The contradiction here lies in Scottish lawyers (and others in the Scots establishment) crude misconception that “The kingdoms merged crown”. This cannot be so, because the two kingdoms continue to exist “as distinct entities”, as therefore must the twa soverane crouns continue to exist.
Indeed, the UK Parliament, in continuing to legislate for Scotland, is ‘conditional’ upon this fact; the joint UK Parliament is therefore not sovereign, rather, it remains subordinate, conditional on the Articles of Union, to the twa ‘soverane’ kinricks/kingdoms wha creautit hit:
“36. Applying the foregoing to (ToU) Article XXII, (a) the Kingdoms of Scotland and England continue to be acknowledged by the law to be distinct entities”
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm
Which means there are still, in fact and in law, twa soverane crouns, and thus twa very different national constitutional realities, which cannot be ‘merged’.
The main prablem wi Scottish lawyers (and most other Scottish institutions) is thay sling-a-deifie or dinna seem tae ken this, an therefor thay ser anely a furrin croun – which is unconstitutional, i.e. in violation of the Scottish constitution, and keeps the Scots fowk haud-doun:
https://salvo.scot/scottish-constitution/
Hence: “Two Countries, Two Law Systems” an Twa Crouns!
Steven Barratt asserted that “we voluntarily merged the crowns, to forge a new crown” whilst Roddy Dunlop says “The kingdoms merged crown, but the legal systems did not.”
Salvo argues that there was no merger of the Crowns either, rather it was the monarch that became common across the two distinct and continuing kingdoms (1603) and that the Treaty of Union (1707) did not change this.
The Crown in Parliament (England) based on the Bill of Rights (1689) in that country remained sovereign there whilst the people were (and continue to be) the Crown, and thus sovereign, in Scotland based on our Claim of Right (also, coincidentally, 1689).
Arrrrgh…. How many times does this need to be said, GB? The two crowns never merged into one: the same head wore both crowns in James VI and I, meaning that he wore the Scottish crown separately from his wearing of the English crown. All the ‘Union of the Crowns’ meant, and still means, is that one person wore both crowns. The crowns themselves were never merged into one crown (there is no crown of Great Britain) and it is a gross breach of constitutional legality for any monarch to not be crowned separately in Scotland.
If you (not you, personally, GB, as I know you know) read the workings around the Treaty of Union, you would discover that Queen Anne herself stated as much when she declared that she was head of state of both Scotland and England separately and, as such, was overseeing the Union of the Parliaments – which was a union based on equality, as the Treaty shows (my words, not hers), although she more or less did say as much. All the official and legal trappings of a state of Scotland continued with the Treaty, albeit the Scottish parliament merged with that of England and Wales, with Ireland d coming later. The original and constitutional Union is that between Scotland and England (and Wales) and it is this Union that underpins the UK, via the Treaty, not – emphatically not – via the Acts of Union which are the means of translation of international law (the Treaty) into domestic law (the Acts). The Acts cannot ever underpin the Union, as they are not primary constitutional and legal legislation, but secondary (to the Treaty).
The Treaty does, indeed, specifically protect Scots Law, the Scottish Kirk and Scottish Education, Trade and other trapping of state. The arrogance and ignorance of English lawyers and politicians should come as no surprise, but what is unforgivable is the riding roughshod over our constitutional legalities guaranteed in the Treaty by those who do know better. This is why I and many others have been calling for the Treaty to be ratified in the Scottish courts prior to its ratification in the Supreme Court and, if necessary, the In terminational Court of Justice. Any independence party worth its name would have done this long since instead of wasting many millions of unwinnable court cases against former FMs and against ideologies that very few believe in or care about because the people who are immersed in them already have all their human rights consistent with equality before the law, in the same ways that we all do. Extensions to human rights cannot be arbitrary in any jurisdiction, just as breaches to human rights cannot be arbitrary in any jurisdiction.
There’s some interesting case law which has probably muddied the waters from the English perspective. Most demonstrate the view that the English courts regarded very early into the Union that Scotland was a colony much like India etc. The first one was James Greenshields 1711. He appealed to the House of Lords as an appellate of Scottish jurisdiction. This case is very similar to the case of the Berwick Burgher who appealed to the English courts in the 1290s. The treatment of the Jacobites exemplified exactly how England viewed Scotland and the Scottish legal system. Most Jacobites were tried in English courts under English treason laws for alleged offences in Scotland. Sir James Kinloch and his kin, particularly Alexander Kinloch, argued that English courts had no jurisdiction over them under the Act of Union. His persuasive argument found no favour and he was convicted, to be executed-later commuted to banishment. My own namesake Lord Kilmarnock faired worse. Many others were sent to the plantations in the Caribbean, or banished, fled to Europe or met Lord Kilmarnock’s fate. William Boyd, Lord Kilmarnock was executed at Tower Hill on the same day as Lord Balmerino. Lord Balmerino’s final haunting words that day probably reflect how many of us feel: “if i had lived a thousand lives i would have laid them all down in the same cause”.
Judicial decisions are based upon law and fact. The role of the judge is to advise on law. The subjective element relies upon interpretation of fact.
Juries are comprised of 15 human beings from varied backgrounds and ages, who have no vested professional interest in the outcome of the trial. After the trial they disperse anonymously.
Judges too are human beings who bring their own prejudices and upbringings to deciding fact. If they get the ‘law’ element wrong, theoretically their decision can be overturned upon appeal. However interpretation of fact cannot be overturned irrespective of whether made by 15 jury men and women from a wide spectrum of life or a single judge.
A key point is that judges have professional ambitions that are influenced and sometimes decided by politicians. Any alarm bells ringing?
Craig Murray case anyone? Even where 3 judges sit together there is a senior judge (Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorian anyone?) who exerts influence.
In the lower courts I have viewed examples of poor decision making by sheriffs who have not bothered to read all the relevant documents before them, and sheriff principals who should have but have not overturned flawed decisions because of the Old Boys and Girls Network. From being a wholehearted admirer of the judiciary I now see its members as equally prone to human frailty as jury members and with undoubtedly more vulnerability in the case of the higher courts to experiencing political fall out from a decision that politicians don’t like, than 15 anonymous members of the public.
The right to trial before a jury of our peers in one of the oldest and most fundamental rights we hold. To even suggest this should be taken from us should call us to civil dissent – lets face it our ancestors did not win those rights by asking nicely. Judges are political puppets and cannot be trusted. We in Scotland should surely know that? Judges, the COPFS and the polis all sit cozily in the pocket of power. Malfeasance can only be prosecuted when the whole lot of them are not at it.
Whatever the issues with juries may be they must be resolved while retaining the jury system. Training in a process that focuses on the facts of evidence maybe – I don’t pretend the answer is simple – but juries must stay.
I am old enough to remember when the automatic penalty for being found guilty of murder was death by hanging. Sometimes Juries would find the defendant [accused] “Not guilty.” This was not because of the lack of evidence put before them, but because a majority of the members of the jury were ideologiccaly opposed to the death penalty. This situation was resolved. eventually, by ending the death penalty.
As the writer of the article mentions, individuals making up juries bring with them all their prejudices to the jury room and strong willed, highly determined individuals can see it as their right to impose their prejudices on others. , In my opinion, the nett outcome in some trials is that certain juries will come to the wrong decision, especially if little/no scientific evidence is produced by either party. Trials without a Jury is supported by some people in certain circumstances, but who is to say that certain judges will not bring their prejudices to the court room either? [Or the investigating Police Officer/s for whom the reward of promotion in the event of a successful prosecution may well be a part of their motivation?] Society will need to tread VERY carefully if serious offences are tried without a jury in the future. A totally foolproof method of arriving at the correct decision in 100% of all cases by any method is simply not possible.
This is, of course, a very sensitive matter.
I do agree with the claim in the article that people comprising juries will bring their prejudices e.g. misogynistic, racist, stereotypical into court with them. They are human after all and we can’t expect them to be perfectly devoid of some of these flawed characteristics.
However, surely the point of having 15 (or 12) randomly selected human beings to comprise the jury is to ensure that there is some kind of balance and that the risk of the imposition of a bias or biases is spread/mitigated?
I take the point about the danger of an individual or individuals dominating jury deliberations behind closed doors and potentially unfairly influencing the outcome of these proceedings. Perhaps the answer is to have potential jury members interviewed as to their suitability based on a set of agreed criteria (life experience, strength of character, articulation etc) and then formally appointed?
On the possibility of juryless trials for “solemn” offences the judge may have expertise in the law but isn’t it more than possible that they would bring their own prejudices into court? Maybe not misogynistic or racist but some other kind of motivation e.g. political. Plus an individual could more easily be ‘got at’ or intimidated than a group of persons. And in this this event there would be no counterweight to the judge’s view whose word would be ‘God’s word’ as he/she gets to be jury and executioner/sentencer too.
The latter is one of the evident dangers in the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill brought forward recently by the Scottish Government.
For these reasons I cannot support juryless trials.
I’m surprised that the SNP have not proposed Artificial Intelligence juries.
I mean AI already already profiles people and makes decisions in many areas of people’s lives
Sounds good to me – eh what?
David Simon, co-creator of The Wire was a crime reporter on the Baltimore Sun for many years. His first foray away from journalism was the epic book, Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets (1991). This takes a form similar to Moby Dick in that the main narrative is a standard sequential story (nonfiction in Simon’s case) interspersed with technical essays.
In one essay Simon explores the problems obtaining a functionally competent jury in inner city America in the 1990’s. This is attributed in part to the disruptive influence of popular TV drama. These shows presented mercurial, photogenic lawyers delivering pithy, devastatingly gotchas proving innocence or guilt. This is entirely unrepresentative of reality and gave the jury unrealistic expectations.
This situation is exhaserbated further by so-called Crime Scene Investigation shows these days. My contempt for this pseudo scientific nonsense cannot be overstated.
Simon points to Forensic Scientists giving deposition to the jury, trying to educate them on the reality of crime scene science, but this is done “on the hoof” as a preamble to their testimony in the actual Courtroom.
Perhaps those selected for final jury swearing-in in a Solemn case should undergo a couple of days orientation before the presentation of evidence.
On another note what do our fellow humans here in Scotland think about the security apparatus now blocking many many foreign TV channels.
Russia Today news is the obvious one. George Galloway was on it yesterday saying that the UK was no democracy at all, that free speech was being curtailed, that the media was being manipulated, that people who spoke nothing but the truth were being jailed without trial for years. Galloway even named outlets being blocked.
People a free to try it out and see the ” hmnn – that page can’t be reached “ but it’s actually much more hidden than that across the platforms – and how many of us have seen blog comments disappear into the ether. Blog interference, no never, not here in Bonnie Scotland.
And as Iain and Ewen Kennedy covered earlier SLAPPs and their hidden friends the super injunction they are just another part of a ruling elites suppressing public awareness.
We truly live in evil fascist times. Indeed we could be in a major all out conflagration soon with out any decision on the part of the people of this country. And how many of us know that UK troops are already on the ground fighting in various theatres across the world from Ukraine, to Gaza to Syria to Lebanon. We read of the Naval and Airforce sorties but troops on the ground. And the Scottish Government want to abandon trial by juries.
Truly, they are Johnny come Lately two bit fascists. And I do not underestimate my words when I say fascists. But I suppose they’ve still to announce trials in secret that they don’t seem to have got round to just yet.
Nacht und Nebel folks. That’s the ticket. It’s an old Gaidhlig dictum and just the dictum for the nu-SNP.
I’m sorry but I don’t agree with juryless trials period, different juries act differently having a coupe of juries that don’t live up to scratch shouldn’t see the whole system pushed aside for juryless trials.
The reason the LA and the SNP want juryless trials in sexual cases is to get the conviction rates up, but his should always be evidence led, figures should not be massaged via juryless trials to get the conviction rates up.
Craig Murray had no jury and he was found guilty by a judge who wouldn’t even let him present all his evidence in his defence.
Ask yourself would Alex Salmond been found not guilty if there were no jury on his trial
Finally look what’s happening to Julian Assange he’s been imprisoned in Belmarsh prison WITHOUT charge for years now, his health has deteriorated and he’ suffered a heart attack.
Once you start down the road of juryless trials, its not that far a step until Roland Freisler type judges start appearing and they begin to dish out very severe sentences, on what could be innocent people.
Juries MUST remain in Scotland.
So, Republic, we must accept that women and girls will not receive justice in rape trials – at least, not a lot of the time? Or in many domestic violence cases that end in killings? You think it’s all about getting conviction rates up and not to try to eliminate gross unfairness? You see, this is exactly what bothers me about the justice system. While I can accept that, in cases where there is no evidence whatsoever, and it comes down to “he said, she said”, it will be very difficult to convict given the nature of the types of the alleged crimes. However, in a different system for sexual and violent crimes, where the adversarial system is suspended, and an interrogatory system put in place, the conviction rate and justice would be more inclined to run parallel. Looked at baldly, if women and girls are not receiving justice, then many men must be getting away with ‘murder’, literally and metaphorically. That does not bother you?
I know Craig Murray had no jury, and I regret that he was convicted because I believe he is a good man at heart, and I contributed to his fighting fund. He did, however, breach a court order, did he not? He was not convicted for no reason. This is exactly what I mean by bringing personal emotions into what should be a straightforward decision based on evidence. If the evidence is tainted, flawed or insufficient, then an acquittal should be also be straightforward.
I believe that, jury or no jury, Alex Salmond would have been acquitted because the evidence was entirely insufficient and some of it flawed and tainted. It would have been a travesty of justice to have found him guilty on such flimsy evidence. Any judge who did would have been subject to censure. The judge in his case directed the jury very fairly and he was acquitted. The law actually did its job.
Julian Assange’s is a complicated and very unfortunate case in that he did what he is accused of, but with good intentions, and his bravery in doing so cannot be denied. It might have gone better for him had he just faced up to the charges at the beginning and stood trial. It is a tragedy in the proper sense of that word, and, personally, I do not feel, or have ever felt, that he should be handed over to the Americans. A good case could have been made for his being autistic and a lenient sentence handed down. As it is, his life has been one of incarceration anyway, constant hounding and terrible conditions. I hope that he does escape extradition and that he is freed. No justice can be possible now, just vengeance which the law was designed to prevent.
I am not trying to make a case for jury-less trials and I am well aware that miscarriages of justice occur for men, too. I am trying to make a case for a different approach, essentially, to male on female crimes: perhaps a different court, less formal, evidence by video link, training of jurors, with, perhaps, a professional jury or a professional lawyer sitting in on jury deliberations to keep jurors on track with the evidence. We really do need to think about all these things instead of just giving a knee-jerk reaction because, a) the subject is going to arise again, and probably soon and change may come about for all the wrong reasons; and, b) because many females in our society believe that they will never receive justice from the system. Others may feel the same, but the sex divide in so many aspects of society are beginning to become stark and they will have to be dealt with if females are not going to simply walk away from all co-operation. We are talking about half the human race, half the population.
It is good that people are starting to ‘do it for ourselves’ as the politicians have failed us. The announcement of Eva Comrie’s candidature and ‘Independents for Independence’ is a very promising development as are other initiatives such as the #RepurposeYourVote campaign for where there is no genuinely pro-Independence candidates standing for election.
With respect to your comment that “for over a year now every single commissioned poll on Scottish Independence has been showing that more than 50% of Scots are now in favour of independence.”:
Wikipedia indicates that there have been 43 polls on Scottish Independence sentiment carried out since 1st March 2023. These appear to show that only 9 have a majority in favour of YES with only 4 of these recording 50%+ of the total surveyed in the sample (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence).
Perhaps I have misunderstood something?
( Roddy – as ever I leave it entirely to you as to whether this comment appears, but given the items discussed in the show, the Royal Oath, nuclear weapons and more – I think it has relevance – best confimed and for you to judge in the comments below.)
It is highly unlikely that either Eva or Sally are aware that for over 3 years – in their own names and by their own signatures, Scots from every part of Scotland, at rallies, Yes Stalls, and other events have been invited to take part in an initiative – The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot, and have and are continuing to accept that invitation in ever increasing numbers.
My post is offered so that both Eva and Sally might be made aware (if that is possible please) that their decision to act as Independents/Yessers is something that will be very widely and substantially supported in the same way that this initiative has gained support.
Relevance? Set against what was discussed on Prism – I hope these extracts from the Declaration document will act as evidence
The Declaration of an individual Sovereign Scot : its purpose – to regain the independence of Scotland.
Exercising my Claim Of Right as a Sovereign Scot, I declare:
I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Treaty of Union established through the Acts of Union in 1707.
Inter alia, I adopt and rely upon the principles, and international legal recognition of Article 1 (2) – (Equal rights and self-determination of peoples) of the United Nations, and specifically the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, and in so doing declare that I recognise the sole democratic legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament, and assert its primacy and permanence to act singularly on behalf of the Sovereign Scots whose votes alone establish and maintain its existence.
I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Scotland Act 1998, and all subsequent relevant Acts of like nature and purpose, and demand that any Oath of Allegiance to be sought from, and given by, a potential Member of the Scottish Parliament recognises the Sovereignty of the Scottish People in the following terms: “By this oath, I acknowledge that if elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, it will be as a result of votes cast by Sovereign Scots, and I do solemnly swear and affirm that my allegiance is, and will remain, to the Sovereign people of Scotland.
That this Declaration is made by an individual Sovereign Scot to ensure that Scotland regains its independence as a Sovereign Nation, and in so doing can secure its economic future to not only offer opportunities to its people but equally to provide for the welfare of its people by entirely legal and democratic means and without any form of outside interference, and in an international context to support the United Nation’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, by the removal of all nuclear weapons from Scotland.
Ends …
Awfy weel done Sally. We need mair folk like you to push the Indie cause. No, placemen and wimmen who are politicoes because they get a comfy income. . . It’s no been the S.N.P., for an awfy lang time. I wis a member, and gave up in’17. I could see the wey things were going. Lost a few freends, who treated the pairty like a religion, and wid no cry it oot when it wis obviously no richt. . I wish you weel. Davie Allan, Strathyre
A majority of Independent Independence MPs ‘duly elected’ by the people have no reason to go to Westminster. Their mandate is clear, the people will have spoken.
Our duly elected national representatives should find a suitable room and re-establish a Scottish Parliament. After taking their oaths in Scotland tae the soverane fowk o Scotland, one of their first matters of business would be to repeal the Act of Union with England.
This wad mak Scotland soverane an independent (again), an Scots fowk wad rejyce!
we take our cue from AFRIKAA –
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/c88n0d8mxxgo
but the IMF will cut your money if you won’t let them cut your boaby
BRICS may allow you to keep your boaby
So, they want to make it illegal to try and prevent a child from transitioning, but they forcibly transition females into non-beings every day of the week with no penalty? Their brass necks are only outdone by their psychological unwellness and unfitness to hold any public office whatsoever. I am very close now to hatred of the SNP and their stookies. That Maggie woman from the Greens is degenerate.
Where were the dissenters, the questioners, those who are not afraid to speak up at these madness-stoking and encouraging meetings? They want the police to arrest parents who are trying to save the children they love? Give them seven years? Well, we’ll see. We’ll see.
Is it known if the Scottish Greens and the SNP are receiving money from pharma, private hospital chains linked to “transing” kids or medical insurance companies?
It is so obvious the whole exercise is biased that one wonders if the Sgov are acting as proxies for something else.
Since STurgeon took control of the SNP, the NHS has gone down hill quite rapidly. It is now on its knees. The length of waiting lists is ridiculous and in some areas they are so understaffed that there are wards in some hospitals where the bulk of nurses are agency hired nurses rather than NHS nurses.
Landing the expense of puberty blockers and testosterone etc treatments for life will cripple some departments and boards. I guess this will be great if what you pursue is to find an excuse to accelerate privatisation.
I know this is going to sound terrible, but I would not put it past these sick lot. This biased exercise comes across as if these individuals are attempting to transform Scotland into a testing ground for experimental techniques using the NHS to endorse them, and a sanctuary for paedophiles, sadists and child abusers.
Forcing a child to transition and then denying them the opportunity to detransition sounds like a horrible form of sadism, just like performing a mastectomy on a teenage girl or creating a fake vagina on a teenage boy. None of those are out of place in a horror movie.
Being cynical, the more kids they manage to subject to statutory sterilisation with this, the faster the native population of Scotland will fall and the lower the chance of independence. I wouldn’t put it past them.
By the way, is Robertson anywhere near to releasing the census? Goodness, if he waits a little bit longer it will soon become time to call the next one.
What a shower of shysters the SNP turned out to be
I still struggle to understand why nicola, a nationalist from childhood, from a nationalist family did destroy the party so thoroughly.
Why ????
It is beyond understanding was she c
Shug @ 19.38.
Seems more likely to me that she was always an obsessively ambitious sociopath, Shug.
With her background independence just presented this failed solicitor with the best way to achieve power, money and control of others. The SNP was always just a convenient vehicle to (ab)use to get ahead. Using others (such as her mentor and political tutor, Mr Salmond) to climb over,ever upwards, backstabbing and discarding the dupes on her way.
I have no doubts that there will have been dubious groups involved in subverting the cause of independence in the SNP, however I’d guess that no one would have had to do much to incentivise Ms Sturgeon on her relentless drive to the top.
A timely warning, Stu for what’s in store for us if these gender ideologues get their way. Clearly one of the reasons they concentrate on attaching their TQIAXYZ delusions to the LGB is in order to force the acceptance of gender affirming medical and surgical treatments for young people.
(Only LGB define sexual orientation. The rest are what at best can be described as straight perversions and delusions)
Make no mistake. There is no sound peer reviewed research which supports medical or surgical treatment for gender reassignment. Their supposed anti conversion therapy stance is the opposite; such treatments are the essence of conversion therapy.
These fools are supporting lines of treatment which will destroy the bodies and minds of young people in Scotland.
O/T: Sorry for this early change of subject but I think it will encourage others to feel a little more optimistic about the independence movement making some progress, as it does me. I urge everyone to look at this youtube:
Independence Forum Scotland youtube of their meeting in February which was to discuss a National Convention and other subjects around the needs of Scotland – just seeing who was there and hearing some words from several of them was very encouraging.
Simon Forrest – he is the Nova Technology engineer who had a good piece in the National recently about how renewables could be the third time that Scotland has lost out on a bonanza. I find it interesting that the National gives him space and here he is at a constitutional forum which aims to put people in power, not politicians.
Dave Thompson, the Action for Independence party founder – clearly a well experienced and capable organiser.
Tim Rideout – currency expert.
William Duguid – writer and Yes blogger.
Everyone there was intelligent, principled, decent and passionate for independence. A breath of fresh air.
Andreas Baader once said something along the lines of – “shooting and fucking, it’s the same thing … ”
– a company in S Korea is offering 75 grand per baby for young couples; this is what you have to do to get the birthrate up – bribe the young women, give them a better deal than “feminism” is offering (a worthless office job career, no kids and a house full of cats aged 40)
S Korea has the worst fertility rate in the world 0.7; for contrast, the north korean leader was crying in public the other week, begging the women to have kids, because the birthrate had fallen to 1.7; replacement level is 2.1 /2.2 so 1.7 is sleepwalking to extinction, as for 0.7 … it’s a death wish. S Korea is culturally hyper capitalist and feminist, a kindof lab experiment, a pure signal of what happens; young women slut it up on social media for attention and likes and money, young men locked in their bedrooms spanking it to anime porn – normal relations are not being formed; simps can pay a monthly fee on only fans to pretend some e-wh0re is their girlfriend.
Young Scots are holding back from having kids down to economic constraints – stagnant wages and expensive housing; you can only solve this problem if you are independent, for otherwise you do not have the economic levers to hand.
– we also annihilate via spiked probe perfectly good life at one end of the age range, while trying to get barren old crones up the duff at the other; it makes no sense, but the feminists want it and no one has said no to them for a generation; welcome to the island of dr moreau and the leather bar/gay disco mashup – at least it won’t last too long, since we will become as extinct as the dodo or tasmanian wolf
Scotland has a “demographic crisis”, but there is a dumb way to “solve” it (suicidally stupid), and a fun, easy, natural, way; and what an amazing selling point that could be –
“indy – once we get the english to fuck – we all get fucking (raw, up the front)”
indy is a fight for the future, for existence.
Queer theory is a death cult promising sexual liberation.
And another thing, relating to these shameless trans liars.
NOTE how they call it ‘conversion therapy’. That is NOT what it is and always was called. No, it was GAY conversion therapy, and these utter chancers have literally turned it on its head.
GAY conversion therapy, was for example, parents had a boy who said he was gay, so they sent him off to a special camp (these really existed in the USA), where religious folk would work on them day and night to literally brainwash them into hating their sexuality. Other regimes used more barbaric methods. In short, it was to make gay people straight. It had NOTHING whatsoever to do with being ‘trans’. Gay conversion therapy never worked, and in this country is already, due to its nature, illegal. Many, many existing laws prevent it.
Clowns like those above have turned the concept upside down, and twisted it. They no longer call it GAY conversion therapy, they call it just conversion therapy. They insist that what it really means is that if somebody says to a child who thinks they are ‘trans’ that they are not, then they are guilty of ‘conversion therapy’.
It is the ultimate example of just how these ideologues have deliberately and willfully hijacked gay rights.
Ian McCubbin @ 11:13 pm
“A further step in removal of freedom of speech, thought intelect and creativity.This system of gendering is taking away true creativity and transposing a fixed agenda.”
Yes, what we see is a form of fascism, linked to (and rooted in) colonialism, as reflecting our underlying ‘condition’. It is the imposition of an alien culture and oppressive ideology, given authority by fools, charlatans and tricksters, dealers in gobbledygook, which is the SNP/Green elite and those leading ‘Scottish’ institutions:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/03/the-colonial-mindset/
“What is fascism, if not a regime of oppression for the benefit of a few? The entire administrative and political machinery of a colony has no other goal.” (Albert Memmi)
I see someone else has posted the link to the latest ICJ hearing that I posted at the end of the last CC cartoon. Here it is again…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn4qYAORAE
It is really worth watching (for many reasons) because it is highly relevant to Scotland as well.
After watching that I realized there is no need for any ‘clever’ or long winded arguments for our Right of Self Determination at any time that we decide. It is as clear as can be clear.
Which is what makes the destruction of the SNP and Alex Salmond’s reputation very telling indeed…
They were effectively the political apparatus by which we would have asserted our Right of Self Determination.
And they were methodically, systematically destroyed post 2014, which incidentally was rigged using postal votes.
A lot of arrows are now pointing at the big massive authoritarian elephant not just sitting in the room but sitting on us… slowly suffocating us.
Gaza is a lens.
Ruby @ 10:13 am
“Alf turns everything into colonialism.”
An oppressed people first have to understand their ‘condition’ before they will find the only remedy.
Maist Scots fowk dinna e’en ken independence is leeberation fae bein haud-doun an makkit intae thirlfowk (i.e. John Cleese’s ‘obedient retainers craving social status’/dependency).
https://salvo-cor.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf
To quote a weel-kent Scottish politician, who has ben in the news this week, I would say to Professor Alf Baird: “Sir, I salute your indefatigueability” in trying to get those on here who are unwilling to see, just how we have become colonised over the past 317 years.
This morning, for light relief, I was browsing the (as it then was) Glasgow Herald of my birth date (28 February, 1947). It made for interesting reading.
For instance, in its acres of “match reports” of the previous day’s business in the House of Commons, we had TWO Scottish Conservative MPs (Commander Tam Galbraith and Walter Elliott) arguing that cheaply-produced Scottish hydro electricity should be used to benefit the Scottish economy, rather than used to subsidise the more-expensively produced (from coal) English electricity.
Apparently, at 1947 prices, hydro-electricity cost 0.2 pence (that’s old pre-decimal pennies) to produce, against coal-fired electricity’s 0.4 pence per unit.
I cannot see Dougie DRoss, Alasdair Jackass or their pals of today making that argument.
There was also a perceptive essay from Erik Linklater on the whisky trade in which several of his minus points from back then, in the hard post-war recovery years, are still pertinent today.
Alf is right, we are doon-hauden and that will continue for as long as we are served by today’s pygymy politicians, afraid to really speak-up for Scotland.
Ian Brotherhood @ 3:07 pm
“Cath Ferguson calling for Alba (and others) to sort themselves out”
Some have been pointing this out since the party structured itself much like other political parties in 2021:
https://www.barrheadboy.com/the-fundamental-case-for-freedom-by-prof-alf-baird/
It matters not a jot whether or not there are any Scots MPs at Westminster. The numbers tell all. They can make no difference, and never could. Independence will be the result of secession, not referenda approved by Westminster.
NATO, nuclear weapons on the Clyde and membership of the English-Speaking Union are all flannel, smoke and mirrors to distract from the utter failure to move one inch towards being independent again.
Well, Frantz Fanon did warn all colonized peoples, over 60 years ago, “that inside the nationalist parties, the will to break colonialism is linked with another quite different will: that of coming to a friendly agreement with it.”
Which helps explain why “the party machine shows itself opposed to any innovation” to free the people at the ‘decisive moment’ (e.g. when nationalist majorities are elected).
The independence movement is therefore “confronted with leaders who are terrified” and incapable of moving the cause forward, who refuse to reclaim their national sovereignty stolen from the people.
And now the movement begin to question their leaders on the ‘crucial points’:
“What is nationalism?
What sense do you give to this word?
Independence for what?
And in the first place, how do you propose to achieve it?”
These questions require that the problems of methodology should be vigorously tackled.
What an authoritarian shithole the UK is turning in to.
“THE definition of extremism being broadened by the UK Government should be regarded as a threat to Scots’ rights to campaign for independence and constitutional change, an MP has claimed.
Rishi Sunak has asked Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove to update the Government’s definition of extremism so it encompasses more broadly those who “undermine” British values and institutions.
The change is expected to be announced later this month and is expected to include a list of groups that fall foul of the new definition.
Ministers are also considering proposals put forward by the Government’s adviser on political violence, John Woodcock, to ban MPs and councillors from engaging with certain protest groups such as Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Extinction Rebellion.”
Eva Comrie to stand as an independent candidate.
“Each of us has our own part to play in creating the future Scotland deserves; for that
reason and a few more outlined below, I have resolved to stand as an Independent candidate for the constituency of Alloa and Grangemouth at the forthcoming GeneralElection.”
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/05/a-dream-to-keep-by-eva-comrie/
Ruby: Shame about Alba! You are right, Ruby, you can’t ride two horses at once. have said before and will say again: this gender ordure will kill every party that touches it. As for using disabled toilets, no way. If you are wilfully disabled by your paraphilia or fetish that you feed daily with p**n, and want to indulge said paraphilia/fetish in public, start creating your own spaces. Terrorizing females and making them very uncomfortable is part of the fun for these guys. Vomit. They do not want their own spaces – and Stonewall and its various allies in the ‘trans’ lobby are awash with money – because the excitement lies in harassing women and girls in a sexual manner. These people are without conscience so no point in appealing to a non-existent one. I will never understand why so many people just do not get it. There is always someone who cannot resist pandering to these men. They would trample you into the dust. Do not feel sorry for them unless you are a certified masochist. They hate us.
Republicofscotland16.51.
Maybe just me, RoS, however I genuinely feel that even here on WOS there is a more encouraging feeling getting going.
Just the thought of local people seeing a meaningful opportunity to get decent, everyday folk involved in Scottish political activity instead of the assorted grifters, chancers and troughers (I really am trying to be restrained here) occupying Holyrood and WM, potentially even the House of Lords, could start a ground level up wave of hope and enthusiasm.
Rochdale, with independent candidates achieving great support from the electorate, demonstrated that the Party system is now in serious trouble.
@ David Hannah at 7.08
If you ask me Eva And Denise were clearly jealous about Yvonne being the women’s representative in the Alba Party.
That seems extraordinarily unlikely, given that neither of them stood for election as women’s convenor. No genuine gender critical feminist says what Ridley said because of a “senior moment”. She revealed herself to be a fraud (my own opinion of her is the polar opposite of yours, and yes, I have met her) and should have been expelled, not allowed to step back because she was “distressed” when called to account.
That of course is just my view and no-one’s asking me any more than they are asking you.
Dan @ 7:55 pm
“the hallowed re-wilding practices”
Ah, the ‘cultural recreation of the colonizer’ (Memmi). If not sheep replacing people in the glens, how about a few wolves here, some eagles there, and ‘protected’ national parks and seas; tho protected from what? From furthering the development of the native population of course, their annexed lands transformed into whatever fits the colonizers fancy; ergo, ‘cultural recreation’.
Dan
Ignored says:
5 March, 2024 at 8:57 pm
Carnage, just utter carnage and probably going to cost many many thousands to sort the issue properly, so expect increased wastewater charges on your council taxes to cover beaver antics.
I don’t know enough about it, but my instincts are with the beavers.
I can’t get away from that Tropic Cascade story where just half a dozen wolves changed the whole ecosystem of Yellowstone Park. There were individual winners and losers, but the nett balance was a huge improvement for everybody.
Perhaps the issue with Scotland’s beavers is the omission of a natural predator; not to cull numbers essentially, but to modify the behaviour of the beavers in the same way the deer in Yellowstone started to avoid open areas where they were easy prey for the wolves. The effect of this was clearings in the forests were less heavily grazed, allowing more plants to mature / flower/ procreate, which fed and bred more insects, which fed and bred more birds etc…
Scotland’s wild has been so grievously damaged for so long that there’s virtually no chance of any trophic cascade happening here, because we’re introducing wild animals into a virtual desert, with virtually no wild predation. The “problem” with the beavers, is perhaps that it’s “only” the beavers we’ve bought back.
I’m saddened there are problems with human interaction, the same way I’m saddened by farmers losing lambs to eagles, but a stronger emotion than sadness at things which can be compensated, is anger and a deep sense of injustice and “wrongness” that Scotland’s natural habitat has itself been butchered to the point of extinction. Our seas and rivers emptied of fish, our skies emptied of raptors, our forests emptied of predators then emptied of trees themselves. By what fkg right did we do this? The damned arrogance of our species! All of this must be reversed, and we are blind as well as stupid if we don’t see that.
No doubt you’re not alone feeling a bit Billy Murray about the beavers on the golf course, but I’m on the beaver’s side. They should be there. They have the right to be there, and humans in their arrogance, had no entitlement to drive them to extinction in the first place.
If our drainage infrastructure needs beaver-proofed, then maybe beaver-proofing it is a trophic cascade style modification of our behaviour. If more eagles, more owls, more lynx, eventually more wolves and maybe even bears, are going to modify the viability of Grouse Moors or hill farms and sheep numbers, then that too is our price to pay, our contribution to the trophic cascade. And if it hurts, then that hurt is a measure of our unbalanced singularity, and the dreadfully overbearing dominance and unhealthy impact on the natural ecosystem.
If it also reveals that humans in Scotland cannot adapt to life in the wilderness, why are we Scots incapable of doing what Canadians / Ru$$ians and every other population on our latitude, and living in harmony with the environment. Can you imagine the vast Canadian or Siberian wilderness denuded of trees and turned into a desert for bloodthirsty tossers to blast away at wee birds too stupid to flee? Scotland has made its contribution to that bleakest of world realities, , and it sickens me to the core.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a wolf, a beaver or whatever. If we humans discovered a living organism of comparable stature to a maggot living on another planet, it would shake our beliefs to the core. Yet we are living in an absolute paradise, a living world packed with countless species all interdependent on each other, and we seem hell bent on destroying it. The impropriety is all ours. Money? What good ever came from money? Show me a fish or a fox with a wallet
“Ian Brotherhood
Ignored says:
6 March, 2024 at 10:48 am
Perhaps we should explore ways of reintroducing real socialists to Scottish politics?”
Ian, I think you might have guessed you would be asked, “What’s a real socialist?”
Can’t think of too many – any – socialists that are elected politicians in Scotland. It’s all neoliberal crap.
WTF are you doing Alex, these so called “Green” Freeports will be an unregulated disaster for Scotland. (BAP) member Kate Forbes worded tirelessly with Michael Gove to push these Freeports in Scotland.
“A HIGHLAND energy boss and former SNP backer has joined Alba, claiming that Alex Salmond’s party is the only one standing up for the oil and gas industry.
Steve Chisholm is the operations and innovations director for the Global Energy Group, a leading service and contracting company for the energy sector.
He is known as one of the driving forces behind the Inverness and Cromarty green freeport, co-ordinating with public bodies to develop a business case for the project.
He told the Press and Journal that despite being a life-long supporter of the SNP, he had taken the decision to leave due to the party’s stance on oil and gas support.”
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/01/salvo-acts-on-freeports/
Republicofscotland @11:52
What if the decisions to rename the shires and open up Freeports mean that the new constituency of Alloa & Grangemouth can both declare itself THE Independent Republic* of Scotland AND take possession of Grangemouth under current law?
All it might need is sufficient support among the constituents of said parish/ Nation, now that a candidate with the requisite determination, desire, and appropriately skilled entourage, is standing to best represent them at international level
*eg since the Crown, by definition, may have abdicated, or been discharged of, any rights and responsibilities held previously, in consequence..
Cheer yourselves up. There is a choice at the General Election for Yessers – Independents for Independence are growing.
Have a really enjoyable hour listening to Through a Scottish Prism today with Eva Comrie and Sally Hughes – standing against John Nicolson and Pete Wishart respectively – as the first two Independents for Independence. Both bright, determined, whole-hearted Yessers.
Both women have got posts on Yours for Scotland blog as well.
There’s hope again, folks! Revel in it.
More comedy gold from this SNP government with their usual railing and finger pointing at the piss poor budget from the Tories.
Yet no matter how bad it gets for Scots and it will get a helluva lot worse for us, the SNP would never ever under Yousaf, and previously Sturgeon the Judas ever contemplate getting us out of this bucket of shit union in earnest.
“THE Scottish Government has branded new Tory spending plans a “betrayal” of public services – amid grim predictions of spending cuts.
Finance Secretary Shona Robison accused the UK Government of providing “not a single penny more” for investment in Scotland.
And she raised concerns there was “no detail on where cuts will fall”.
Reacting to the Budget, Robison (below) said: “Public services up and down the UK are in real need of investment, and they’re being sacrificed to deliver unsustainable tax cuts.”
Robison added: “Today’s UK Spring Budget is nothing short of a betrayal of public services across the UK. Our hope had been the Chancellor would have eased pressures on services – not least by providing more funding for capital.
“This would have helped support our NHS and the delivery of more affordable housing, but it would also have created jobs and economic growth, as well as helping secure a just transition to net zero.
“When more support is desperately needed for public services and infrastructure, for greater cost of living measures, and for money to aid our efforts to reduce carbon emissions – Scotland has been badly let down by the UK Government.”
Remember its not Westminster that’s keeping us tied into this vile union where many Scots are living in abject poverty, no its the SNP government that’s doing it because it suits them to, they don’t give a flying f*ck about Scots.
Vote ISP or Alba, if no candidate in constituency spoil ballot paper.
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
