You were present Peter. Make your voice heard. ( as you often do) Stand up and demand to be on the final panel and ask that your route to independence be discussed.You are well known ..more so than others who were on that final panel. I wish I had been there as I would have stood up and asked for you.. I have to wonder why you were excluded........
I never defend anyone working in England and coming to Scotland to give us the benefit of their 'knowledge'. There have been too many quislings and traitors for us to rely on anyone from outside Scotland no matter how respected. We have enough problems with those inside..namely our so called Scottish 'independence based government.' A real cuckoo in the nest.
At the moment an internal investigation is being carried out by a very well known Scottish group who fight for our freedom. It is not my place to comment further as I know very little but it reinforces my belief that we can trust no-one totally.
I USED to have a schoolfriend ..who was well aware of my support for our freedom. After the Referendum she eventually admitted she had voted NO. Why I asked shocked....'because we are too wee ..too poor...and too stupid Those were her words.All those years and not a word ..then at the last hurdle....betrayal of Scotland..What she doesn't realise is that SHE has been kept too wee too poor and too stupid to see what is happening.Even our champion Salmond died a pauper. The only route to our freedom is the same one the brave Irish took.
I am responding to your defence of McHarg and her speech at the IFS .
1. Why couldn't we find a Scottish lawyer living and working in Scotland to speak?
2 She said all the crap we hear from the foreign english government, Scottish quislings etc
3 We should be wary of people like McHarg now resident in foreign england .We have other unionist tics involved in the 'law 'advising us...like Joe Farrell the Head of Police Scotland..here is a report from The Mail on Sunday..
'Scotland's Chief Constable Joe Farrell has landed taxpayers with an eye watering bill ( £134,000) to help her buy a second home. The Police Chief who earns £270,000 has bought a £595,000 2nd home in an upmarket Edinburgh suburb while keeping on her £1,000,000 5 bedroom family 'HOME' 100miles away in Northumberland. Police Scotland annual accounts reveal Farrell received relocation expenses of £69,901..on top of this the forces oversight body (SPA) paid out an additional £64,525. '( ref The Mail on Sunday 9/11/2025) How's that grab ye Peter?
We should NEVER employ or ask the foreign english or Scots living and working in foreign england to 'advise' us. We are smart enough to look after ourselves .
Aileen McHarg is a recognised and respected expert in her field. She was invited by the IFS to provide a legal perspective. Which is what she did.
What she said was correct, looking at it from within the legal and constitutional framework as it exists. Which is all Professor McHarg can do. She is a lawyerly academic. She is neither a politician nor a political campaigner.
You don't seem to understand that Aileen McHarg was not expressing a political opinion. She was giving her expert legal opinion. She was talking about where we are strictly and only for the perspective of the law as it applies. And she is correct. What she described is exactly where we are from hat perspective.
Politics is more than the law, however. Add politics to the mix and the conclusions change. But it was not Aileen McHarg's job to add the politics. That is what I was there for.
IFS Conventions are not pro-independence cheer-fests. They are events dedicated to serious discussion of serious issues. That necessarily involves hearing different points of view and often times being told things we don't like to hear. Aileen McHarg's input was valuable. Or, at least, it would have been if there had been an opportunity for someone like myself to add the political context to what she described. Unfortunately, that didn't happen
My only criticism of the event is that, other than Aileen McHarg, the speakers were not included in the final panel discussion. I think the idea was to get as many different 'voices' as possible. But it was a missed opportunity to allow the audience to question speakers and for the speakers to engage with one another.
The other problem was that while the afternoon session was supposedly devoted to 'routes to independence', only one route was introduced. And it was hardly discussed at all.
At long last, Peter, I think we are united in our objective of self-government by the Scottish People.
I do not disagree with any of your points, although I might put different emphasis on some aspects.
You rightly point out that the UK is attempting to usurp our sovereignty by legal chicanery. This is very true, and must be challenged, but the most direct way to challenge this is to get the "devolved" UK Parliament to implement petition PE2135 and put our UN Human Rights into Scots Law. This can be done legitimately under English Law, because it is legally possible under the Scotland Act. Now, if we force the Scottish Parliament to do that, this would put power into the hands of the Scottish People to conduct referendums on the Civil and Political issues of their choice. This, in turn, would be legally valid in Scottish and International Law. This, I suggest, would change the power structure again, even before the election, and it would make your strategy even more effective.
Incorporating ICCPR into Scots law does precisely nothing to help Scotland's cause. Direct democracy is undoubtedly a good thing. But it'll be a long, hard slog getting it working in Scotland. But it is emphatically not a 'route to independence'. Incorporating ICCPR into Scots law does not change the Scotland Act. If incorporated now, it would be applicable only in devolved matters.
By all means, throw your energies into promoting PE2135. I shall throw mine into the campaign for independence.
Excellent! Even having read it, I'm hoping to have a chance to see your delivery of the speech on YouTube or whatever, as well as some of the other speakers. Pretty much everything else I'd want to say is covered much better in the comments by others. However..just want to give the 'cyber applause' I would have given had I been there! Very well said 👏
What a brilliant speech. Am thoroughly proud of you my friend. If that speech doesn't create a restless earworm in all of the listening heads Pete, nothing ever will. I've been very ill today and was unable to watch things live. I will be browsing the Scotland Channel on YouTube later to see if it is covered there. The natives are definitely becoming restless and the polls (at least those we place a modicum of trust in) are showing that. The Scots electorate are showing in ever increasing numbers that they feel there is a need for a change. If the current mood among the people of Scotland continues, there will come a "tipping point", where all of these obstacles that Englandshire has deviously placed in our way become insignificant and are simply brushed aside by the inexorable will of the Scots people to take back our nation. That cannot come quick enough for me personally, but I know that these things require a process to be adopted and subsequently followed. I genuinely feel, that despite the SNP's reluctance to raise their independence banner up in anger, that Scotland is finally taking steps (small steps though they may be) on a road that can and will lead us to our independence.
Just watched the IFS Convention and listened to all the speeches. Wish it had been longer. Your speech was excellent ( of course) ... as indeed were all of the others... bar one. The only 'fly in the ointment ' was Ms McHarg ..if we followed her opinions we would get absolutely nowhere and when asked at the end how she would ..from a legal point of view address the problem of taking forward our battle for independence did what most lawyers do..she ducked the question. I was impressed by the American speaker didn't catch her name..she was great and full of life. But aside from McHarg's poor input ( she's been working in foreign england too long) I thought all speakers made valid points for our freedom. I shall hunt for the Declaration of a Sovereign Scot so I can sign it.
I particularly liked the comment..'ruthlessly exploited' and the fact that we do not have an honest media...(I think that was the editor of the National.)....but one controlled by our enemies. I smiled at the 'tanks on the streets'..my kind of speaker! And it could come to that...
All in all a great day ..wish I had been there.
Only 19 watching online..we need to get all this great stuff out to the Scots..that's the problem...lack of information..which as you know is the lifeblood of an organisation ..or country.
You have to bear in mind that she was commenting from the perspective of a legal academic. There were things she said I agreed with. But she is constrained in the conclusions she can reach by the fact that she can only think within the law.
Great delivery Peter and it seemed to be well received, even invoking some cheers in response to "Those powers were taken from us. We must take them back. Power is never given. Power is only taken. That which is given is not power, but an affirmation of the power of the giver."
It was a pity that the MC didn't make time for you to answer some direct questions on #ScottishUDI.
You were present Peter. Make your voice heard. ( as you often do) Stand up and demand to be on the final panel and ask that your route to independence be discussed.You are well known ..more so than others who were on that final panel. I wish I had been there as I would have stood up and asked for you.. I have to wonder why you were excluded........
I never defend anyone working in England and coming to Scotland to give us the benefit of their 'knowledge'. There have been too many quislings and traitors for us to rely on anyone from outside Scotland no matter how respected. We have enough problems with those inside..namely our so called Scottish 'independence based government.' A real cuckoo in the nest.
At the moment an internal investigation is being carried out by a very well known Scottish group who fight for our freedom. It is not my place to comment further as I know very little but it reinforces my belief that we can trust no-one totally.
I USED to have a schoolfriend ..who was well aware of my support for our freedom. After the Referendum she eventually admitted she had voted NO. Why I asked shocked....'because we are too wee ..too poor...and too stupid Those were her words.All those years and not a word ..then at the last hurdle....betrayal of Scotland..What she doesn't realise is that SHE has been kept too wee too poor and too stupid to see what is happening.Even our champion Salmond died a pauper. The only route to our freedom is the same one the brave Irish took.
For OUR Scotland and her weans.
I am responding to your defence of McHarg and her speech at the IFS .
1. Why couldn't we find a Scottish lawyer living and working in Scotland to speak?
2 She said all the crap we hear from the foreign english government, Scottish quislings etc
3 We should be wary of people like McHarg now resident in foreign england .We have other unionist tics involved in the 'law 'advising us...like Joe Farrell the Head of Police Scotland..here is a report from The Mail on Sunday..
'Scotland's Chief Constable Joe Farrell has landed taxpayers with an eye watering bill ( £134,000) to help her buy a second home. The Police Chief who earns £270,000 has bought a £595,000 2nd home in an upmarket Edinburgh suburb while keeping on her £1,000,000 5 bedroom family 'HOME' 100miles away in Northumberland. Police Scotland annual accounts reveal Farrell received relocation expenses of £69,901..on top of this the forces oversight body (SPA) paid out an additional £64,525. '( ref The Mail on Sunday 9/11/2025) How's that grab ye Peter?
We should NEVER employ or ask the foreign english or Scots living and working in foreign england to 'advise' us. We are smart enough to look after ourselves .
I rest my case.
For OUR Scotland and her smart weans.
Aileen McHarg is a recognised and respected expert in her field. She was invited by the IFS to provide a legal perspective. Which is what she did.
What she said was correct, looking at it from within the legal and constitutional framework as it exists. Which is all Professor McHarg can do. She is a lawyerly academic. She is neither a politician nor a political campaigner.
You don't seem to understand that Aileen McHarg was not expressing a political opinion. She was giving her expert legal opinion. She was talking about where we are strictly and only for the perspective of the law as it applies. And she is correct. What she described is exactly where we are from hat perspective.
Politics is more than the law, however. Add politics to the mix and the conclusions change. But it was not Aileen McHarg's job to add the politics. That is what I was there for.
IFS Conventions are not pro-independence cheer-fests. They are events dedicated to serious discussion of serious issues. That necessarily involves hearing different points of view and often times being told things we don't like to hear. Aileen McHarg's input was valuable. Or, at least, it would have been if there had been an opportunity for someone like myself to add the political context to what she described. Unfortunately, that didn't happen
My only criticism of the event is that, other than Aileen McHarg, the speakers were not included in the final panel discussion. I think the idea was to get as many different 'voices' as possible. But it was a missed opportunity to allow the audience to question speakers and for the speakers to engage with one another.
The other problem was that while the afternoon session was supposedly devoted to 'routes to independence', only one route was introduced. And it was hardly discussed at all.
At long last, Peter, I think we are united in our objective of self-government by the Scottish People.
I do not disagree with any of your points, although I might put different emphasis on some aspects.
You rightly point out that the UK is attempting to usurp our sovereignty by legal chicanery. This is very true, and must be challenged, but the most direct way to challenge this is to get the "devolved" UK Parliament to implement petition PE2135 and put our UN Human Rights into Scots Law. This can be done legitimately under English Law, because it is legally possible under the Scotland Act. Now, if we force the Scottish Parliament to do that, this would put power into the hands of the Scottish People to conduct referendums on the Civil and Political issues of their choice. This, in turn, would be legally valid in Scottish and International Law. This, I suggest, would change the power structure again, even before the election, and it would make your strategy even more effective.
Incorporating ICCPR into Scots law does precisely nothing to help Scotland's cause. Direct democracy is undoubtedly a good thing. But it'll be a long, hard slog getting it working in Scotland. But it is emphatically not a 'route to independence'. Incorporating ICCPR into Scots law does not change the Scotland Act. If incorporated now, it would be applicable only in devolved matters.
By all means, throw your energies into promoting PE2135. I shall throw mine into the campaign for independence.
Excellent! Even having read it, I'm hoping to have a chance to see your delivery of the speech on YouTube or whatever, as well as some of the other speakers. Pretty much everything else I'd want to say is covered much better in the comments by others. However..just want to give the 'cyber applause' I would have given had I been there! Very well said 👏
What a brilliant speech. Am thoroughly proud of you my friend. If that speech doesn't create a restless earworm in all of the listening heads Pete, nothing ever will. I've been very ill today and was unable to watch things live. I will be browsing the Scotland Channel on YouTube later to see if it is covered there. The natives are definitely becoming restless and the polls (at least those we place a modicum of trust in) are showing that. The Scots electorate are showing in ever increasing numbers that they feel there is a need for a change. If the current mood among the people of Scotland continues, there will come a "tipping point", where all of these obstacles that Englandshire has deviously placed in our way become insignificant and are simply brushed aside by the inexorable will of the Scots people to take back our nation. That cannot come quick enough for me personally, but I know that these things require a process to be adopted and subsequently followed. I genuinely feel, that despite the SNP's reluctance to raise their independence banner up in anger, that Scotland is finally taking steps (small steps though they may be) on a road that can and will lead us to our independence.
Just watched the IFS Convention and listened to all the speeches. Wish it had been longer. Your speech was excellent ( of course) ... as indeed were all of the others... bar one. The only 'fly in the ointment ' was Ms McHarg ..if we followed her opinions we would get absolutely nowhere and when asked at the end how she would ..from a legal point of view address the problem of taking forward our battle for independence did what most lawyers do..she ducked the question. I was impressed by the American speaker didn't catch her name..she was great and full of life. But aside from McHarg's poor input ( she's been working in foreign england too long) I thought all speakers made valid points for our freedom. I shall hunt for the Declaration of a Sovereign Scot so I can sign it.
I particularly liked the comment..'ruthlessly exploited' and the fact that we do not have an honest media...(I think that was the editor of the National.)....but one controlled by our enemies. I smiled at the 'tanks on the streets'..my kind of speaker! And it could come to that...
All in all a great day ..wish I had been there.
Only 19 watching online..we need to get all this great stuff out to the Scots..that's the problem...lack of information..which as you know is the lifeblood of an organisation ..or country.
Great day.
For OUR Scotland and her not listening weans.
You have to bear in mind that she was commenting from the perspective of a legal academic. There were things she said I agreed with. But she is constrained in the conclusions she can reach by the fact that she can only think within the law.
Great delivery Peter and it seemed to be well received, even invoking some cheers in response to "Those powers were taken from us. We must take them back. Power is never given. Power is only taken. That which is given is not power, but an affirmation of the power of the giver."
It was a pity that the MC didn't make time for you to answer some direct questions on #ScottishUDI.
We should just go it alone UDI.
Westminster has a plan for next year and we are blindly sleepwalking into it no one sees it !