And yet, across the Solway and Tweed, minds that thought themselves immeasurably superior to ours regarded this Scotland with envious eyes, and slowly and surely, they drew their plans against us.
Thanks for your response Stephen , I am indeed referencing Ailsa Henderson's work , the same results have been published by the bbc at times and certain parts of the mainstream media , I just find it incredulous that Alex Salmond would chose to accept that incomers had the right to determine the future of Scotland and Scots , have we not learned anything of the lies and duplicity of perfidious albion over the last 300+ years, because of his shortsightedness we have suffered an additional 12 years of misery at the mercy of a duplicitous and reviled WM , including their blatant theft of our bountiful resources
I am a FIRM believer that charity begins at home and our resources first and foremost should be used for the benefit of Scots , for far too long our generosity and kindness has been used by others to facilitate enrichment for non Scots , we have had a number of english pm's playing fast and loose with the profits from our resources while our citizens have suffered severe financial hardship , Starmer and his cabal of clowns elected by English voters has given away £billions to Zelensky and Ukraine for a war that no one can win , meanwhile Scotland's finances are cut to the bone
Our politicians and the pseudo wannabe politicians want to continue in the same vein of looking after everyone else whilst our own people suffer daily hardships , the progressives and be kind wokesters will ensure Scotland never reemerges as an independent state
Yes Robert the BBC have indeed reported these but the state broadcaster doesn't necessarily provide a stamp of approval or credibility as it just regurgitated the results verbatim without any scrutiny.
By my count there were in fact at least 3 reports of the same data:
The initial report by Henderson & Mitchell called "The Scottish Question, 6 Months On", was published on 27th March 2015. This reported that 52.7% of those born in Scotland were in favour.
However, Douglas Fraser of the BBC stated in his "Study examines referendum demographics" report on 18th September 2015 that the figure was 50.2%.
In 2018 another figure this time of 50.0% was reported in a "Key Findings" publication of which Henderson & Mitchell were two of the four authors.
The data itself are confusing and inconsistent:
The volumes of data are not tied back to the demographic percentages.
There are multiple sources and different collection time periods as well as a lack of clarity around the various 'waves' - 3 of them - that were carried out.
In fact, a large bulk of the interviews were carried out in the weeks prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum of September 2014 so how could they be used to estimate how people voted? (That is, people may have changed their minds from how they indicated they might vote before the SIR and how they actually did cast their ballot in the real event).
I came to the conclusion that the numbers simply don't stack up with the actual outcome of the SIR.
I discussed all this in detail with Peter on one of his Proud Malcontent podcasts from almost exactly a year ago where I tried to explain the flaws and pitfalls in the work. You can watch that here:
Again Stephen thanks for your response I take that on board, I also take Peter`s response on board, however I still believe perfidious Albion and the ludicrous franchise robbed us of our independence
Perfidious Albion should certainly have not been involved in our process but, as my analysis I believe shows, attributing the majority 'No' vote in the SIR of 2014 to the franchise cannot be credibly substantiated with reference to the Scottish Referendum Study.
Aye. I agree with all that Stephen, but I think it also worth stating that the points that Robert T makes about the franchise being important are not in any way invalidated by the situation that we don't have good data on the now historical SIR.
It is just that we cannot honestly make these sort of claims because they just are not backed up by credible evidence.
When we run our own democratic events for ourselves we must ensure that there can be no possibility of the result being questionable due to lack of data, believability or any opportunity for jerrymandering.
Fortunately the United Nations has been overseeing these types of issues for multiple decades so I don't need to campaign for 'special treatment' for our democratic events.
We just need to see the international best practice is followed.
I mentioned previously that we would be quite capable of coming up with qualifying criteria that are painstakingly and meticulously fair such that it does not leave the result open to challenge. We mut have a clear decision. No doubt United Nations would be involved to lend objectivity and further credibility to the process - just like the referendums in New Caledonia in the last 10 years.
I think the whole process should be 'Made in Scotland':
That is, the question posed, the answer options, the electoral franchise, the referendum timing and vote counting inspectorate must be set according to the Scottish Parliament and its agencies, backed by the UN.
Under no circumstances must there be any formal involvement in, influence over, or interference with the process by the British government, parliament or wider establishment.
I feel I have to come to Alex Salmond's defence here. There are many things which, with hindsight, can be seen to be mistakes but which in the context of their time look very different. People tend to forget that the 2011 election result was as much of a surprise for Salmond as for the rest of us. The state of our knowledge was different then. Salmond was working on the not at all unreasonable basis that he had to make independence look as non-frightening as possible.
Looking back, we see so much that now looks horribly wrong. The trouble is, Swinney doesn't see this at all. He imagines he is looking at the exemplar.
"The Scottish REVOLUTION! Almost half of Scottish voters demand U.D.I. in history-making poll"
The more the merrier, and the more the pressure on Swinney (and that new guy in Downing Street). Wonder if WGD will play his part and join in? Anyone reading here still allowed to post there? I almost wish I was still posting on the Herald. Oh - and Wings? Spread the word!
O, what a panic's in the Unionist breastie! Where's ma plow?
I applaud and thank the individuals who unselfishly fight for the independence of our country and nation , it is my belief that since 2014 and even before that the majority of supposed independence seeking politicians have panicked at the mere thought of arranging the necessary formation of the organs that would form the reemergence of the state of Scotland
Even Alex Salmond must have been aware of the dearth of talent that inhabited the party at that time , it always looked to me that it was a one man band that drove the success of his policies , and today the moronic incompetence of sturgeon and her woke parasites illuminates that belief
Alex Salmond made many mistakes but IMO the biggest was to accept the franchise put forward by Cameron , the engerlish colonisers have centuries of self interest and manipulative experience and knew exactly the affect incomers voting on our constitutional right would have , 53.7% of SCOTS voted FOR independence yet we were denied our freedom by non Scots , yet Alex Salmond said that if we had another referendum he would use the same franchise again
TBQH I am outraged that all the political parties value our nationhood so cheaply that they bestow the ridiculous title of NEW SCOT on anyone who sets foot on our shores , if you asked other indigenous peoples like Aborigines , Inuit , Pakistanies or First Nation Americans if they bestowed NEW whatever on new arrivals they would think you were MAD
Scots are becoming minorities in our own land , with authorities favouring incomers over our citizens , and unfortunately that situation seems to be the approach of the newly formed political parties as well
I reckon that you are referencing the work of Ailsa Henderson and James Mitchell. The robustness of this assessment is, to see the least, questionable and I would advise steering clear of that as it risks undermining your argument.
However, I do believe that there should be an appropriate franchise for any future referendum on our constitutional future - there are plenty of instances of this, for example the 3 referendums in New Caledonia of 2018, 2020 and 2021 where a set of rules applied based essentially on birth place and longevity of residence.
I have little doubt that we in Scotland can devise qualifying thresholds that are both fair and - importantly - minimise accusations of attempting to gerrymander the result.
While our political establishment continue to present a game rigged against us as a valid exercise of our self-determination the penny is dropping for others. The coloniser's game is designed to trap us, not offer an escape route. We were stitched up in 2014. I think most know that superficially, but you need the feature-length analysis to really 'get it'. Looking at it through the lens of colonial theory illuminates the reality:
"A fourth dimension of the 2014 process is the most theoretically significant and the least discussed; the English colonial state's monopolisation of constitutional reality itself. Throughout the campaign, the Anglo-British state exercised overwhelming asymmetrical control over the production, classification, dissemination, and institutional validation of economic and constitutional information. Treasury modelling, civil service analyses, intelligence assessments, currency projections, and financial risk evaluations were generated within the epistemic infrastructure of the English colonial state and then presented publicly as neutral expertise; rather than as the knowledge-production system of a directly interested constitutional actor with every institutional incentive to produce conclusions favourable to its own continued authority. The result was not an equal democratic contest between two constitutionally equivalent positions. It was a referendum conducted inside a profound asymmetry of institutional authority in which one side possessed the entire machinery of state legitimacy while the other was required continually to defend its credibility against the colonial state's own self-validating informational apparatus"
And thats just the trailer! Here is the full article from decolonise.scot
The section 30 blockage is relevant, because if Scotland left the UK unconstitutionally, Spain would veto any EU membership bid, so as to limit its own independence movements. This is the barrier that can only be removed with a written constitution giving Scotland the right to leave the UK.
Relying on the general right to self-determination (per Mike Fenwick) does not get round the EU/Spain problem. Spain does not want to allow its minorities self-determination!
The "consolation" prize is that the UK cannot rejoin the EU without giving Spain some sort of sovereignty over Gibraltar. I hazard a guess that the civil service in London have advised Starmer, and now Burnham, not to attempt it. There is a case that Spain could even use the UK applying to rejoin the single market as a lever to extract a big concession over Gibraltar, because the EEA agreement is mixed competence.
You are correct that Scottish politicians are stuck in a rut. I can only see the one way out, unless an independent Scotland is to forsake EU membership.
Have you seen the state of the EU recently? Why TF would anyone want to join that madhouse? I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it fragments into disparate factions assuming it manages to get through the next few years without precipitating total catastrophe in it's insane intent to start all-out war with Russia. The same goes for NATO. Two institutions well past their sell-by date
What on earth has Scotland's Cause got to do with EU membership?
The two are not linked.
The question of whether or not Scotland restores its full self-government and returns to independent statehood is a matter for the Scottish people. Alone. It is not conditional on the prospects of EU membership or other trading bloc alignment.
Regarding leaving the UK "unconstitutionally":
If the people so choose Scotland is bound to leave the UK "unconstitutionally" if, by "unconstitutionally" you mean outside of domestic 'UK law'. This is because Westminster adheres to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that it cannot sanction another authority - in this case the Scottish people's popular sovereignty - holding greater sway than itself.
The crucial aspect is to stay within the confines of international law which, by adopting the #ScottishUDI process and #ManifestoforIndependence, we would be doing so.
If you have read the #ManifestoforIndependence on the link I provided you will have noted that the #ScottishUDI process involves 3 democratic votes:
Firstly, one by the people in a Scottish election for parties/candidates standing on a prospectus offering a self-determining referendum, then one by the Scottish Parliament proposing (and passing) a bill for Independence following that (successful) election and , finally, one by the people a national referendum ratifying that Act by the Scottish Parliament.
Given that the people will have voted for it via the process then of course they will accept it.
I note that you have not addressed my question on why you would make the restoration of Scotland's nation-state status contingent on EU membership.
My understanding is that the Holyrood election earlier this year was meant to be a plebiscite on independence, at least by those canvassing for independence. I accept that the representation arrangements were forced on Scotland, but the plebiscite did not achieve a stunning result. The first step in your manifesto was, at best, "not proven".
The EU issue is relevant because to convince enough people to support independence you have to offer something that is perceived as worthwhile. Rubbishing the EU does not help attract those voters who resent being dragged out of the EU by England.
The Holyrood election was not a plebiscite on independence. The SNP stood on a manifesto of requesting permission from the Westminster government to hold a Westminster-styled referendum.
The matter of Scottish independence stands on its own. It is not linked to any other matter. The prospect of making your own decisions according to your own values and priorities is sufficient.
There are many people in the Scottish independence who do not approve of EU membership. Making Scottish full self-government on membership of any trading bloc only raises the barriers to realising Scotland's Cause.
Note that I didn't mention anywhere whether \i personally was in favour of EU membership or other trading bloc AFTER the primary objective is realised.
Only in your imagination was I "rubbishing the EU" - check this by re-reading my comments.
Aye a shout out for those determined bonnie fechters...as I and those of my disposition drag themselves in their muddy boots behind them.... carrying their sharpened Lochabers....an' given half the chance.....
And yet, across the Solway and Tweed, minds that thought themselves immeasurably superior to ours regarded this Scotland with envious eyes, and slowly and surely, they drew their plans against us.
Mmmmm
Mmmm, where's the Type 83 SNS Thunder Crap when you need her?
Thanks for your response Stephen , I am indeed referencing Ailsa Henderson's work , the same results have been published by the bbc at times and certain parts of the mainstream media , I just find it incredulous that Alex Salmond would chose to accept that incomers had the right to determine the future of Scotland and Scots , have we not learned anything of the lies and duplicity of perfidious albion over the last 300+ years, because of his shortsightedness we have suffered an additional 12 years of misery at the mercy of a duplicitous and reviled WM , including their blatant theft of our bountiful resources
I am a FIRM believer that charity begins at home and our resources first and foremost should be used for the benefit of Scots , for far too long our generosity and kindness has been used by others to facilitate enrichment for non Scots , we have had a number of english pm's playing fast and loose with the profits from our resources while our citizens have suffered severe financial hardship , Starmer and his cabal of clowns elected by English voters has given away £billions to Zelensky and Ukraine for a war that no one can win , meanwhile Scotland's finances are cut to the bone
Our politicians and the pseudo wannabe politicians want to continue in the same vein of looking after everyone else whilst our own people suffer daily hardships , the progressives and be kind wokesters will ensure Scotland never reemerges as an independent state
Yes Robert the BBC have indeed reported these but the state broadcaster doesn't necessarily provide a stamp of approval or credibility as it just regurgitated the results verbatim without any scrutiny.
By my count there were in fact at least 3 reports of the same data:
The initial report by Henderson & Mitchell called "The Scottish Question, 6 Months On", was published on 27th March 2015. This reported that 52.7% of those born in Scotland were in favour.
However, Douglas Fraser of the BBC stated in his "Study examines referendum demographics" report on 18th September 2015 that the figure was 50.2%.
In 2018 another figure this time of 50.0% was reported in a "Key Findings" publication of which Henderson & Mitchell were two of the four authors.
The data itself are confusing and inconsistent:
The volumes of data are not tied back to the demographic percentages.
There are multiple sources and different collection time periods as well as a lack of clarity around the various 'waves' - 3 of them - that were carried out.
In fact, a large bulk of the interviews were carried out in the weeks prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum of September 2014 so how could they be used to estimate how people voted? (That is, people may have changed their minds from how they indicated they might vote before the SIR and how they actually did cast their ballot in the real event).
I came to the conclusion that the numbers simply don't stack up with the actual outcome of the SIR.
I discussed all this in detail with Peter on one of his Proud Malcontent podcasts from almost exactly a year ago where I tried to explain the flaws and pitfalls in the work. You can watch that here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_6Mvv9HnyA&t=2870s (The discussion starts at 13.3 minutes in).
Others have arrived at the same conclusion whilst coming at it from a different angle.
Incidentally, I did endeavour to get in touch with Ailsa Henderson a number of years ago to discuss the data and the study but I never got a response.
(PS I have all the links to the source materials referenced above).
Again Stephen thanks for your response I take that on board, I also take Peter`s response on board, however I still believe perfidious Albion and the ludicrous franchise robbed us of our independence
Perfidious Albion should certainly have not been involved in our process but, as my analysis I believe shows, attributing the majority 'No' vote in the SIR of 2014 to the franchise cannot be credibly substantiated with reference to the Scottish Referendum Study.
Aye. I agree with all that Stephen, but I think it also worth stating that the points that Robert T makes about the franchise being important are not in any way invalidated by the situation that we don't have good data on the now historical SIR.
It is just that we cannot honestly make these sort of claims because they just are not backed up by credible evidence.
When we run our own democratic events for ourselves we must ensure that there can be no possibility of the result being questionable due to lack of data, believability or any opportunity for jerrymandering.
Fortunately the United Nations has been overseeing these types of issues for multiple decades so I don't need to campaign for 'special treatment' for our democratic events.
We just need to see the international best practice is followed.
And never again to 'the British Way'!
Yes.
I mentioned previously that we would be quite capable of coming up with qualifying criteria that are painstakingly and meticulously fair such that it does not leave the result open to challenge. We mut have a clear decision. No doubt United Nations would be involved to lend objectivity and further credibility to the process - just like the referendums in New Caledonia in the last 10 years.
I think the whole process should be 'Made in Scotland':
That is, the question posed, the answer options, the electoral franchise, the referendum timing and vote counting inspectorate must be set according to the Scottish Parliament and its agencies, backed by the UN.
Under no circumstances must there be any formal involvement in, influence over, or interference with the process by the British government, parliament or wider establishment.
I feel I have to come to Alex Salmond's defence here. There are many things which, with hindsight, can be seen to be mistakes but which in the context of their time look very different. People tend to forget that the 2011 election result was as much of a surprise for Salmond as for the rest of us. The state of our knowledge was different then. Salmond was working on the not at all unreasonable basis that he had to make independence look as non-frightening as possible.
Looking back, we see so much that now looks horribly wrong. The trouble is, Swinney doesn't see this at all. He imagines he is looking at the exemplar.
This is good. From SGP James Kelly:
https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-scottish-revolution-almost-half-of.html
"The Scottish REVOLUTION! Almost half of Scottish voters demand U.D.I. in history-making poll"
The more the merrier, and the more the pressure on Swinney (and that new guy in Downing Street). Wonder if WGD will play his part and join in? Anyone reading here still allowed to post there? I almost wish I was still posting on the Herald. Oh - and Wings? Spread the word!
O, what a panic's in the Unionist breastie! Where's ma plow?
I applaud and thank the individuals who unselfishly fight for the independence of our country and nation , it is my belief that since 2014 and even before that the majority of supposed independence seeking politicians have panicked at the mere thought of arranging the necessary formation of the organs that would form the reemergence of the state of Scotland
Even Alex Salmond must have been aware of the dearth of talent that inhabited the party at that time , it always looked to me that it was a one man band that drove the success of his policies , and today the moronic incompetence of sturgeon and her woke parasites illuminates that belief
Alex Salmond made many mistakes but IMO the biggest was to accept the franchise put forward by Cameron , the engerlish colonisers have centuries of self interest and manipulative experience and knew exactly the affect incomers voting on our constitutional right would have , 53.7% of SCOTS voted FOR independence yet we were denied our freedom by non Scots , yet Alex Salmond said that if we had another referendum he would use the same franchise again
TBQH I am outraged that all the political parties value our nationhood so cheaply that they bestow the ridiculous title of NEW SCOT on anyone who sets foot on our shores , if you asked other indigenous peoples like Aborigines , Inuit , Pakistanies or First Nation Americans if they bestowed NEW whatever on new arrivals they would think you were MAD
Scots are becoming minorities in our own land , with authorities favouring incomers over our citizens , and unfortunately that situation seems to be the approach of the newly formed political parties as well
"... 53.7% of SCOTS voted FOR independence ..."
Robert,
I reckon that you are referencing the work of Ailsa Henderson and James Mitchell. The robustness of this assessment is, to see the least, questionable and I would advise steering clear of that as it risks undermining your argument.
However, I do believe that there should be an appropriate franchise for any future referendum on our constitutional future - there are plenty of instances of this, for example the 3 referendums in New Caledonia of 2018, 2020 and 2021 where a set of rules applied based essentially on birth place and longevity of residence.
I have little doubt that we in Scotland can devise qualifying thresholds that are both fair and - importantly - minimise accusations of attempting to gerrymander the result.
While our political establishment continue to present a game rigged against us as a valid exercise of our self-determination the penny is dropping for others. The coloniser's game is designed to trap us, not offer an escape route. We were stitched up in 2014. I think most know that superficially, but you need the feature-length analysis to really 'get it'. Looking at it through the lens of colonial theory illuminates the reality:
"A fourth dimension of the 2014 process is the most theoretically significant and the least discussed; the English colonial state's monopolisation of constitutional reality itself. Throughout the campaign, the Anglo-British state exercised overwhelming asymmetrical control over the production, classification, dissemination, and institutional validation of economic and constitutional information. Treasury modelling, civil service analyses, intelligence assessments, currency projections, and financial risk evaluations were generated within the epistemic infrastructure of the English colonial state and then presented publicly as neutral expertise; rather than as the knowledge-production system of a directly interested constitutional actor with every institutional incentive to produce conclusions favourable to its own continued authority. The result was not an equal democratic contest between two constitutionally equivalent positions. It was a referendum conducted inside a profound asymmetry of institutional authority in which one side possessed the entire machinery of state legitimacy while the other was required continually to defend its credibility against the colonial state's own self-validating informational apparatus"
And thats just the trailer! Here is the full article from decolonise.scot
https://www.decolonise.scot/the-2014-referendum-was-a-colonial-plebiscite-that-scotland-must-never-accept-again-how-the-english-colonial-state-suppressed-scotlands-inalienable-right-to-self-determination-what-genu/
The section 30 blockage is relevant, because if Scotland left the UK unconstitutionally, Spain would veto any EU membership bid, so as to limit its own independence movements. This is the barrier that can only be removed with a written constitution giving Scotland the right to leave the UK.
Relying on the general right to self-determination (per Mike Fenwick) does not get round the EU/Spain problem. Spain does not want to allow its minorities self-determination!
The "consolation" prize is that the UK cannot rejoin the EU without giving Spain some sort of sovereignty over Gibraltar. I hazard a guess that the civil service in London have advised Starmer, and now Burnham, not to attempt it. There is a case that Spain could even use the UK applying to rejoin the single market as a lever to extract a big concession over Gibraltar, because the EEA agreement is mixed competence.
You are correct that Scottish politicians are stuck in a rut. I can only see the one way out, unless an independent Scotland is to forsake EU membership.
Have you seen the state of the EU recently? Why TF would anyone want to join that madhouse? I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it fragments into disparate factions assuming it manages to get through the next few years without precipitating total catastrophe in it's insane intent to start all-out war with Russia. The same goes for NATO. Two institutions well past their sell-by date
"Spain would veto any EU membership bid"
Crap. That is just so out of date, and was never true in the first place. The claim was made by an unelected commission ex.
e.g. - https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destinations/europe-travel/spain/spain-would-not-block-scotland-joining-the-eu-tbwknv38k
"the UK cannot rejoin the EU without giving Spain some sort of sovereignty over Gibraltar"
Crap. Just nonsense.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10572/
"UK–EU Agreement on Gibraltar: Draft text and next steps"
Don't give up the day job.
Regarding EU membership:
What on earth has Scotland's Cause got to do with EU membership?
The two are not linked.
The question of whether or not Scotland restores its full self-government and returns to independent statehood is a matter for the Scottish people. Alone. It is not conditional on the prospects of EU membership or other trading bloc alignment.
Regarding leaving the UK "unconstitutionally":
If the people so choose Scotland is bound to leave the UK "unconstitutionally" if, by "unconstitutionally" you mean outside of domestic 'UK law'. This is because Westminster adheres to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that it cannot sanction another authority - in this case the Scottish people's popular sovereignty - holding greater sway than itself.
The crucial aspect is to stay within the confines of international law which, by adopting the #ScottishUDI process and #ManifestoforIndependence, we would be doing so.
https://manifestoforindependence.scot/manifesto/
An interesting argument, but would people accept it? You may be better placed than myself to judge this.
If you have read the #ManifestoforIndependence on the link I provided you will have noted that the #ScottishUDI process involves 3 democratic votes:
Firstly, one by the people in a Scottish election for parties/candidates standing on a prospectus offering a self-determining referendum, then one by the Scottish Parliament proposing (and passing) a bill for Independence following that (successful) election and , finally, one by the people a national referendum ratifying that Act by the Scottish Parliament.
Given that the people will have voted for it via the process then of course they will accept it.
I note that you have not addressed my question on why you would make the restoration of Scotland's nation-state status contingent on EU membership.
My understanding is that the Holyrood election earlier this year was meant to be a plebiscite on independence, at least by those canvassing for independence. I accept that the representation arrangements were forced on Scotland, but the plebiscite did not achieve a stunning result. The first step in your manifesto was, at best, "not proven".
The EU issue is relevant because to convince enough people to support independence you have to offer something that is perceived as worthwhile. Rubbishing the EU does not help attract those voters who resent being dragged out of the EU by England.
The Holyrood election was not a plebiscite on independence. The SNP stood on a manifesto of requesting permission from the Westminster government to hold a Westminster-styled referendum.
The matter of Scottish independence stands on its own. It is not linked to any other matter. The prospect of making your own decisions according to your own values and priorities is sufficient.
There are many people in the Scottish independence who do not approve of EU membership. Making Scottish full self-government on membership of any trading bloc only raises the barriers to realising Scotland's Cause.
Note that I didn't mention anywhere whether \i personally was in favour of EU membership or other trading bloc AFTER the primary objective is realised.
Only in your imagination was I "rubbishing the EU" - check this by re-reading my comments.
The EU comment was caused by someone else on this substack, sorry
The EU comment was caused by someone else on this substack, sorry
Whatever way you look at it, the Dream is very much Alive.
We don't need UK permission to self-determine.
We don't need UK recognition if we choose full self-government and independent statehood.
We only need to look in the mirror and be able to recognise ourselves.
When the 'pro-Independence' politicians look in the mirror there is no reflection.
Will you be posting this to the FM just to remind him that God safe the King isn't being a good Scot.
Aye a shout out for those determined bonnie fechters...as I and those of my disposition drag themselves in their muddy boots behind them.... carrying their sharpened Lochabers....an' given half the chance.....
For OUR Scotland and her rain soaked weans...