“While disappointed by it I respect ruling of UK Supreme Court – It doesn’t make law, only interprets it. A law that doesn’t allow Scotland to choose our own future without Westminster consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership & makes case for Indy.

“Scottish democracy will not be denied. Today’s ruling blocks one route to Scotland’s voice being heard on independence – but in a democracy our voice cannot and will not be silenced.”

First Minister.

I tend not to criticise courts, specially senior ones, on the basis that they at least SHOULD be too smart to allow personal feelings to influence their judgments. They know that many other people with legal expertise and fine brains will have looked at the evidence and reached conclusions, so I can reasonably believe that the judges have weighed up the evidence for and against the Scottish Parliament having powers to legislate for a referendum, and found them not to exist in any devolution legislation.

That doesn’t mean that the court thinks we should not have one. Just that the current legislation doesn’t allow the Scottish government to call one.

We must redouble our efforts to make sure that as many MPs and MSPs are returned at the next elections for independence supporting parties. Certainly, in the case of the English parliament any independence supporting party will do.

We must continue to press the English government to say why it is that the North of Ireland can have a referendum every seven years, but Scotland cannot. Are we not all supposedly equal partners in this union? If not, can they explain why not?

We may be able to guess at the answer, but we need to embarrass them into admitting it.

We also need to press them on who would give permission for a referendum on English independence. If we are four equal nations, presumably Wales and Scotland have to ask the Westminster parliament for permission (the North of Ireland has permission by rights of the Belfast Agreement), but to whom should the English apply for permission?

We need to embarrass them in international fora on these matters. (If that is even possible!)

Munguin made an appearance in Dundee City Square tonight.

Hello, my faithful readers. I’m just having a seat here. Dragging the Factotum around and making sure he doesn’t get lost in the crowd is a hard job, I’m sure you’ll agree. We don’t want him handed into the police station and have to get a taxi to pick him up. The gardens here lack the class of those at the Towers, don’t you think?

Oooops, my beak got in the way of Tris’s photo… It’s more interesting than that crowd of Dundonians anyway.

Today’s cheer up pics…

93 thoughts on “THE SUPREME COURT”

  1. Salutations Munguin and the factotum Tris from the rally in Dumfries

    Hope your rally was as uplifting and encouraging of redoubling our efforts as ours was

    BTW Did you know that on 20th November 1707 a copy of the Treaty of Union was burnt at the Dumfries Midsteeple by the ordinary folk of the town who felt betrayed by the Act of Union?

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Greetings from the Dundee one. The mood was positive and the cheers very loud. Alba, SNP and Greens together. Most stimulating.

      I’m not surprised. Ordinary people didn’t want it.

      The king bought the upper classes with money, titles and lands in England… the “middle classes with concessions on religion, law and custom and did absolutely nothing for the ordinary people.

      They were betrayed as were our allies, les français!

      Glad you had a good night there… I trust you got home safely. Munguin was chauffeured to the door… of course

      Liked by 2 people

  2. “We must continue to press the English government to say why it is that the North of Ireland can have a referendum every seven years, but Scotland cannot. Are we not all supposedly equal partners in this union? If not, can they explain why not?”

    That old shibboleth!
    The North of Ireland can have a referendum NO SOOONER THAN 7 years after the first because it says so in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
    The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was hard fought for and hard negotiated.
    Remember 30 years civil unrest? Commonly known as “The Troubles”?

    Scotland does not have the equivalent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement

    NB The UK nominated Secretary of State decides on when the referendum on Irish Re-Unification will be held, on the basis of non-disclosed criteria, whenever he/she thinks a “win” for Re-Unification is “likely”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes. That’s the point. We know why they can have their referenda every seven years, but of course no one with any brains would admit that. (I think Andrew Bowie once did hint strongly at it… but that just proves the point.)

      I don;t remember Scotland being violent over these matters, although clearly the North of Ireland was… and so was Wales at one point when they regularly burnt down the holiday cottages of English weekenders who took homes that Welsh people needed..

      Liked by 1 person

      1. heard a rumour -may well not be fact or true, just an urban legend – that after the border campaign in Ireland (1956-62) some Irish Republican arms found their way towards the Welsh nationalists

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I didn’t know that. I’ve never read of any action of that kind in Wales.

          Did the Welsh do anything? I’ve only ever heard of them burning down the holiday homes. You just need matches and paraffin for that! 🙂

          Mind you, I don’t want any part in anything that involves hurting or killing people. I don’t want to live in a Belfast or Beirut.


  3. Independence remains a political problem with political solutions so I don’t think too much was lost or win today by anyone.

    What would have happened if we’d won the proposed indy ref? Without mutual agreement on the process of independence, the likelihood of a Holyrood ref paving the way to independence seems slim. The worst scenario would have been to have wasted a referendum that just ended in constitutional deadlock. Who here thinks a Labour or Tory government would have started indy negotiations?

    Having said that, the principle that SC can make rulings before the legislative process begins at Holyrood has serious consequences for the future.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is a way for Scotland to cease being an English colony and the fact that so many countries have managed to do so proves that. It just lacks a leader who actually wants that or has the capability to achieve it.

      But unfortunately for Scotland, Sturgeon cannot and will not resign until she can ensure that whoever comes after her will not pursue her.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. What would someone else do?

        What would Patrick Harvie do?
        What would Alex Salmond do?
        What would the Scottish Socialists do?

        Acceptance across the country and farther across Europe and the world demands that the leadership acts in accordance with the law.

        Look at what happens when they don’t.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Independence cannot simply be about a desire for socialism because if Scotland ever does become independent, then it is possible that conservatives will be in power.

          Yous ask what would anyone do? Well, what you don’t do, as Sturgeon did time and time again, is spurn the opportunities that present themselves. She has been an absolute disaster for the last 8 years and now the task is all but impossible for even the most capable leader. As a result of her misrule, there now appears to be no peaceful path to independence for many years to come. I can only hope that someone with a better grasp of political strategy comes along. Hers is based on student politics.

          I suspect that her “strategy” of simply repeating ad nauseum how nasty the Tories are will no longer work for her as it has done up ’til now.


          1. I didn’t say it was about socialism. But it is reasonable to suggest that the political view in Scotland is far to the left of that in England (which, these days wouldn’t be hard to achieve).

            That doesn’t mean that there aren’t Conservatives and Fascists in Scotland. There are. Indeed, because of the terrible state of the Brit Labour Party in Scotland, the Tories are the opposition, and as we know they embrace whatever they are told to embrace by London, including fascist policies.

            Who knows who would be in power in an independent Scotland. What I can say is that under the current British regime it is around 70 years since the country voted for a right of centre government (unless one includes Blair in that category).

            Peter Mandelson’s book explains why the Labour Party moved to the right. It was to do with the massive political power of the South East of England which had embraced Thatcherism, home ownership and share ownership and been boosted by immigration from all over the UK, because it was the only place where there were jobs.

            If you wanted to govern, he said, a third of the seats were in the prosperous south, and firmly Tory. You had to present them with the policies that they would expect from Tories.

            After 40 years of voting left of centre Labour, the Scottish population went for left of centre SNP.

            So now in answer to my question, what would someone else do… you have told me what Ms Sturgeon did, in very general terms without any specifics so that a conclusion could be drawn that the opposite of what Ms Sturgeon did would be the correct path, if only we knew what that was.

            You have put forward no alternative. Not even one suggestion.

            You just seem to think that Nicola is a disaster.

            Would Mr Salmond provide the answer?

            What would he do.

            If it helps last night he called for an independence convention of all parties.

            I’d like to see that.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. My personal view is that Mr Salmond is an outstanding politician and I cannot think of a more articulate and capable individual that the UK has ever produced. Unfortunately for him, it makes him a target.

              That said, this requires someone younger to take up the cause although he can still be an advisor. He’s been calling for pro-independence coalition for years. It’s just that Ms Sturgeon has nominated herself as the Chief Mammy and other opinions aren’t valid.

              My point is that by her actions and by refusing to take the opportunities that she was presented with, she has made the task of achieving independence almost impossible. These are compelling reasons to ask for her resignation. There are other reasons but its best that I don’t go into them.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. What opportunities was she presented with? What actions?

                How differently would Alex have done it?

                What opportunities would he have grasped?

                Who can ask for her resignation?

                She would have to be beaten in an election, although she recently hinted that she would as some stage be standing down before the next election.

                So you may soon have your way.


        2. Alex Salmond had a referendum after gaining consent to the process of independence at Westminster.

          The modern equivalent is to pin your hopes on either insurrection or hare-brained litigation at the “International Court of Common Law” or some other fiction.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. We can’t afford another wasted referendum. That’s for sure.

      As I saw it (and I admit haven’t read the judgment), all the SC said was, none of the legislation that exists, gives the Edinburgh government the right to call a referendum on this constitutional matter, the constitution being a reserved matter.

      And presumably nothing in the Bill of Rights overrides that matter.

      If that is the law, then that is the law.

      The question is political.

      Will the British government accept that, under systems at both parliaments, devised by them and presumed by them to be fair and representative, the Scottish people have over and over, on more occasions than would normally occur, voted for a majority of pro-independence representatives.

      This Brit government, like previous Brit governments, happily accepts a majority of seats in their parliament with a minority of the votes. And with that majority makes drastic changes to the law.

      Either they accept a parliamentary majority is a legitimate gauge of opinion, or they do not.

      I think making the next London general election about independence is a reasonable idea (because the SNP has no real power in the Westminster parliament. Their policies will never be adopted; they aren’t listened to and the Labour party won’t work with them on anything, by way of the Bain Principle), but it won’t produce a result that will make either party change their minds, even if we were to return to a 95% majority of seats.

      It will be more pressure on them, but utterly unbinding.

      And there’s no point in quoting an off the cuff comment by Thatcher, about “all the Scots have to do to get independence is elect a majority of independence MPs”, which was as throwaway as Alex Salmond’s “once in a life time”.


      1. People should notice that Sturgeon has slipped in a new block to independence. Not only do we need a majority of MPs in a plebiscite election, we need to get more than 50% of the votes.

        The British way is FPTP. But she conjures up a new rule to keep us tied in this union.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I would imagine that she has done that because when we have over and over pointed out that we have a majority, suddenly they call us out that more people voted against the Independence Parties than voted for them.

          The only way that it can equate to a referendum is if over 50% of people vote for it.

          If we make it the mainstay of an election campaign, in fact making it a referendum on independence, we really can’t demand claim we have a majority when more people vote against it than for it.

          A court would throw that out in a heartbeat, no matter how biased the voting system is for the big parties.


      2. The primary focus of the SC judgement has been on the SG legislating for a referendum and this conveniently for the ukg overshadows the first part of the judgement.
        The ukg spent most of their written submissions and day of oral hearings arguing that the SC should not give an opinion (as they wanted to keep the political waters murky). The SC unanimously and unceremoniously rejected this. So the SG was vindicated for bringing the case even though the judgement went against us, whereas the ukg lost its legal argument outright.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I thought that what it did was look at all the existing legislation regarding Scotland’s constitutional rights, as opposed to the rights of the Westminster government, and advise that with current legislation it considered that the granting of referenda on constitutional matters was something that only London could do.


  4. Reading a bit about what the judges said though, that Scotland is basically hostage to the UK parliament, ie, the English parliament is sovereign, not Scotland or the people of Scotland, it’s not really accurate.
    See link here, and do sign up to get newsletters.

    Oh and thanks for cute pics, but, that lily flower, fatal to cats if they get the sepals (if I have that correct) on their fur and lick it, a horrible death for them. 😬

    Nice to see Munguin out and about, fighting for the cause 😻. Stay safe all.

    Here’s the link to Salvo.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I suspect you’re thinking about the pollen, which comes from the stamens Hetty.

      The sepals are the outermost part of the flower; what you’ll see before it opens.

      All parts of lilies can cause toxicosis in pets (usually harming the liver). Even the water that cut flowers have been, or are, in is dangerous.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Ah yes thanks. Interesting about the water being toxic, makes sense. It’s very easy for the pollen to transfer to an animals fur, I guess as pollen does, so these flowers should never be planted in gardens, though they quite often are. Thanks for replying. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    2. The situation you describe is typical of modern democracies.

      I have wasted way too many hours looking for democracies that have a constitutional path to secession. Two micro-states support this: St Kitts and Nevis (66% required) and Liechtenstein. It might be argued, however, that Liechtenstein is not a true democracy. It might also be argued that the 66% required of St Kitts and Nevis is not particularly democratic.

      Every country that has a codified constitution specifies the territory of the state. This already forms a constitutional block to secession that is much harder to overcome than the looser, uncodified constitution of the UK.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. So, at one and the same time, the Supreme Court of Greater England states that Scotland is not a colony, oh dearie me no, and then says that the people of Scotland can’t even hold a consultative referendum on their own future; at least, not without the ‘permission’ of the imperial power.

    Looks like colonialism to me. Apologies if I’ve posted this link before:

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Thought there would be a post on this subject, so set down my immediate thoughts on learning the court decision, saving for later submission. That time has come…

    Compare and contrast: South Africa and Rhodesia (among others) were probably the most prominent examples of global activism in favour of democracy and an end to unjust rule. Sanctions, bans, and blockades were imposed so that people could have the right to choose their government. Scotland is refused the opportunity even to express an opinion on whether independence might be preferable. Imagine the international reaction if Ian Smith or PW Botha had issued this decree – or an English court had ruled in their favour?

    True, the horrors of racially-based politics in Southern Africa are not directly comparable to the indignities of Westminster rule over Scotland, but the principles of self-governance are not that far removed. Decision made, though. You’re not having a referendum, whether you’re for ‘yes’ or ‘no’. We know best, so just get on with it and do what you’re told.

    In that case, please tell us: 1) What do Scots have to do to prove that a majority of voters favour independence?; And 2) How (if so proven) do we convert the popular will into reality?
    These questions were not barriers in Zimbabwe (as it now is) nor in South Africa. Or any of the many countries that have become independent since WW2, starting with India.

    Regards to Munguin, factotum, and all Indy supporters. Keep up the good work – like the rallies menioned (and attended).

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I wish I knew the answer, John.

      Over and over the question comes up: Why can people in the North of Ireland, currently part of the UK, have a referendum every 7 years about leaving the UK and we can’t.

      The answer presumably is “troubles”.

      Personally I don’t want to live through “troubles”.

      Likewise how many people died in the struggles in South Africa and Zimbabwe?

      Your questions are absolutely bang on.

      If only questions like that would be put at PMQs… and ANSWERED.

      Even if Blackford asked that, Sunak would say, something like the bulk of the Scottish population are as proud as I am to be British and serve his majesty the king, to cheers like kids at a pantomime from the Tory benches.

      There isn;t even the slightest chance that the presiding officer would do anything about demanding a serious answer.

      Because the British parliament is like a pantomime… and Boris Johnson is behind them.


        1. But surely, if they are entitled to it under an international agreement… Oh wait. Britain…International agreements and treaties… ???Yep, gotcha.


    2. From the perspective of the UN, there’s a difference between having a full measure of self determination and not having a full measure of self determination.

      Scotland is considered to have a full measure of self determination by the UN.

      Even though we equate self determination with an indy ref that isn’t quite how it is viewed at the UN. At the UN, especially post-decolonisation, it really means representation.

      Are we represented? Yes. Are we satisfied with it? Of course not but that is a political position rather than a legal one.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s very loose representation representation that makes close to zero difference, unless there is a fairly even number of Labour and Tory MPs, and even then, with Liberals and MPs from the North of Ireland, we could n’t really make much of a difference.

        Added to which Labour would rather vote with Tories than with the SNP!

        But I take your point.


      2. Interesting Terry, Scotland’s independence does indeed look to come of age when it suits the geopolitics of the time. That it is so is of no surprise.

        As a wee country married to our pernicious neighbour, we have precious few options to gain our independence, but the circumstances are ripe in our favour.

        The NI Protocol is a thorn for the UK parliament, tear it up and scupper chances of very needed trade deals with Europe and US. Allow a border poll for unification and they have supplied fuel and flame to the Scottish problem.
        A strong German economy is essential for EU. Germany and I expect the Commision are desperate to build resilience into the German energy make up. Scotland can play a part in that.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Well I guess I have a different view from everyone else, no surprise.

    So we asked Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Richi Sunak and they have all said No S30 order. The Supreme Court found unanimously that the Scotland Act reserves to Westminster matters pertaining to the Union; I agree.
    So that leaves only one option a General Election, 50% of Scottish Constituencies voting for an independence MP means we declare The Treaty of Union finished. 🤩
    I hear the unionists shouting that’s not democratic; Tough First Past the Post is the chosen gerrymandered Westminster system. They can always change it to Proportional or something else before the next GE. Ian Paisley jnr is introducing a Supermajority Referendum Bill in Jan 23 to thwart that route with a gerrymander.

    We can then elect MPs to holyrood on a proportional system or whatever and that body can then decide to hold a Referendum on creating a new Treaty with rUK if the electorate decide they want one. So not denying a non gerrymandered democratic option to unionists, just changing the route.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It all sounds Ok, Kangaroo, but it won’t happen.

      Even in that spectacular 2015 election where we got 56 seats out of 59, the SNP % was 49.

      Of course, that suggests that maybe the bulk of the Scottish population does want to stay in their rancid right wing union.

      I can’t imagine why, particularly now that the Brits have trashed the country.

      I wonder if the supermajority thing that Paisley is bringing in (which sounds like the kind of undemocratic thing that the DEMOCRATIC Unionist Patty would do) will fly.

      It is so obvious that democracy is way down their priorities list, refusing when they lost the election by take their seats and refusing to elect a PO, all because the people voted Sinn Fein instead of them.

      I suspect that if it did work, we would be entitled to demand that unBrexit negotiations start again 🙂


    2. There is another option and again, it is so obvious that you wonder why Sturgeon isn’t doing it.

      Rather than the nebulous and incoherent rant that she gave, she nails her colours to the mast and resigns. This will force a new election for the Scottish Parliament but this time it will be as a pro-independence coalition and not the spiteful, self-interested SNP/SNP madness. This removes the malign involvement of the British Government with a legitimate vote and with EU and 16-18 voters.

      But she won’t do it which tells you all you need to know about her.


      1. If she resigned the SNP would be obliged to find another leader.

        There wouldn’t be an election, like there wasn’t in England when Cameron resigned and May took over. (She later had one when she was advised, wrongly, that she would get a majority. She didn’t get one and was forced to pay out a billion of our money to persuade the religious right of the DUP to support her, which actually mean that they ran Brexit. That was Madness and look where it got them).

        When Johnson ousted her, he didn’t hold an election right away, until he needed to have a majority without the DUP to get his oven ready Brexit deal through parliament; the one that separated the North of Ireland from Great Britain … and all the lying to the queen, etc).

        When Truss ousted Johnson there was no election, just a catastrophic budget and when Sunak ousted Truss there was no election, not even of Tory members. They just tossed a coin.

        You talk about the “spiteful and self interested madness” of the SNP. I’m sure our readers would love to know what is uniquely spiteful self interested or mad about their policies.
        Given we are in a union of four countries, the fact that Scotland is doing better in most areas than the rest suggests to me that their governance is pretty good or the Labour and Tory parties are remarkably bad. Given that the North of Ireland still has no government because someone other than the DUP won and so they went in the Huff, I exclude it, because I’ve no idea who is running it at the moment.

        Anyway, if you could exemplify any of this self inte3rested madness and spitefulness, it would help.


        1. I’m afraid I’m unable to agree that there cannot be an election for the Scottish Parliament if a new leader is elected. This is about doing whatever is necessary to forward the cause of independence and if it takes the FM to resign, then sobeit. It probably didn’t have to be that way but that was down to Sturgeon’s choices.

          Suffice to say, both May and Johnson had an GE when they thought they had sufficient support and it suited them. Sturgeon, if she had a mind to, could do the same. She might even salvage what’s left of her reputation.

          My view is that if Scotland was no longer a colony of the UK then it could look to the rest of Europe and indeed, the world, and leave England to sort out its own mess in whatever way it wants to. That what’s going to happen anyway despite Sturgeon thinking that she can tell them what to do. Of course, it’s not perfect but Ireland seems to be managing just fine so why can’t Scotland?

          Your readers strike me as being pretty astute so I don’t think it is necessary for me to rehearse the SNP attitude to the other pro-independence parties. I’ll simply say that Salmond advised people to vote SNP 1 and any other pro-independence party 2 but the SNP insisted SNP 1/SNP 2. This got them a whole 2 seats for over a million votes and the majority went to unionists. So that seems pretty spiteful to me. Spiteful to all independence supporters.


          1. As far as I know the Scottish parliament cannot call a general election. It’s constitution and has to be called by the English government.

            If Nicola stood down the SNP would appoint or elect another person from the SNP .

            If the SNP all resigned from government there would be an election to see who should be first minister, held in parliament… like when Alex stood down.

            Nicola stood as did the Noble Baroness.

            The SNP (and I think Greens) voted Nicola, the Tories voted for her baroness magnificence, Labour, and the Liberals voted for no one.

            I imagine that only the Lightweight and Anas would stand (I mean Cole Hamilton with 3 MSPs would just make a fool of himself if he stood…OK he might). Presumably Labour MSPs would vote for Anas and Tory MSPs would vote for the referee (although rumour has it he’s as popular as a gumboil with his MSPs but there is no way to get rid of him).

            We could end up with Douglas Ross as first minister, but he wouldn’t last any longer than his friend Truss. because he’d not get any legislation through without SNP or Green support. He’d probably get Liberal support and Labour might risk supporting anything anti SNP, but it’s a dangerous risk taking sides with the Tories, as they already know.

            If that collapsed then maybe the English government would call an election in Scotland.

            Europe would indeed help Scotland. They seem to like us, not least because of the hard work Nicola has done cultivating their leaders.

            But I think it is quite clear that the only way we will get that support is if we do everything by the book.

            I see what you are saying, about the list votes, but parties don’t, by and large, tell people not to vote for their candidates; but to vote for someone else.

            Alex suggested voting for SNP because he wasn’t standing candidates on the FPTP. He would never have stood candidates and told someone people to vote SNP or Green.

            The candidates for the SNP’s list seats had already been chosen, because Alba had only just been formed.

            I can’t imagine how angry they would have been if , after the work they had been doing, they were told to stand down or the SNP said Vote Alba.

            Nigel Farage did that to HUGE criticism with his people, when he stood them down in marginal Tory seats, but as he was treating it as a money making enterprise, and I don’t think he though he would win any seats, and he already had the candidates’ money, I don’t think anyone was desperately surprised. That and the fact hes an unprincipled arse.


          2. Hi Ian C
            A few weeks ago following comments by Tory MSP Stephen Kerr I enquired of the Scottish Parliament whether the FM could call a Scottish General Election . The SNP had called for Rish! Sunak to call a GE and Kerr had said it was hypocrisy as NS hadn’t called one when she took over in 2014

            Here is the reply I got
            “Thank you for having contacted Public Information at the Scottish Parliament. We provide impartial information about the Scottish Parliament, its membership, business and procedures.

            You asked for information on when elections for the Scottish Parliament can be called beyond the standard five-yearly cycle.

            You can find provisions for “Extraordinary general elections” in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament. Section 3 states:

            Extraordinary general elections.
            (1) The Presiding Officer shall propose a day for the holding of a poll if—
            (a) the Parliament resolves that it should be dissolved and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament, or
            (b) any period during which the Parliament is required under section 46 to nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister ends without such a nomination being made.

            I hope that this information is helpful. Please contact us again if you’ve any further questions about the Scottish Parliament.

            We handle any personal information you provide in line with data protection law. To find out more about what we do, please see our privacy notice or contact us.

            Kind regards

            Public Information
            The Scottish Parliament”

            So to get two-thirds would require unionist MSPs to agree to the motion and IMHO as it would then result in a de facto referendum there is no way they would play along

            Liked by 2 people

            1. I was clearly mistaken in my understanding.

              Thanks for that Stewart.

              You’re right. It would be a referendum and in particular, at least at the moment, I doubt very much that the Tories would want any kind of election. The forecast at least on FPTP would be wipe out.

              Labour, whose prospects may be slightly better, might consider voting for it.

              I’m not sure about the Liberals, but they are so small in number that it probably doesn’t matter.


            2. Thanks for clarifying, Stewart. I thought it was just a majority that was required. Voting to maintain the pro-independence SG would undoubtedly be anathema to unionist MSPs and they would do so willingly. Maybe now, Sturgeon regrets letting them in.


      2. Could you expand on that? Why the heck should she resign? I have no idea whatsoever why her resignation would galvanise the independence movement, rather that the exact opposite. Assuming that that is your true objective?

        But you will write incomprehensible rubbish and see it as wisdom.

        I am unconvinced.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I can’t see what it would achieve, but I’ve asked Ian to be very specific about what she has done wrong, how it cold be done better, and who could do that.

          I’m sure his answer will enlighten us.


        2. Hi Douglas
          You thinking it is incomprehensible rubbish might be down to the fact that you obviously haven’t given it enough thought. It’s not about galvanising the independence movement. It is about doing what is required to give the people of Scotland the voice that they are being denied. Sturgeon knows this but she prefers to cling desperately to power. She is the obstacle.


          1. IanC,

            Well, you say that against the woman that has advanced the cause of Scottish Independence far further than anyone else.

            I agree, she wants to hold onto power until such a time as she can deliver freedom.


            I’m not so sure about.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. Ian, FM resigning, such an action may satisfy you, but from my reading of the SC judgement it wouldn’t take us any closer to independence. Just another election with another majority for independence, that Westminster will deal with in their usual manner. It would, I fear, exacerbate the splits in the indy movement, “Sturgeon does it again, just to secure another term in office, etc, etc.”
        Have a read through the Judgement and let me know what you think, I can give you a link.

        To me, it reads to being very close to the possibility of having a mandate vetoed.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I decided to find out the ruling on the dissolution of Holyrood parliament and as Stewart has laid out above, it needs a two thirds vote, 86 votes. SNP 63, plus Greens and Independents.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Alan, you are exactly right. If 100% of the population vote for independence it will be ignored. What then? We know what Sturgeon would do because it’s what she’s always done. Precisely nothing.


          1. Ian. I, like many of us, don’t know for sure the detail of any strategy being played, or not being played, to get us towards independence. We as an independent movement have to take account of our ignorance (speculation doesn’t count as knowing) and those elements, events, that we are sure of and gauge if they help towards our independence.

            The re-establishing of the Claim of Rights in the HoC was seen by many as a waste of time. The international shmoozing, pretendy embassies, similarly is seen by many as a waste of time and money, or Sturgeon glorying in the limelight, but I see them as aiding our independence. Why? geopolitics/real politics.

            The referendum in 2014, I understand why then, opportunity, first time having a majority in an election system designed against having a majority, and quite possibly ego, but I wouldn’t have had one then. Everybody in politics (I’m not) knew that to save the tory party from possible split a referendum on EU membership was on the cards soon. If the EU vote was to remain, nothing would’ve been lost and, speculatively, the English leavers seeing the strength of the remain Scottish vote would have blamed us, or an easy matter to convince them of it. Here is the big but, whilst part of the EU the UK was a big player in World finance. Scotland was insignificant, of no consequence, hence the thumbs down from international and EU countries for support during our referendum, a win that would weaken Westminster. That is real politics.

            Still with Geopolitics and possible strategies coming of age. The dynamics of geopolitics has all changed aided and abetted by the still not split tory party’s shenanigans. London is no longer a financial powerhouse, Westminster has lost political clout, could say relevance. Putin and agents to weaken/dismantle the EU are now on display for all to see.

            Scotland is now getting recognition, it can be seen as a bolster for an EU under attack from Putin, US when Trump was in (also Russia) and agents within.
            Why? a country indicating pro Europe credentials, a country that has an embarrassment of energy and even more energy potential. Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, was set up by Russia in a bid to break the EU, by making it dependent on Russian gas.
            Germany has learned the lesson;
            They have installed, super quick for them, LNG handling plants and plans in place to using liquid hydrogen.
            Have set up cooperative company with Scotland to develop hydrogen production.

            Showing the world that sovereignty lies with the people in the Scottish constitution, then showing the world the democratic mandate of the people, is now our immediate option. We will not gain independence without pressure being applied to Westminster from outside of the UK. The levers to be pulled are in place, Westminster is in trouble, depends on who will feel the pain when rUK becomes a basket case. Not much to be picked over by the vultures, already foreign owned.

            I could rabbit on, it is just my view, but in that view, I see a possible strategy that has been in the making for a few years and is starting to bear fruit. It cannot be too long now, till we taste the fruits of independence.

            If you reached this far Ian, I applaud your perseverance.

            Liked by 1 person

              1. Thanks Tris.
                I get fed up with the personality politics, it is far too easy to create splits that become a distraction, making it harder, for what should be a movement, to coalesce around the one cause and keep the end game in fixed focus.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. I couldn’t agree more.

                  The dependence movement, although particularly the Tories and Douglas Ross want to make it so, isn’t about personalities. (Have you noticed how many times that man and his team use the words “Nicola Sturgeon” in their publicity?)

                  If I were the boss (fat chance), I’d get Nicola and Alex together in a room and not let them out till they had agreed a strategy to work together.

                  What ever the animosity between them, this is far more important that that. This is our future.

                  Get you fingers out. Make up and work together. And the same goes for the rest of us.

                  Otherwise Munguin will be cross. And I can’t tell you how horrible THAT would be.

                  Liked by 1 person

  8. Thoightful piece in today’s FT. Lifted in entirety as paywalls willl prevent access for all…

    By David Allen Green (The writer, a lawyer and commentator, is an FT contributing editor)
    From a legal perspective, the Scottish government should be disappointed with Wednesday’s Supreme Court judgment that an independence referendum cannot be held without the consent of Westminster and Whitehall.
    Nicola Sturgeon’s government wants to hold a plebiscite on the union of Scotland and England without permission from London. The court ruled that there was a serious case to be heard and the UK government’s two attempts to knock out the claim on technicalities failed. And, as with any arguable case, it could have gone either way.
    Under the Scotland Act, the Scottish parliament cannot legislate on a matter where it “relates to reserved matters”, which include the union. The Scottish government contended that a referendum, which in and of itself would not be binding, did not “relate to” the union or to the sovereignty of parliament. It conceded that actually legislating for independence would relate to it, but not a mere referendum.
    The Supreme Court could have taken a narrower view of what is meant by the phrase “relates to”. But it unanimously rejected the Sturgeon government’s submission, holding that a referendum “is not merely an exercise in public consultation or a survey of public opinion”. Instead, it was “a democratic process held in accordance with the law which results in an expression of the view of the electorate on a specific issue of public policy on a particular occasion”.
    The proposed independence referendum would be advisory. It would not be self-executing, for it would not have immediate effect without further legislation. Nonetheless, the court judged that holding such a vote would still be a reserved matter because it would “relate to” the union of Scotland and England or to the sovereignty of parliament.
    As the court also put it, “[a] lawful referendum on the question envisaged by the Bill would undoubtedly be an important political event, even if its outcome had no immediate legal consequences”. Some may think that it is no business of a court to take account of such political, non-legal factors, but the Supreme Court correctly said that the Scotland Act required it to approach the question “in all the circumstances” — even if those were not just the legal ones.
    The Scottish government can be proud of how it managed to get the matter before the Supreme Court. The framing of the case was ingenious — and that the court decided the case on its merits shows that it was not frivolous or contrived. The Scottish government’s Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, was impressive in her arguments. The case could not have been put better.
    This was a rare case where the Supreme Court was not sitting as an appeal court. On certain devolution questions, it is a court of first instance.
    But it is also here a court of last instance. There is no appeal from the Supreme Court. The legal route to an independence referendum without the consent of Westminster or Whitehall now comes to an end. The issue returns from the realm of law to the realm of politics.
    And so it is from a political perspective that the Scottish govenment can be heartened. Wednesday’s judgment shows the limitations of the devolution settlement. This will bolster supporters of independence, who will maintain that the decision shows Scotland is locked into a supposedly “voluntary” union with no unilateral way out.
    Pro-independence supporters will also contend the judgment shows that under the law of the United Kingdom, the Scottish parliament seems to be little more than a statutory body, subject to a strict rule of ultra vires.
    Supporters of Scottish independence may be disappointed by the legal decision, but they will not be disappointed by the political signal that this judgment sends.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thanks John, I enjoy reading David Allen Green’s interpretive precision.
      I read through the SC judgement, and I was left feeling that even a simple manifesto for a plebiscite would fall foul, be illegal. Particularly Section 59 to 70.

      Boiling the judgement down, it is against anything that could affect a change to the sovereignty of the UK parliament, either immediate or later as a consequence. A part of that sovereignty is to make laws for Scotland. Now does that not give out a warm cosy feeling.

      That hurdle is now behind us, onwards.

      Our wee rally, Yes Skye and Loch Aillse, was well attended and buoyant. Surprisingly so, when considering the cold driech night it was.

      Good point Tris, “Who does England go to for permission to leave the Union?”
      The answer I would expect, “What, us leave? Nah m8, we’d just throw you lot of hangers on out.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. In the SC judgement it was deemed highly important to protect sovereignty, but this protection is directed to the sovereignty of the UK parliament, a particular cornerstone of the English constitution. A cornerstone established before the Treaty of Union. Counter to this is our sovereignty which lies with the people and was given no such protection or recognition.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I reckon their job is to interpret the law…

          That would include protecting the rights laid down in the law to protect sovereignty.

          It’s too complex for me to know how Scottish sovereignty is being respected or disrespected here.

          I’d be happy to hear learned counsel on it.


      1. LOL. Munguin says you should probably write in complaint to the king about it. That’s what he would do.

        Goodness, it would make old Snarles sit up and take notice…


  9. Meantime in the house of common fools.

    Sue ellen is asked how an African 16 year old, with a sibling already in the uk, can get permission to stay.
    Answer is; to land in the uk and seek asylum.

    Hopefully Nicola has read the guardian’s front page today, seems the gove allowed baroness moan to get £29m for her family out the country for useless PPE.
    If the guardian have published they must be pretty sure.

    I wanted to leave the golf club as I didn’t like how it was run, they told me I couldn’t, and that my house now belonged to them.

    Wish we could have people on here that want Scotland to be independent, calling the FM names doesn’t help, look who is/are the real targets for your venom.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I saw Braverman make an ass of herself.

      Her Noble Braness taken the money to the Isle of Man with Mr Gove’s connivance?


      Agreed. If you are calling Nicola or Alex or Patrick names, you should go find somewhere else to do your name calling.

      In their own way and within their own beliefs each one is working for Scotland.


  10. A good turnout at Holyrood yesterday, the usual suspects were there with an amplifier in an attempt to drown out Nicola. They were out amped.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Red and blue tories on the same song today, the health service.

    They will just provide the same result if given the chance.

    They try to tell us they are different, they’re not , you couldn’t get a fag paper between them. Britnat unionist to a person.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. They are playing on the press to support them; playing on the stupidity of the people, because time and time again both the Labour run Welsh health service and the Tory run English service is proved to be inferior to the SNP/Green run Scottish service.

      I phoned Monday afternoon at around 4 pm to see if I could get an appointment at my surgery. Was offered one at 10.10 on Tuesday morning.

      Munguin is happy to report that I am still alive.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes, perfectly well, thanks, Alan.

          And very happy at the service I got form the friendly helpful staff.

          First time I’ve been for years. Most impressed and not in the least like Jackie Baillie reports it to be.

          Liked by 1 person

  12. Y’know, I have to get a second blood test. I hung on the phone for just over an hour before I got taken.

    I am not complaining. If our NHS is under that amount of pressure the folk that do provide a service to us deserve sympathy and not complaint. It would be interesting to live in a society where care providers were treated with respect.

    The pressure that our society is currently under is, frankly, dangerous.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m sorry you had that experience.

      I’ve got medical friends and they say that the pressure is very much on them. Shortages because of retirements, ill health following covid to which they were exposed daily, and of course the disaster that is Brexit and the Home Office’s horrific inefficiency.

      Also a growling elderly population adding to the workload.

      And not enough money in our bankrupt country.

      Except obviously if you are throwing a dinner party in Buck House.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks. It is ridiculous that the point of the spear is directed at people doing their absolute best to assist rather than the crooks and liars who think that they are above the fray. Those folk are contemptible, those on the front line are heroes.

        Just one point. I am coming up for my 75th birthday. Old folk, especially those with children and grandchildren seem to me to be persuadable about indpendence. Could just be my cohort, but…

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Talking-up Scotland

NOT conflating the aberrant with the norm like BBC

The Dunglishman

The bilingual blog about all things British


Love, theatre and ideas

British Wildlife & Photography


Why Scotland should be an independent country


Thoughts about Scotland & the world, from a new Scot

Divided We Fall

Bipartisan dialogue for the politically engaged

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Black Isle Media

We Provide The Facts, You Make The Decisions

The Broad Spectrum Life

Exploring Rhymes, Reasons, and Nuances of Our World

Musical Matters...

Mark Doran's Music Blog


Songwriter / Guitarist

Best in Australia

This site supports Scottish Independence


A comic about history and stuff by FT

My Life as Graham

The embittered mumblings of a serial malcontent.

Pride's Purge

an irreverent look at UK politics


Your Source For The Coolest Science Stories


The greatest site in all the land!

Mark Explores

Nature + Health

%d bloggers like this: