into account a million other excuses for us having no balls compared to the rest of mankind.
Comparisons to the likes of Comoros or Laos are apt.
We’d have been up that Creek without a shovel. A poodle vassal state to the US. Rather like Chagos but without the sunshine and with a dearth of coconuts.
‘A poodle vassal state to the US’?
I’m presuming by this you regard Britain as some kind of independent imperial rival to the USA. Doesn’t surprise me at all.
frankywriggles
Yesterday Sir Tobias Ellwood from the dept of Defence suggested a military takeover of No 10. Today he told the BBC on Radio 4 that Putin wants to leave a colonial legacy that includes former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. It’s quite scary that these military people are completely unable to communicate without pornographising every discussion into a military problem?
All Putin wants is some re-affirmation of existing International Law.
giyane
Scarily, the EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen sound just like the hawkish Ellwood. Borrell constantly talks about “Russia trying to divide us”, like he’s super smart and the possessor of some deep esoteric knowledge. No fooling him, eh? /s
We seem to be sinking in a quagmire of misunderstanding and political stupidity with regards to Russia and its intentions. Ukraine has 100,000 troops poised, just like Russia. Russia’s position; namely, that is isn’t going to allow a reckless Kyiv to shell and fire missiles into rebel held East, should be understandable to western politicians, if only from a humanitarian perspective. Russia had to intervene before to prevent the Ukrainian govt, from doing exactly that.
France’s Macron and Germany’s Scholz trying to revive Minsk II is now the only hope. The US is now seemingly in bed with the ultra-nationalists in Kyiv, and views those in the Donbas like it views the people stuck in Gaza and the West Bank, some kind of untermenschen.
Your presumption is way wide of the mark.
Wee Nippy likes to strut her stuff on what she regards on the world stage as if she is head of government of a country. The US is her favourite interlocutor, closely followed by the EU superstate.
She’s spending millions on setting up entirely bogus pseudo-embassies in major EU capitals. She not only has delusions of adequacy but also delusions of grandeur, which is much more dangerous.
Expect her to take up a lucrative sinecure in Brussels or New York or Warshington when she leaves Bute House. She’s outgrown Edinburgh already and is simperingly pro-US. She’ll take up a job with NATO or the EU or perhaps one of those US-based propaganda outfits such as the Atlantic Alliance or FP4America or somesuch.