Petition for Official International Observers for Next Scottish Independence Referendum 501

Please sign the petition

This UK Government cannot be trusted to behave democratically. We have seen that in the prorogation of the Westminster Parliament and in tricks like not providing tellers to count votes against an amendment, causing it to pass. Ian Blackford, SNP leader at Westminster, described Boris Johnson as behaving “like a dictator, not a democrat”.

It is highly likely that the Scottish people will shortly be voting on whether to become an independent nation again. It is essential that process be scrutinised by formal international invigilation, to make sure the conduct of the referendum is fair.

Please sign the petition for international observers to the next Scottish Indyref. Only the UK government can request an OSCE observer mission (it must be a current member state that asks), therefore the petition must be addressed to Westminster, not to Holyrood.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, through its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, is the organisation specifically charged with monitoring democratic processes in Europe, and in which the UK government is an active participant in monitoring other countries’ elections.

Not only will the OSCE send a large team to observe the conduct of the campaign and physical balloting and counting process, they will send an advance team of experts with international experience in monitoring media bias in campaign situations, with a particular emphasis on state media. These experts will produce a careful and scientific quantitative and qualitative analysis of the extent of media bias, and this analysis will be presented to all the member states of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe. The very presence of the international monitoring team will be a strong deterrent to bad media behaviour, and will boost public confidence in the process.

In the 2014 referendum there was massive anti-Independence bias through all the privately owned media and also, blatantly and demonstrably, within the BBC.

There was a crucial and highly significant breaking of the rules of the referendum when the Unionist parties combined to issue the (since spectacularly broken) promises of “The Vow” during the official purdah period of the last week. Suspicion was attached by many to some extraordinarily high postal vote turnouts in certain localities. All events of this kind would be subject to real time scrutiny were an OSCE observer mission present.

We are frequently told by the government that, when it comes to their programmes of mass surveillance of the population, “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”. Those who wish to claim that it is axiomatic that both the media coverage and the physical process of an Independence referendum would be fair, have nothing to fear from OSCE scrutiny. It is an organisation of which the UK is a contributing member anyway, so there are no grounds to objection to its monitoring.

The OSCE handbook on the media monitoring they will undertake is well worth reading and gives a valuable insight into how thorough they are. They do not just measure crudely the amount of time given to each side. They assess the quality of coverage of each side, the inferences and body language of the presenters. They look at the legal, institutional and ownership framework in which journalists operate and the pressures on them to self-censor, as opposed to just considering whether there is formal state censorship.

It is essential that all sides in a future Independence referendum have trust in the fairness of the process. There is every reason to believe that British state institutions, including both the BBC and the Electoral Commission, need to be subjected to outside scrutiny.

Wherever you are in the UK, and whatever your stance on Scottish Independence, please sign and support this petition for strengthening confidence in the fairness of democratic process. The restoring of Scottish Independence and the break-up of the UK state is a major step; it is essential that the process involved in the decision is accepted by all as fair.

Obviously an observer mission takes some time to organise and needs to be in place right from the start of any campaign period, or even before. Like all international organisations, the OSCE’s processes take some time to agree between members. Therefore it is essential to launch this petition now rather than wait until a referendum is called.


501 thoughts on “Petition for Official International Observers for Next Scottish Independence Referendum

1 3 4 5 6 7 9
  • N_

    Why is there a need for foreign scrutineers? Aren’t there any Scots who could valiantly and disinterestedly serve the public good by ensuring that every last vote is fairly counted and that no fake votes are added in, and who could be relied upon not to favour one side or the other, including the side that they themselves vote for if they choose to vote? I know there have been some Hollywood films, but it’s not as if there’s a war on. In the event of independence is the intention to let foreigners continue to wipe local a*ses?

      • Glasshopper

        They would walk a second referendum at this point. And lose the third.

        Craig hasn’t factored in the 3rd referendum which would follow the second.

        A colossal oversight in my opinion, but it keeps his dream alive to believe there would only be two.

        • N_

          @Glasshopper – At this point I have to smile. Are you suggesting a Yes win in no.2 followed by a Remain win in a contest between Remain and Deal in no.3? But there is no “Article 50” here. And the result of indyref no.1 was legally binding, unlike the result of the EUref. Had Yes won, Scotland would have become independent. If Yes wins a no.2 there might be a referendum on some kind of proposed constitutional package but that’s different. If Yes wins I will have no truck with people who want to make the independence process difficult. That’s for the same reason that I don’t like it that many in the SNP are pushing for another indyref after less than a generation has passed since the first one.

  • Hatuey

    It’s been entertaining to see the British news agencies trying to figure out how to deal with the death of Mugabe. This, if we remember, was a guy they used to give the red carpet treatment to. I believe he even received a state visit and met the Queen in the 1990s…

    Then he started tinkering with the flow of profits from his resource-rich country into British offshore accounts. Sound familiar? It should.

    The usual blueprint for destabilising a country was followed to the letter, sanctions, fomenting political unrest, pumping in arms, cutting off aid, demonising him, etc. And the predictable(and desired) result was that he turned to extremes.

    Like Saddam and so many others in the British Hall of Fame, nobody cared about his human rights record when he was our friend, ordering arms and Rolls-Royces, and the champagne was flowing.

    Now we have people like John Simpson managing to keep a straight face when he talks about Mugabe’s terrible corruption. The whole British offshore empire — which is bigger today than it ever was — is premised on facilitating that sort of corruption all over the third world.

    The bloated hypocrisy of the British establishment is a shameful disgrace, almost as shameful and disgraceful as the hunger-bloated bellies around the world that their wealth depends on.

    • Deb O'Nair

      It used to amuse me the way he was demonised in the media for the harsh conditions in Zimbabwe and yet he was a regular visitor to these shores to get his Harley Street medical care, often bringing his wife along who would go on massive spending splurges in Harrods, while the same media would turn a blind eye and make no mention of it.

    • giyane

      Mr Hatuey

      While applauding your perceptinity with regards to the utterly corrupt colonial system, which was in full vomit mode yesterday about its criminal past in Africa – absolutely nuffink to do with us Guv. – , don’t you think in the interests if being on topic here you maybe oughta had brought in some comparisons with Scotland which will one day inshallah be a post colonial great nation like Zimbabwe?

      Craig Or maybe his moderators absolutely detest any reminders about what the John Simpsons of the BBC will one day patronisingly condemn about the leaders of Scottish Independence . Or should I be saying what they have already said about Salmond? That wasvmild compared to the furnacing of Mugabe on the BBC yesterday.
      Not a word of toasting and celebration of a great life and intellect that sliced through British hypocrisy, more like a hospital incinerator.

      Mugabe the pariah for rejecting white rule is forgiven, for the crime of Socialism, we await the trump tweets tomorrow on the lines of the outcast Maduro.

      • Hatuey

        The British media generally are towing the “poor people of Zimbabwe” line. They do this a lot when the truth is off limits.

        It’s interesting that every report includes something along the lines of “but some people in Zimbabwe quite liked Mugabe…” The truth is he was very popular there even after he had fallen out of favour in London.

        What they don’t tell you is that Mugabe was chosen by London as someone both they and the white settlers could work with. In newspeak they call these types “moderates”. But he was never moderate and even his election in 1980 was mired in blood and corruption which Britain under Thatcher turned a blind eye to.

        Similarities with Scotland? Not really, not behind the obvious ones. I’d say the history of southern Rhodesia had more in common with the US in terms of how a white minority in a British colony shrugged off London and followed its own policy.

        It’s all dripping with neo-colonial hypocrisy.

  • Sharp Ears

    Th Chief Constable of West Yorkshire at first welcomed Johnson to the Police Training School at Wakefield, on the understanding that his speech was going to be about recruiting police officers. When the speech veered into Brexit and his brother’s resignation, the Chief Constable changed his mind.

    Boris Johnson police speech: Chief criticises PM’s use of officers

    PS I spotted Ms Patel trudging alongside Johnson to the gathering. She was a groupie of James Goldsmith when he was founding the Referendum Party in 1994. John Pilger has renamed her department, the Home Office, as the ‘Interior Ministry’. 🙂 Pilger is a lion among the moral pygmies currently occupying the Whitehall fortresses..

      • Republicofscotland

        That’s twice you asked is there no honest Scots/officials.

        There are honest officials however there are also dishonest ones, as in just about every country. However this coming referendum is far too important to not have international scrutiny. More so when the Electoral Commission leans towards the state.

        • N_

          I’m not saying that only the Electoral Commission can do the job – I’m saying there should be a Scottish agency which is respected by both sides as impartial.

          Rather than going in with an “If we lose, then we can only have been robbed” attitude, both sides should want a fair contest and aim to cooperate with each other afterwards whatever the result is and without pushing for a re-run. That last bit applies almost exclusively to the indy side, because if the result is in favour of independence then the whole idea of a re-run will be a waste of time because an independent country has no right to unite with the country next door even if 100% of its own population want to. There would have to be a referendum in rump Britain as well as one in iScotland, and it is obvious that most voters in England would vote against reunification.

          • Hamish McGlumpha

            Have you nothing better to do than write garbage? Are you paid to haunt this site?

            If so, by whom?

          • N_

            You’re a fiendish interrogator, @Hamish! Your hard tone has brought me to ‘fess up completely. My main employer for many years was “south of the river”, but George Soros made me a better offer and now I’m his main penetration agent inside the 77th Brigade.

            Either that is true, or else you can’t take the heat when statements made by independence supporters are politely examined and not altogether agreed with.

            That said, “let’s ensure that everyone can accept the result as final for at least a generation” is a good argument in favour of foreign scrutiny of a second indyref.

          • Republicofscotland

            “There would have to be a referendum in rump Britain as well as one in iScotland, and it is obvious that most voters in England would vote against reunification.”

            Actually in a Wings polls the folk of England (majority) would prefer to see the back of Scotland and hold onto Gibralter instead.


            When we’re out of the union we’re out for good.

          • N_

            Yes, @RoS – that was my point. There wouldn’t be any bother with No voters trying to reverse a result that went against them, because even if they wanted to it would be clear that most people in England (apart from many of the Scots living there) wouldn’t vote for reunification. So I agree, leaving the union would be final. Scotland wouldn’t be welcome back. But in the event of another No result there might be some bother from the YeSNP finding any old loony reason to say that there should be a third referendum. (This relates to a nationalistic belief in racial destiny.) So that’s a good argument for international observers – so that everybody in Scotland could agree that the result was final, whichever way it went, and they could all skip off happily together while the ruling scum and freemasons and their lawyers grab even more money than they do now into the happiest of happy futures, inside or outside of the union.

          • RandomComment

            As I’ve said again and again RoS. Democracy works both ways. It’s obvious that leave voters cannot stand on an anti-EU, pro-Union platform, as long as the majority of Scots want it. It would be supremely hypocritical. We’d love to see you out of the clutches of the globalist EU (couldn’t help myself there ;)) but, as pro-nation state, I’m all for you having that choice.

          • Hatuey

            “But in the event of another No result there might be some bother from the YeSNP finding any old loony reason to say that there should be a third referendum. (This relates to a nationalistic belief in racial destiny.)”

            We can have a referendum every week, if we choose to and people vote for it. We call that democracy.

            I’d love to discuss your slanderous racial purity theory with you in person.

  • Sharp Ears

    Johnson is in Aberdeenshire today supposedly doling out money to the crofters and farmers. The SNP say that this is three years too late. A payment was designed specifically for the crofters and farmers in 2016 but instead, it was given to ALL UK farmers.

    Javid doled out £160m in his ‘There is Money now’ statement yesterday. EU Convergence Money apparently.

    SNP say UK Government ‘owes’ Scottish farmers £160m
    5th April 2019

    His photo ops become even more ludicrous. He is seen here walking a bull at a farm in Banchory. I think he needs tranquillizers.

    • John2o2o

      Well I hope if Scotland wins the right to leave the UK in a referendum that it’s going to be a bit easier than this.

      Much as I hate the Tories and Johnson it does strike me as slightly ironic that he is criticised so heavily over this when he is actually committed to honouring the referendum result.

      And I say that as someone who voted remain.

      I know Scotland voted remain, but until Scotland leaves the UK it will have to go along with it.

  • Northern

    Just made the mistake of having a look in the BBC’s Have Your Say comments and have now had to come here to try and retain some semblance of sanity and reasonably informed discussion because we were approaching Chris Morris-esque levels of satire over there. I note with some irony that if you were to remove the words ‘Brexit’ and ‘Independence’ from all the comments, it becomes striking how similar the arguments and language employed by both causes are.

    I joked to a colleague earlier that I would not be entirely surprised to open BBC news at this point to see tanks rolling down Marble Arch, nothing is beyond the political class now.

    • N_

      To keep a handle on whether things might be going tanky, @Northern, I recommend watching the mood and themes at the British army’s main internal propaganda forum site,

      That’s how I can state with confidence that many in the British army feel that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a single war that will soon break out in cities such as Bradford. Most soldiers were and are VERY heavily in favour of Brexit.

      • Republicofscotland

        “That’s how I can state with confidence that many in the British army feel that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a single war that will soon break out in cities such as Bradford. Most soldiers were and are VERY heavily in favour of Brexit.”

        The soldiers won’t need to worry about domestic riots, for once were out and lose our EU shield, Westminster will follow down the US route hook line and sinker.

        Where the troops fight in unjust wars to make the rich (corporate US/UK) richer, whilst the domestic police forces begin to resemble army troops in gear and weaponary.

      • Deb O'Nair

        “Most soldiers were and are VERY heavily in favour of Brexit.”

        That’s because they are well informed and thoughtful individuals.

  • Brett Angel

    in 2020 the Lisbon Treaty comes into full force. This is what it means:

    1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.

    2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s.

    3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.

    4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled – but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.)

    5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.

    6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.

    7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.

    8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.

    9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.

    10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights

    11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights

    12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 – as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty

    13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation

    14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent

    15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy

    16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them

    17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealths

    18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc

    19: The UK loses control of its judicial system

    20: The UK loses control of its international policy

    21: The UK loses full control of its national policy

    22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.

    23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program

    24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction

    25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty

    26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020

    This is the future that the youths of today think we stole from them?

    They should be on their knees thanking us for saving them from being turned into Orwellian automatons!

    Forget Deals no deals its time for remainers and brexiteers to unite and see whats coming before its to late. This is the whole reason they are dragging brexit out. So we can get to 2020 then we have no choices anymore.”


    • Northern

      Come on dude, 5 seconds on google was all it took to see this list has already been de-bunked widely.

      I’m no fan of the EU and voted to leave, but obvious fakes like this just reinforce the ‘people are too stupid to vote’ trope they’ve been beating leavers with for the last 3 years.

    • Dungroanin

      The Germans are comming mr mainwarring … don’t panic – we’re olllldooommed… etc

      CCO will be having a tfif moment and getting lathered before a kebab and chuck up in a cab home tonight.

      You deserve a weekend off Northern and co – let your hair down (if any left after this week).

    • Hatuey

      How bizarre. Anyone that has read the Lisbon Treaty knows how short it is. This list of implications has about 20 times more words than the treaty itself.

      • RandomComment

        @Hatuey, is that because it is vague verbiage designed to obfuscate the real issues behind it?

        • Hatuey

          More or less, random. The most poisonous lies have some truth in them. Most of the stuff on the list relate to necessary aspects of any customs union. Points 20, 21, and 22 are just point blank lies.

    • N_

      The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange


      Those 26 points would be a lot to write on a sandwich board!

      Can you any think of any benefits to British membership of a trading block which has an output six times the size of Britain’s own and to which all of the economically leading nearby countries belong? Try. Can you come up with any?

      And why do you think the poshboy monarchist regime to which you refer controls its own nuclear warheads?

      • Loony

        Whilst I am sure that you are not interested in answers to your question and strongly suspect that you do not understand your question, try this:

        There are limited benefits or dis-benefits to being a member of a trading block for that portion of economic output that has nothing but local value. Things like hairdressing, fish and chip shops, gardening services etc. There is of course a benefit to large combines who may own thousands of coffee shops since they hire staff more cheaply than would otherwise be the case.

        There are massive benefits to being a member of a trading bock if you happen to have a large, diverse, and modern installed industrial base capable of producing quality products. This enables you to undermine and destroy the smaller and inferior installed industrial bases of the fellow members of your trading block. Extra advantage is obtained if you happen to be in a currency union with countries that rely on things like tourism and the export of things like olives.

        Olives don’t really compete too well with precision engineered motor vehicles. Thus your currency is cheaper than it would be if you were a stand alone country. This enables you to competitively price exports to countries outside of your trading block. Luckily the bulk of these earnings flow to you and you don’t need to share much of your income with the poorer members of your trading block.

        By expanding your exports outside of your trading block you start to undermine the economies of your target export countries. Many of these countries are quite poor- made all the poorer because, as a sop to your olive producing “partners: you levy heavy tariffs on all forms of primary exports from countries outside of your trading block.

        As a consequence you get a lot of pissed off people – think the protesters in France and the Brexit voters in the UK. You also get a lot of people trying to enter the trading block because the trading block (or a specific member of the trading block) has hollowed out the economies of the countries these people originate from. Probably a good portion of these people are quite pissed off as well – but no-one asks them for “cultural” reasons (i.e. no-one cares). these people get spread around the trading block. They don’t really have the skills required to design advanced robotics to required for the advanced and diverse manufacturing base. They can however pick olives, or serve coffee.

        Some members of the trading block don’t want to import a lot of surplus olive pickers and coffee pourers. This causes tensions within the trading block and members of the trading block start hurling insults at each other – calling each other racist or fascist Sometimes one member of the trading block even moves heavy armour up to the border of another member of the trading block in an attempt to choke of the flow of surplus people.

        So yeah if your aim is to impoverish large swathes of the trading block and mask this through the importation of millions of even more impoverished people then a trading block is just what you need. Because one member of the trading block has a lot more money than anyone else they might spend some of this money on altruistic causes – such as funding lawmakers to pass laws making it illegal to criticize the operations of the trading block. Thus you cement a competitive advantage for all time.

        One more advantage of the trading block is that it enables a form of “cultural sharing” For example to dominant member of the trading block incorporates the thoughts of British cultural thinkers. So when Orwell said “If you are looking for a vision of the future imagine a boot stamping n a human face -for ever’ then the dominant member of the trading block seeks to make such a vision reality.

        • N_

          What racist muck. Advance robotics designers who happen to have one ethnicity versus migrant olive pickers who happen to have another, and it’s supposedly econoscientifically proven that it’s bad for everybody if they share a space. Top trolling, quoting Orwell at the end.

          • Loony

            No mate you are the racist.

            What chance have you got against a tie and a crest. You really think that some poor schmuck from somewhere like Senegal has had the opportunity to learn all the skills required to operate at the cutting edge of the economy?

            All that has happened to those people is that the Spanish have stolen all their fish and destroyed their subsistence based economy. Meanwhile smart people like you have had access to all that the world has to offer to learn all the skills necessary.

            Whilst you sit gorging yourself on stolen fish you seemingly have all the time in the world to accuse other people of being racist. The fact is you have simply been too lazy to bother to learn that your purity and your virtue rests exclusively on your theft of other peoples resources.

            Forget history. Nothing that happened in the past can be changed. Think of today, this present moment. Your beloved ‘trading block’ is all about exploitation. I am not interested in your puerile insults. I am interested in your guilt and your pathological refusal to accept responsibility

          • N_

            You know damned well you’re a hate-filled and fascistic racist, with your categories of high-tech heroes of one ethnicity regulating the presence or absence of smelly ignorant “olive pickers” of another ethnicity in the background.

            Trading unions may or may not import labour from outside. Caricom doesn’t import much, for example. That alone makes a total nonsense of your scribble.

        • David

          sad to say but the precision engineered motor vehicles are very shortly leaving the EU/world economy – replaced by fairly simple [Chinese?] low cost EV.

          Things are always changing, I wait with interest the brief BoJo/SNP alliance….

    • John2o2o

      The UK voted to leave.

      (I voted remain).

      I’m sure they will find all manner of excuses to prevent Scotland from leaving the UK if the SNP wins a referendum.

  • Pardeep Singh

    “described Boris Johnson as behaving “like a dictator, not a democrat”.”, that woukd be the dictator who asked for a general election which was rejected by the SNP / Labour / Lib Dems. Get real Craig, the real coup is by those who want to overturn the will of 17.4m people.

    • Bramble

      It surely has not escaped your attention that far more than 17.4 million people live in this country.

      • michael norton

        It was a binary choice, more people voted for Leave than voted for Remain.
        However several parties will not allow Brexit to happen, these Remainer parties have forsaken democracy.
        This choice by the Remainer parties will not be forgotten or forgiven by the public, even though the Remainer parties fear and do not want a General Election, it is coming their way like an express train.

      • Loony

        Also known as collectively constituting the largest vote for anything at all ever in the recorded history of the UK.

          • Loony

            No. That is what the phrase ‘also known as’ makes explicitly clear.

            Thank you for making explicitly clear that which was already explicitly clear.

          • John2o2o

            I voted remain and I used to say the same thing as you.

            Under the terms of the referendum the country voted to leave.

            If you were not prepared to accept the result then you should not have voted in the first place.

    • Deb O'Nair

      “the will of 17.4m people.”

      As it was an *advisory referendum* it was in fact their *opinion* that was expressed. Their *opinon* at the time was to leave the EU for a variety of reasons and some of those reasons have subsequently be *proven* to have been untrue or incorrect. The *will* of the people should be tested in a *legally binding* referendum – as in fact a number of no-deal hard-line brexiters were saying during the referendum campaign, e.g. Gove & Rees-Mogg (or perhaps they were just deceiving people into expressing their frustrations in an opinion poll and falsely assuring them that they would have another chance to vote.)

      • John2o2o

        Seems ironic that so many find this result hard to accept and yet if Scotland votes to leave the UK in a referendum I know you will not accept a single argument against it’s right to do so.

        And just to be clear:
        I voted Remain.
        I would vote for Scottish Independence.

        • Deb O'Nair

          Just for the record I voted remain but would accept a withdrawal agreement that would keep access to the single market and maintain the integrity of the GFA. What people promoting no-deal brexit seem to forget is that is exactly what the position of the leave campaign was, including promises of a confirmatory referendum, which is now derided as “ignoring the will of the people”. Such short memories.

        • Jo1


          Scotland voted for Devolution in 1979 by similar margins as we saw in the EU referendum. The 1979 vote was post legislative.

          The government of the day then decided that the relevant bill could not stand because the yes vote, 51.6%, did not represent at least 40% of the overall electorate. They repealed the Act!

          I’ll say it again. This wasn’t any advisory vote incidentally, the Bill was through, but they repealed it because the number who voted yes didn’t amount to 40% of the electorate.

          Maybe YOU should be clear before you lecture others on “accepting the result” that the UK government plays fast and loose with “democracy” when it suits. There is a precedent here. I’ve just given it to you.

          Yet in an ADVISORY referendum on the EU the 40% figure was ignored.

          I do NOT accept that was right and whether you voted Remain or Leave is irrelevant to me. I’m highlighting major flaws in the process. You should be concerned too that different rules were applied to the EU referendum because, had the 40% requirement been enforced there, this whole mess wouldn’t be happening.

          So this isn’t about “finding a result hard”. It’s about double standards.

          • John2o2o

            I’m not talking about 1979. That was 40 years ago. I am talking about now.

            Nobody who took part in the vote in 2016 considered it “advisory” until the “wrong” side won. I used to hate the result as well. Certainly I did not. The referendum had a huge turnout. People would not have bothered if they considered that it was only “advisory”.

            I voted remain.

            But Leave won. If you took part in the vote you legitimise the result. That is now my view.

            If Scotland wins an independence referendum by even the smallest margin you and almost everyone else here will resist any attempt to prevent Scotland leaving the UK.

          • Jo1

            “I’m not talking about 1979”

            I am talking about 1979 and I do so for a reason. The significance of the information I’ve provided seems to have gone over your head. It’s relevant.

            I’ve given you evidence of how the UK goverment dealt with another referendum back then compared with a similar outcome in the 2016 closely fought EU vote. It’s called precedent and it matters, even in law, despite your dismissal of it.

            Are you even understanding what I just posted about? Do you seriously not see the validity of the points I made about the failure to apply the same standards? It’s a clear precedent, not a mere opinion, and you have no right to simply smear others as bad losers for pointing it out.

            You’re the one who is lecturing others but I suggest you try to understand what others are actually saying before dismissing their input in such an arrogant manner.

            [ Mod: Please take heed of the following advice from Craig:

            Any reference to any commenter which is not courteous will lead to the comment being immediately deleted.

            Thank you. ]

          • John2o2o

            If you wanted to complain about the process with the referendum then the time to do so was BEFORE it took place and not afterwards.

            I voted remain too.

          • John2o2o


            I’m sorry, but I am not interested in this line of argument. I do not like being accused by you of arrogance. I am entitled to my opinions as you are entitled to yours.

            Thank you.

          • Jo1


            Yes, I understand that you aren’t interested in this line of argument even if it has involved valid points, including examples of precedent, being raised by others to illustrate the flaws and contradictions surrounding the EU referendum.

            It’s also pretty important to me to respond to those who just dismiss me as a bad loser who didn’t like the result.

            You’re now saying that if I didn’t like the terms of the EU referendum I should have complained at the time. The official status of the referendum was clear at the time. It was advisory. It was dishonest politicians who twisted the result into something unrecognisable.

            You personally have added another angle by appearing to claim that if people “believed” the referendum not to be merely advisory then their misunderstanding of the legal status of any referendum must be pandered to. I responded to that comment as did another poster. You came back suggesting we weren’t saying anything “useful or constructive”! Is it not both useful and constructive to point out that we cannot just alter the implications of a vote because people have misunderstood?

            Anyway, I have tried to explain my argument here and it’s clear there are particular parts of it you have ignored and intend to keep on ignoring. I won’t be responding further to you.

  • Roderick Russell

    What the recent Brexit related issues show is that the country is suffering from a dearth of democracy which I think is common across the Westminster system of government. Whether Scotland achieves its independence or not, it seems to me that the UK (or rest of the UK) needs substantial constitutional change to make it freer and more democratic.

    I certainly support your petition since both Scots and English have ample reason not to trust the current institutions of State where the likely vote is against the establishment’s interest,

      • Goose

        The bindings can’t be all that strong if it is.

        Change has happened throughout not just UK, but human history. Those defending the status quo railing against things they can’t control are like modern day King Canutes trying to stop the tide.

      • Sharp Ears

        Correction. The gangsters-in -charge are helping to destroy the ‘nation state’.

        Define the ‘nation state’.

        ‘A nation state is a state in which the great majority shares the same culture and is conscious of it. The nation state is an ideal in which cultural boundaries match up with political ones.’

        That is according to Jimmy Wales’ website.

        • RandomComment

          In this, even with the endorsement of JW, I would agree with you, in the sense they are both doing it from a different angle.

      • Loony

        It is pretty hard to believe that the seething hatred for the Nation State and the constant attempts to destabilize and undermine it is being done unknowingly.

        Douglas Murray, a person detested and despised by many contributors has previously observed that many of the Cultural Marxists, anarchists and general weirdo’s who have seized the levers of power are really nothing more than masochists. The question raised by him is what happens when a masochist meets a sadist.

        As the Chinese (a people very keen on their own Nation State) say “may it be your fate to live in interesting times.”

        • J

          Can you give a clear definition of ‘Cultural Marxism’ and also name some of those ‘Cultural Marxists’ with their hands on the levers of power? Thanks in advance.

          • Loony

            Why are you so interested in seeking to disaggregate Cultural Marxists from the anarchists and general weirdo’s.

            If you can stomach it try reading some of the garbage propaganda promoted by the BBC. Maybe you remember that President Trump was once a confirmed Russian agent and now he isn’t. Maybe you prefer John Snow or Anderson Cooper both of whom appear to be allergic to white people – despite being white themselves.

            Ever wondered why Hong Kong protests are all over the news and French protests are never in the news.

            How about senior politicians who refuse to leave the EU but who want to negotiate departure terms with the EU. Does that make any sense to you? How about the Roman Catholic Church giving Chinese atheists the right of veto over the appointment of Catholic Clergy.

            How about Sadiq Khan who in his role as Mayor of London finds abortion laws in Alabama to be very interesting, but knife crime in London to be of no interest whatsoever. How about a police force presiding over escalating violent crime but focusing instead on other peoples twitter posts.

            How about a Judiciary that hands out derisory sentences for the most heinous of crimes. Who could forget the murder of Quyen Ngoc Nguyen by two previously convicted murderers? Probably most people actually, because it was not deemed to be of any interest.

            How about “scientists” who claim that the answer to climate change is cannibalism. How about radical feminists who want to kill all men. How about out of control money printing. How about MMT.

            How about Glasgow University making fake virtue signalling reparations for historic slavery while at the same time having precisely nothing to say about the estimated 100,000 slaves alive and in slavery in the UK today.

          • George

            “Why are you so interested in seeking to disaggregate Cultural Marxists from the anarchists and general weirdo’s.” (sic. The apostrophe suggests something belonging to the “weirdos”)

            All three categories seem hopelessly vague so it’s pretty hard (or, if you prefer, pretty easy) to “disaggregate” them.

          • Hatuey

            “Glasgow University fake virtue signalling reparations for historic slavery”

            That’s actionable defamation since it is known that the UoG actually put millions up.

          • Loony

            Sure it’s defamation, so sue me.

            Glasgow University intends financing a building in Glasgow based on the debt of yet to be identified “victims of slavery.” These as yet unidentified people may or may not be suffering from the effects of the slavery of their forefathers but they will most certainly be suffering from debt peonage.

            And what of the current 100,000 estimated slaves in the UK? Maybe more of them can be set on fire by British psychopaths that the Courts cannot be bothered to incarcerate, and that the current population could not care less about.

          • Loony

            @ George. Thank you so much for your comment.

            English is not my first language so I always appreciate people who point out errors of syntax. I will endeavour to improve.

            However I would hope that I provided sufficient examples of public domain issues/stories for you to obtain a general grasp of the dominance of Cultural Marxist, Anarchists and weirdos .

            Take the example of the ‘scientist’ who claims that cannibalism may be necessary to combat climate change. Can you disaggregate such a proposition so as to logically label it “Cultural Marxist” “Anarchist” or “general weirdo”

          • Hatuey

            Loony, Glasgow University is not benefitting in any obvious way from the modern day slavery you refer to. I’m sure they’d condemn it, but since they have no involvement in it, they have no responsibility to address it.

            The reason they are addressing historical slavery is because they benefitted directly from it. Any rational and conscientious person would be expected to applaud that and ask why other organisations who benefitted from slavery aren’t willing to do the same.

          • pretzelattack

            hey loony, would you like to point me to scientists who say cannibalism may be necessary to combat climate change? thanks in advance.

          • George

            Hi Loony

            Well here is how I understand the three categories.

            “Cultural Marxism” is a label like “political correctness” which was invented not by those who subscribe to the alleged view but who oppose it. The movement behind CM – such that it is – consists of would-be Marxists who gave up on the notion of proletarian revolution and settled down to make lucrative careers out of “deconstructing” various cultural products e.g. soap operas, movies, fashions etc. They present no problem to the existing order – and indeed will just help to shore it up. But of course they can only do this if they are made to appear dangerous – and various conservatives are happy to oblige. It’s all just fun and games serving as an excellent distraction.

            “Anarchism” is a movement well analysed by Hal Draper as having a blustering radical veneer but which cannot lead to anything unified – unity itself being ruled out by the definition of anarchism.

            “Weirdo” is …well it seems to me to mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. The “scientist” who recommended cannibalism sounds like an eccentric provocateur who, like our aforementioned conservative, is having a good laugh.

        • bevin

          “Take the example of the ‘scientist’ who claims that cannibalism may be necessary to combat climate change”
          In what possible sense can such a person be described as a “cultural Marxist”? A term incidentally first made fashionable by Nazis whose obvious links to cannibalism are undeniable.
          It was Marxists, or people inspired and led by them, who put an end to the reign of terror perpetrated by the Mengeles and Unit 731s later to be taken under the wing of the US government.
          The term “cultural marxist’ is a favourite amongst those trying to revive the anti-cultural traditions of the Third Reich. I’m guessing, Loonie that you are one of them.

      • Republicofscotland

        Jeez, has the penny just dropped, thats the idea, Craig’s made no secret of it, break the union it will be so.

          • Republicofscotland

            I think you find greedy self serving politicians, bankers and corporate tossers are at the heart of it. Most have no morals, and a skewed sense of right and wrong.

            Sharp Ears is correct, of course the chinthe crowd in here will say(script at hand) its down to outside interference, the Russians, the Chinese, home grown and imported subversives aimed at destablishing the English way of life.

          • Republicofscotland

            What the one which the CIA financially sponsored to have made into an animated film to ridicule communism after the death of Orwell?


          • Republicofscotland

            “Didn’t the book ridicule communism before his death?”

            You tell me, you’re the one that’s read it.

            However I do know Orwell was a committed democratic socialist, who opposed totalitarianism. Of which I’m under the impression that 1984, and Animal Farm stressed.

          • RandomComment

            I’m going to try to be nice here. You know nothing of Orwell’s works.You have not read them yourself, you have not thought for yourself. You have been programmed, and are happy to use the epithet “Orwellian” with zero understanding of what that means.

          • Tatyana

            It did ridicule communism. But a pensive reader could see the main idea does not nesessarily apply to communism only.

            It is inevitable process in every new society, that new elites arise. It turns into dictatorship at that very moment when all animals are still equal, but some animals become more equal than others 🙂

            Forget communism, it belongs to the history. Look, democracy no longer means “rule of the people” but “rule of the Democrats”.

            Do you watch Scotland-Russia play just now in Hampden Park?

          • Republicofscotland

            Ah Tatyana.

            его каждый на данный момент удачи. 😀

            I hope that’s right.

          • Tatyana

            cannot solve it, Republicofscotland 🙂
            “его каждый на данный момент удачи” – > “his every on current moment of luck” ???
            I guess it must be some saying.

          • Republicofscotland

            “You know nothing of Orwell’s works.”

            Says the person who typed “Blimey that is worrying” when he/she found out the CIA paid for the animated version of Animal Farm. Now you’re intimating you know that I haven’t read Animal Farm, even though I told you I hadn’t

            Typical Chinthe mentality at play here.

          • Republicofscotland

            Вот дерьмо !


            It was meant to say its one each good luck.

            My Google translating is плохой 😀


          • RandomComment

            Yeah, baldly stating that you know nothing about what you’re talking about is not “intimating” anything 😉

          • Tatyana

            Republicofscotland, don’t pay attention.
            I’m sure RandomComment uses the word “communism” without reading works of Carl Marx or Lenin. Or, he may use the word “Islamic” without reading Koran.

          • Republicofscotland


            Actually the words I typed on Orwell and 1984 and Animal Farm were not mine but words from a biographical chanhel on Orwell.

            “George Orwell was a fascinating figure and brilliant writer. He was an idealist, who is best known for his work in warning of the dangers of **totalitarianism (whatever its political form) This can be seen in the two classics 1984, and Animal Farm.*** Orwell was also a committed socialist who sought to promote a more egalitarian and fairer society.”


            I highlighted the phrase for you.

            So you see RC even though they’re not my words the ethos of them are associsted with Orwell, yet you who berates me on Orwell hadn’t a clue in the first place.

            It’s clear to me now that you know little of Orwell, the Chinthe mentality is easily exposed.

          • Tatyana

            no, I don’t know arabic. but the basics of this religious trend I studied with an exellent professor in the university course “world religions”.

            Not relating to the above, just my rough russian joke –
            you don’t need to chew a piece of shit to make sure it’s shit, unless you’re going to be a shit expert 🙂
            Otherwise, other people’s opinions are enough.

          • RandomComment

            Just read them for yourself, RoS. All you are doing is let other people do your thinking for you, if your opinion is formed by other people saying what you should think. Just do that. If you come back to me with the same arguments, we can debate them again.

          • Republicofscotland


            A 2-1 victory for Russia, looks like Belgium and Russia have the group in the bag.

          • Republicofscotland

            RC @21.33pm.

            Yeah that’s rich coming from a person who hadnt a clue Orwell warned of the dangers of totalitarianism in his 1984 and Animal farm books. Nor of the CIA’s intervention.

            At least I had the sense to look it up before commenting on it.

          • Tatyana

            You are too emotional, RandomComment. I didn’t accuse you, I pointed to the fact that most people including you, RoS and myself learn from other people, not from the source. So, it is no ground to make preachy comments. Let’s have a civilised debate with no personal attacks. At least, you could express your wishes in a polite neutral form.

          • RandomComment

            Thus speaks a person who hasn’t read the books, nor has a clue what I’m talking about

          • RandomComment

            I’m sure RandomComment uses the word “communism” without reading works of Carl Marx or Lenin. Or, he may use the word “Islamic” without reading Koran.


            @ Tat.

          • RandomComment

            No, Tatyana, it’s being logical, having an argument, and exposing hypocrisy. If pointing the flaws in your logic is “emotional”, so be it

          • John2o2o

            lol, I’d just like to ask a polite question:

            Has anyone in this thread actually read Animal Farm ?

            (I haven’t myself). 🙂

          • Republicofscotland

            Tat @21.16pm.

            Oh its just the usual fishing expedition from the Chinthe crew, this one however hasnt even bothered to bait the hook, yet expects a bite.

          • Iain Stewart

            It used to be compulsory school reading, so I’m impressed to hear of anyone never having read it.
            Here, Rosco and Johnny, why not borrow Animal Farm tomorrow morning from the library (it’s very short) and we’ll quiz you tomorrow evening. Big prizes!

          • John2o2o

            Thanks Hatuey, I’ve often wondered if Orwell is worth reading.

            Well actually, 1984 was on the curriculum when I was at school, but everyone hated it so our teacher changed it.

          • Tatyana

            And now you miss the point, RandomComment, because it was your word “accused” which I rated as emotional. You quote my comment, and you feel an accusation that isn’t there.
            If you need a detailed explanation, the comment encourages RoS not to feel stung, and encourages you to think about how you form your own knowlege. Commentary made for the purposes of the world balance of good and evil and is a call to be tolerant 🙂

            As to pointing the flaws – you may agree it can be done in different ways, I suggest you chose polite one.

            remember, in someone else’s eye it’s a dirty, filthy, infected with all diseases of this world speck of dust. In your own eye it’s a stylish piece of timber from a tree of noble breeds, perfectly complement with your image 🙂 🙂 🙂

          • RandomComment

            I’m sure RandomComment uses the word “communism” without reading works of Carl Marx or Lenin. Or, he may use the word “Islamic” without reading Koran.

            Are you not saying that I do not know of the things of which I speak?

            Is that not an accusation? 😉 😉 😉

          • RandomComment

            And accusing me of something that you have done yourself, is that not hypocrisy? Inquiring minds want to know….

          • Tatyana

            I say you speak of things that you learned from elsewhere but the original source. I also say that this way of learning is normal.

            Do you really see any hipocrisy in stating this obvious fact, which you yourself prove to be true? How on earth can it be an accusation?

            I really can’t make out are you serious or just want to argue for entertainment?

          • Hatuey

            Hard to believe you guys haven’t read Animal Farm. I’ve read all his books. I’m not a fan of Orwell, though, not really, although his insights are useful.

            Tatyana’s assessment of Animal Farm was bang on – it’s more about totalitarianism generally rather than communism per se.

            Orwell was a product of his time. If I remember right he served in Burma as a military policeman. He was also over in Spain during the civil war.

            In the original introduction to 1984, I believe he explained how western democracies were just as likely to turn to and flirt with totalitarianism as communist and fascist states were. The publishers had him remove that and change it, as I recall, which I always thought proved his point.

          • Iain Stewart

            Unlike 1984, Animal Farm is in fact largely a fable based on Orwell’s Spanish experience of how the Communist Party crushed the highly successful anarchist movement. Damn, gave away one of the answers to tomorrow’s quiz there.

          • Hatuey

            Okay 2020. I actually think it’s his best book anyway and would recommend. I particularly liked the characters, like Old Major, and the horse (Boxer).

            There’s a lot of cruelty in the book and lots of emotional highs and lows.

            Interesting that intellectuals all argue about whether the book was a critique of communism or socialism, etc., and nobody really gives any focus or attention to the brutal regime that existed before the animals revolted. The farm before the revolution, as I see it, could be taken to represent just about any European country of the interwar period.

            His Essay on nationalism really bothered me. He is very scathing towards the “Scotch” and Celts, amongst others, and reveals a sort of assumption of English superiority. I believe he retracted his remarks about Scottish people though, after he spent time here convalescing.

          • RandomComment

            Agree that is it is not just about Communism, just one manifestation of totalitarianism. But do you agree that this is true? That communism is a form of totalitarianism? Curious to know 😉

        • eric blair

          In the original introduction to Animal Farm, Orwell made the point that although this book is about the Russian revolution, the same thing is true here in the west. The difference, he points out, is that the state does not need to use violence in order to enforce its will. It has propaganda to do that.

          • eric blair

            Also, while we are on the subject, Nineteen Eighty Four is clearly his best novel. The number of phrases in use today, taken directly from this work, only confirm its importance.

            I enjoyed the first part of The Road to Wigan Pier, when he describes the plight of the miner. It is probably the best, most descriptive work on the subject I have read, but later in the book, when he switches to talking about class differences in England, it gets pretty shite.

          • eric blair

            And while we are talking about communism, please let us not pretend that soviet Russia was ever communist. I do not remember reading about Gulags in Das Kapital.

            Chomsky liked to point this out, of course. He would argue that, for different reasons, the east and west liked to portray the regime as communist; in the east for the obvious collectivist connotations of socialism, and in the west so that one could fingerpoint to Russias failings and say “communism bad”.

          • bevin

            “…Orwell’s Spanish experience of how the Communist Party crushed the highly successful anarchist movement.”
            And, the ‘Trotskyist’ (which is to say l’eft Communist’) militia POUM in which Orwell himself fought.
            To put the matter in perspective the defence of the Spanish Republic and its elected government against rebellious military units supported in every way, including militarily, by both Italy and Germany was left to the Soviet Union because the “liberal democracies” imposed sanctions against Spain and were largely responsible for Franco’s success. The wonder is that the Soviet Union was able to provide any assistance at all. There is no doubt that, by doing so, it learned that the ‘west’ preferred a Nazi victory to any continuation of anti-capitalist experiments, hence, eventually, the decision to sign the Ribbentrop Molotov non-aggression pact.
            As to Orwell it is a sad truth that, in his last years, weakened by the disease that killed him, in a country stripped of its wealth by the predatory United States, he succumbed to the temptation to buy longer life, and antibiotics, from those like Astor who could provide them. They were well paid for their trouble.

          • Tony

            The cartoon version of it was influenced by the CIA, I believe.

            An ‘Animal Farm’ of the American Revolution would be an interesting story to read.

          • RandomComment

            And any “Communism good” examples? I’m not a huge fan of capitalism either, but I hate binary thinkers.

  • J

    Signed and shared.

    Here’s another:

    Please do not grant permission for new or expanded salmonid production sites in the North Ayrshire Council islands & coastal area.

    The Environment, Climate Change & Land Reform Committee of the Scottish Parliament have stated in regard to large-scale open-cage salmon production “If the current issues are not addressed this expansion will be unsustainable and may cause irrecoverable damage to the environment.” The Community of Arran Seabed Trust say that the consequences of large numbers of fish deaths, contamination by fish sewage, food waste, chemicals and medicals will be detrimental to the environment, health and economy of the Isle of Arran and its neighbours.

    The proposal by the Scottish Salmon Company for a new and larger site off the north-east coast of Arran will not only spoil the enjoyment of a previously undeveloped part of the island, but also disturb the native wildlife such as otters, seals, porpoises and basking sharks.

    • Hatuey

      The salmon farming industry is totally toxic and I wouldn’t dream of eating that stuff. Like the arms trade, they always talk of the jobs it creates as if they care about nothing but jobs. Any time you hear the word “jobs” from people like this, substitute for profits.

      Anyone that knows that industry knows it causing all sorts of irreversible destruction to natural habitats over vast areas, with disease and parasites even infecting wild salmon and rivers tens of miles away. All of this to give a couple of guys really poor, low-paid jobs.

      • jake

        I don’t disagree with you, Hatuey, but there are some on Arran who have there own vested interests to protect in opposing salmon farming expansion. Neither side is being entirely honest. Both sides have an eye to profit

        • Hatuey

          Jake, that’s interesting to hear. Can you provide any more info on that? I only have a very general understanding of the industry based on reading a few articles here and there.

    • Sharp Ears

      Thanks J. Had already signed it, I have never touched the stuff unwilling to consume organophosphates in my diet. As the Ferret link says, most of the salmon ‘farming’ industry is foreign owned. Why has the SNP allowed it? Employment I suppose.

      Tom Heap investigated it on Countryfile.

      The sad thing is that the wild salmon population is in decline. An American website.

      What have we done to the world and continue to do?

  • Vercingetorix

    I would be grateful if other readers of Craig’s blog could also sign the petition on making the disgusting practice of netting hedgerows a criminal offence. Thank you.

    • Sharp Ears

      Have signed that one too. Here developers were doing it in advance even though some had not even applied for or obtained planning permission for their schemes. Luckily the council stepped in and they were ordered to remove the netting.

      Over 300k people signed the petition. The ridiculous thing is that all that follows is a debate in the HoC. It’s called democracy. I call it kicking the ball into the long grass where it gets lost for ever.

      They had the debate a month later, in Westminster Hall, not even in the main chamber. Totally pathetic. There were fewer than two dozen people in the room.

      To quote the dear and greatly missed Harold Pinter, as he was dying – “It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.”

  • Maria Conley

    The WM establishment system of counting votes in the last Scottish Independence referendum , was patently untrustworthy , with enumerators blatantly cheating , another actually sitting with a pad of blank voting papers filling in “ no” on them all , vans carrying boxes of votes breaking down , and manned by only one person , fire alarms in counting offices going off , twice , in counting rooms , to Ruth Davidson being allowed without charge for TAMPERING with the postal votes , and bags of YES votes being found outside a dumpster some months later ! All of this extremely suspect ! So we demand no WM systems or interference in our next Independence Referendum ! We can put in our own system !

    • eric blair

      Those Bastards!!! You’d think the SNP would have something to say about all of this, wouldn’t you??!

  • Gary

    Excellent idea, had this happened in 2014 we’d be living in an independent Scotland by now.

    I do have my doubts though, for two reasons. Firstly, they will flat out refuse. The will bluster and make this out an insult saying this is not required in a first world country, home to the Mother of Parliaments etc etc and move the argument away from the ‘you’ve nothing to fear if you’ve nothing to hide’ point towards this being a ‘conspiracy theory of cybernats blah blah blah’. But the second reason is that I’m thinking that UK will be leaving many, if not all, of the organisations as it exits the EU. I appreciate that many European organisation are NOT EU related but there has been a push to get UK away from the Human Rights Courts and the many protections it affords us. The current push is to roll back workers rights and human rights where possible. There is BIG money being put into backing this and it would suit the current US administration if we did that too. More idealistically than economically but they would certainly back it.

    I see that 10k signatures gets a response and 100k a debate. The response will be a terse, ‘not needed even IF a referendum was planned’ and the debate will be the SNP (only) and a government minister telling them they are tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

    Don’t get me wrong, I back this 100% We SHOULD make them answer the question, and others, at every opportunity. We should let them know that they’ve been rumbled and publicise this as much as we are able. We should never lose heart nor give up because it is hard, it will be hard right up to the point we become independent. They’ll fight all the way, and then lose…

  • michael55

    It seems to me that if you had enough evidence of cheating at the previous vote, then you would be well within your rights to demand some more robust measures to prevent such a thing happening again.

    As a first time poster and Englishman, yet someone who enjoyed living and working up in Scotland throughout the 90’s and 00’s, I wish you guys well and think you should have your independence if that’s what the majority of Scots want.

  • Glasshopper

    The Scots would win a second referendum standing on their heads.

    The question is how are they going to win a third referendum? The decider which would follow?

    As we know in the UK, a second brings on a 3rd and that is the real hurdle.

    And don’t kid yourself. An independent Scotland would be dialed into all the nasty neocon stuff by default and be a minor player in the German superstate with austerity on steroids for it’s people.

    It’ll be interesting how the 3rd ref is received. But Craig never mentions it!

    • Mist001

      Why would there be a third referendum? Is it a best of three or something? If there is a second referendum and Scotland gains independence, would they ask themselves for a section 30 order to hold a third? What purpose would a third referendum have? Just to make sure that people really did vote for independence and to give them a chance to change their minds and rejoin the Union?

      I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m certainly baffled by the idea of a third referendum.

      • Hatuey

        Not sure I understand it myself. Of course, if unionists want to form a party and put the idea on a manifesto once we are independent, well, I’d have no complaint. And, to be clear, that’s how referendums are achieved. That’s what we have done twice. You don’t just ask and moan for one.

        • Mist001

          Well of course, any new parties in an independent Scotland would be wholly entitled to ask for a referendum on whatever they like but that’s different from a third independence referendum! Who would ask for it? The SNP? 🙂

      • Glasshopper

        we just had a “once in a lifetime vote”.
        If that’s not good enough, a third is built into the DNA of the second.

        That is why most people don’t want a “people’s vote” over Brexit. It makes the decider inevitable. And a third there would have to be.

        You can’t stop the game at 1-1.

        An indyref2 win would signal a draw, and time for a decider. And it would arrive when free university’s had gone down the tube, along with pensions and 9% of the uk’s 2 trillion pound debt had arrived at the door, and realization that “Scottish” oil infrastructure was largely bankrolled by British taxpayers. etc, etc, etc.

        And Scotland wouldn’t be inviting Hassan Nasrallah for tea, but shining Netanyahu’s shoes.

        Would Scotland then be up for voting out in a 3rd referendum? I’m not so sure.

        • Mist001

          Right. I get where you’re coming from. No, although it’s not my decision, I’m pretty certain there wouldn’t be a third referendum. I think you’re making it up.

          • Glasshopper

            If there is a second referendum, the third follows like night follows day. Same as the Brexit ref. That’s why many don’t want a second ref down here.
            If there’s a second, there has to be a third.

            Best of 3.

            That is the price you pay for opening the can of worms for a second time.

            Are you ready for a 3rd Indy ref timed by the other side?

            You better be if you want a second. And it will be much harder than the second.

            This is the challenge that awaits those who want to rubbish the first “once in a lifetime”vote.

            The first and second votes will be a cakewalk compared with what’s up ahead.

            If you feel lucky. Make my day!

          • Laguerre

            Following your logic, glasshopper, we shouldn’t have had a Brexit referendum in 2016, as it’s already the second on the subject. 2016 was the illegitimate one, but according to the Brexiters on this blog, it was the light of divine truth that cannot be gainsaid.

      • eric blair

        A lot of countries have become independent from the UK. I do not remember * any * of them having a vote to return.

        I think this comes from the same indoctrinated English mentality, who’s proponents think that, deep down, Ireland wants to rejoin our great union.

        • Glasshopper

          Ireland is benefiting from Tax haven status which is running out of steam fast.

          That’s all you need to know about Ireland.

          • eric blair

            All horse and no hat.

            I think you might benefit from learning a bit about Ireland’s history if you are prone to making glib remarks such as that.

        • Glasshopper

          “A lot of countries have become independent from the UK”

          Scotland is the northern province of the UK. Hardly a separate country in any meaningful sense. They are connected to Europe by our ports and own 9% of our 2 trillion pound debt and share our currency.

          If you thought leaving the EU was a handful, you ain’t seen nothing!

          Scottish independence will take decades, and likely go out of fashion long before Craig Murray notices.

          • eric blair

            >>Hardly a separate country in any meaningful sense.

            Scotland has its own languages, its own legal system, education system, health service, police force, and culture. What sense do you find meaningful?

            >>They are connected to Europe by our ports

            All deliberate. Plenty of decent ports in Scotland that were run down. Leith springs to mind.

            >> and own 9% of our 2 trillion pound debt and share our currency.

            Bullshit. Scotland, by law, * cannot * run a defecit. You are proportioning Scotland’s share of the UK’s debt — debt which was created and decided for by people in London

            >> and share our currency.

            Thats right. We own 9% of the Bank of England.

            >> Scottish independence will take decades

            I give it about 2 years.

          • Glasshopper

            Then build a wall and off you go. While welcoming millions of 50p an hour workers to destroy the livelihoods of your working class ( who obviously you couldn’t care less about).

            Let the plebs pay for it!

            A familiar refrain, like the slippery Brussels boot licking snob class down south.

            You don’t need to travel far north to find the same types are running the show up there.

          • N_

            @eric – An iScotland would be entitled to 9% of British state financial assets but it would also be liable for 9% of British state debt.

            If Scotland becomes independent I would like to see the iScottish government pay some of these assets in reparations to the countries that were robbed by the British empire. The line that Scotland is under English colonial or neocolonial rule is total crap. It is believed only by racist ignoramuses, and it is put about by such ignoramuses and by nationalists who want to benefit from their support. Of course it appeals to many young people, most of whom for a few centuries have not had training in logic, and most of whom today pick their smartphones a lot. Scots played a full role in all of the structures of British imperial rule and as slaveowners for example. Independence supporters who want to sock it to the memory of the British empire could actually promise to pay reparations if they wanted. But no – once the rich get their hands on more money than they’ve already got they don’t usually give it away.

            What do you mean when you say that by law Scotland can’t run a deficit? The devolved administration does. (Source: Reuters.

  • Brianfujisan

    I think Node’s Idea is a Great one –

    September 6, 2019 at 02:56

    …” A panel of trusted academics (perhaps assembled and led by a trusted ex-diplomat who knows the devious ways of governments), should begin immediately devising a constitution that is specifically designed to resist corruption and outside pressure. A very good start would be to compel every politician in high office to subject themselves to monthly live broadcast questioning by members of the public chosen from the willing by lottery..”

    .And I think said trusted ex-diplomat may indeed have the Contacts.

    In other news.. Well Done Tatyana’s team.. Russia 2 – Scotland 1..

    • Deb O'Nair

      Isn’t that how the US Constitution began? And then along comes the amendments and before you know it you’re back on Animal Farm.

      “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots”

      • lysias

        Woody Holton, the son of a Republican governor of Virginia, argues in “Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution” that the U.S. Constitution is counterrevolutionary, that Anerican elites, horrified by the radicalism of the state governments set up by the American Revolution, adopted the U.S. Constitution to limit state action through a more powerful central federal government.

    • eric blair

      trusted academics? Presumably that would mean people from the Humanities and Economics departments? No thanks. Do they have your best interests at heart?

    • N_

      It’s strange to put “corruption” and “outside presure” together like that. Most corruption in Scotland doesn’t involve anybody who is outside Scotland, except when it involves state money that comes directly from London.

    • Loony

      Yeah Scotland deserves a fair referendum and the British deserve to be pissed all over.

      Don’t you understand – no-one cares about ordinary people. You can seek to segregate Scotland from the rest of the the common people if you want. It makes no difference they detest you just as much as they detest everyone else.

      • eric blair

        I’d rather be shat on by the Scottish aristocracy, than this bunch of parasitic chancers.

      • Brianfujisan

        Loony –

        ” You can seek to segregate Scotland from the rest of the the common people if you want. It makes no difference ”

        The Difference is, that the Nation of Scotland is Sick of it.. And It WILL MAKE A Difference.. Be assured of that.

  • Sharp Ears

    Chuka, the very mobile ex Labour MP, has decided to contest the Cities of Westminster and London for the Lib Dems in any forthcoming election. He is ditching the constituency of Streatham which he currently holds for Labour.

    So much for representing the constituents while he messes about.

    Consistency and reliability are not his strong points. He has changed parties three times and then the constituency.

    What a lot of chancers these changelings are.

    • Deb O'Nair

      And yet he still keeps getting face time on the media to offer his opinions. Obviously he’s there to “frame the accepted narrative” no matter what party or constituency he represents.

      • Jo1

        Only my view, DebO, but I’m awaiting tensions developing in the LibDems. While they want new MPs, they want those gains from a GE in the form of “real” LibDems…not refugees from other Parties, especially when they have the baggage associated with Umunna and Berger!

        I think some ordinary LibDems will get resentful in due course.

  • N_

    Jacob languorously lies down in the Commons, and looks down his nose at those who disapprove.
    Boris says “sh*t” in the Commons.
    Boris calls a third Old Etonian a “girly swot”. He tries to stop his words coming out. But they do.
    Boris wrestles bull. He thinks it will look good. But it doesn’t. Or does it?

    All of the above events were pre-planned, staged. There will be more.

    What’s more interesting is that Philip Hammond is in some kind of a faction that retains influence in the Treasury. WTF is that? Never seen anything like that before. Does Sajid Javid get given any work to do or not?

    • N_

      And there’s also

      Boris makes speech backed by rows of uniformed police officers. Hoo-hah afterwards, but who cares?

      …And probably some I’ve missed.

    • Deb O'Nair

      It’s pure Trump tactics based on the old saying “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. As long as he’s getting maximum coverage the pundits have an excuse to talk about him in order to slip in their thinly disguised political bias, to mislead, misinform and (they hope) change public perception and opinion.

      The real news stories should be that he has totally imploded after two days in parliament and things will only get worse for him. Though to be fair some are actually talking about him having to resign soon but they are not reporting the magnitude of the disaster which he has brought upon himself; you have to see that with your own eyes, e.g. watch PMQs and not watch the BBC News at 10, and to understand enough to recognise that his schlock spiel is literally incoherent gibberish.

      • Bramble

        Deliberately planted so his chums in the RW media could produce cartoons representing Mr Corbyn as a chicken – to counter pictures of Tory Layabout Rees Moggs. I note all Johnson’s verbal droppings are macho ones, designed to paint pacifist Mr Corbyn as “girly” and a coward, while he himself is a bull fighter. This from the man who fled to Afghanistan rather than back his constituents in opposing another runway at Heathrow. Bull indeed.

        • Tatyana

          we’ve got similar politician, Zhirinovsky, never shy in his wording and personal attacks. Though sometimes he may make thoughtful comments, but nevertheless most people call Zhirinovsky a clown.

          • John2o2o

            They often hurl insults at each other Tatyana. It’s part of the game. Generally Jeremy is not called a chlorinated chicken, however. The article you linked to is very good.

            From your link:
            “Сам премьер обвинения отверг, ведь он вовсе не против того, чтобы достичь нового соглашения с ЕС. Он лишь не намерен откладывать процедуру выхода: удастся договориться с европейскими лидерами до конца октября — хорошо, не удастся — делать нечего, выход будет без сделки. У парламентариев, по его словам, будет возможность обсудить условия.”

            For me this is the issue at hand. Although I dislike Johnson and his Tory government, he is trying to fulfil the wish of the UK people as expressed in the referendum held in 2016. That wish was to leave the EU. (I voted to remain). The terms of the referendum were that if leave won more than 50% of the votes then the UK would leave.

            The referendum was taken very seriously by people and had a very large turnout. It was not believed to be only “advisory” or people would not have bothered to vote.

            They never expected leave to win, but it did. I did not like the result and I used to rail against it, but really I had nothing to complain about. I took part in the referendum and in taking part I legitimised the result. Leave won and in the interests of democracy we must therefore leave.

            Although I voted to remain in the EU I do not believe that the UK will be ruined by leaving.

            If Scottish independents win a new referendum can we expect the same level of resistance by The House of Commons in Westminster to it leaving the UK as it is currently displaying to the UK leaving the European Union?

            Would it be acceptable for Scotland to win an independence vote in (say) 2022 and for them still to be fighting against the result in 2025?

            I am sure that most people here would say that it would not be acceptable.

          • Jo1

            “It was not believed to be advisory…”


            Do you actually understand how utterly absurd you sound?

            It’s embarrassing.

          • Deb O'Nair

            ‘It was not believed to be only “advisory” or people would not have bothered to vote.’

            You can’t argue with that, quite literally.

          • John2o2o

            @ Jo1 and @ debonair

            If you have something useful and constructive to add to what I was saying then please go ahead.

            And no, I don’t consider what I said to be either absurd or embarrassing. Far from it.

  • N_

    The spread of the idea that the Brexit Party could agree an electoral pact with the Tories is a classic. It’s patently obvious that it will do no such thing. Of course the Tories won’t agree not to run candidates in say 200 seats, and of course Nigel Farage won’t tell voters to vote Tory either. Even if he wanted to, they wouldn’t do what he said. If that’s what he tells people who might have voted for the Brexit Party they will be more likely to vote Labour than Tory. He can’t just sell his base to whoever he wants.

  • Muscleguy

    ScotGov has a role to play here by publicly calling for an OSCE observer mission. For UKGov to ignore that after ScotGov has formally and publicly called for it would be a black mark against UKGov.

    So while the petition is a good one and I signed it ScotGov has a role to play as well.

  • Glasshopper

    With no deal off the table the UK is not going to be able to leave anyway. The best that leavers can hope for is BRINO. Brexit in name only.

    Since the whole case for Indyref2 is based on us leaving, it’s doubtful that there will be one.

    • Brian c

      Can you cite anybody in the referendum campaign saying Brexit would require exiting without a deal? I’ll save you the bother of having to think back that far — no, you can’t.

      • Glasshopper

        There are already deals on aviation, haulage, Calais etc. There is no such thing as no deal.

        Taking “no deal” off the table is basically the end of Brexit. Yes, the remainers have won. So the case for Indyref2 has gone.

        • Brian c

          Forgive me, but you come across as being more than a little confused.

          Glasshopper 09:53
          “With no deal off the table the UK is not going to be able to leave anyway”

          Glasshopper 10:44
          “There is no such thing as no deal”

  • Ken Gallacher

    Media bias, what a farce. How about a commission to investigate the SGs abuse of FOI?
    Maybe that is something worth a petition for.
    I’m sick of this vocal minority shouting the loudest and telling everyone they speak for Scotland, they don’t.

  • michael norton

    Boris has quite a difficult choice to unravel.
    It seems likely that in a few days the Remainer members of parliament will have self congratulated each other that they have cooked his goose.
    So, does Boris ignore their new law and do the bidding of the people and secure Brexit.
    Does he buckle and do the Remainers bidding and beg the E.U. Elite for yet another extension, to hold Brexit off for what seems like eternity.
    Does he request the queen, not to sign their new law.
    Does he resign and walk away, handing the poison chalice to Jermy Corby/Nicola Sturgeon/Jo Swinson.
    Or does he advise the queen that the only way out of this antidemocratic remoaner hell is to
    just hold a General Election
    to howls of protest by the remainer M.P.s who know they will lose theirs seats.

    I think he will go for the last option and it will be announced before the remoaner law is enacted.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9

Comments are closed.