Tuesday 20 September 2016


The Three Brexiteers. 
In the last post Dean made some observations about Brexit and Scotland's reaction to it. 

In this post I'd like to look at Brexit and what our response might be. 

Firstly, I don't think we should ever give up on what we believe in. Brexit or no, many people simply believe that Scotland is best served being governed for itself, by itself, although clearly working with other countries in international organisations. 

The Brexit débacle may have swayed people in this in one direction or the other, of course.

Let's be clear, Brexit was, and is, made in a perfectly legal referendum decision, not an unreasonable aspiration. I don't knock anyone who believes in it.

Maybe because I see the four constituent members of the UK as separate countries with their own needs and economic and social realities, however, I think that any case that can be made for Brexit is far less compelling if you are from Scotland, or NI, or clearly, Gibraltar. London is rather different, given its status in the financial world. 

Different people in different countries were voting for different things. Northern Ireland for example, already marginalised by Great Britain, is worried that being outside the EU while the rest of Ireland is in it, will be damaging to its economy. It is also a recipient of a great deal of EU money which almost undoubtedly will not be forthcoming from the UK. Scotland, whilst not in the same category still profits from its membership of the EU.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Brexit campaign at least from the 'popular' press, and one that seemed to take root in England in particular, was a level of xenophobia, the likes of which I've never seen before. By heavens the editors of the Sun, Mail, Telegraph and Express seem to either have a visceral hatred for foreigners ... or have worked out that their readers do and from this they can make money. 
How to create a solid wall of hatred.
Of course I will never give up on the idea of independence for Scotland, but like most of us, I have had to accept the will of the Scottish people in a referendum in 2014, to stay in the UK.

But it's fair to say that that vote was based on some assurances, not least one propounded by British politicians of both colours (and probably the LDs) and the EU authorities, that the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in Britain. That Scots voted 62-38 to stay in Europe is a real indicator that that was something that may have influenced them in their 2014 decision.
Aye, Fluffy, whatever...
In any political campaign we know that people lie and politicians of every shade manipulate statistics and facts to their own advantage. Hard though it is for a normal person to understand Mr Mundell's volte face, I'm sure that he and his side are not the only ones to do this. 

Lord knows the NHS staff and some patients may well have been swayed by the implied benefit of £350 million a week from Boris, Nigel and crew.
No, we aren't really being served. But we're only Jocks, Irish, or Gibraltarians.
On our side (independence for Scotland), we have had "the settled will of the Scottish people" rammed fairly hard down our throats for some time. Fair enough. Certainly the politicians at the top, the FM, the cabinet and minister, accepted that, although they continue to work hard to persuade the Scottish people that they made the wrong choice (well the 55%). There's nothing unreasonable about that. You don't give up on a dream if at first you don't succeed. 

Had Nigel lost he wouldn't have said, "oh well, that's it, we'll abandon any hopes of coming out of Europe; I'll just learn French so that I don't have to shout/slur loudly at the bar staff in Brussels".

Our parliament has a majority of members who were elected on a platform that included the proposal that if there were to be a material change in the political or economic situation, then another referendum on independence was possible. Their election too, might be called the settled will of the Scottish people, as might be the 62% for Europe vote in our country.

The 'settled will' in any case is not ever really settled, regardless of what the odious Jack Straw says (in between celebrating  Berexit getting Chilcott and thus his sorry backside off the front pages almost immediately!!) He would have made it illegal for there EVER to be another referendum on Scottish Independence.
To be fair Mr Farage was never one to see irony
Populations are changing all the time, because population is a moving thing: people come of age and people die. People arrive and people move away. It's the way of things. A 'will' in 2014 may have changed dramatically by 2019 because of a change in demographics, particularly given that statistics show that the younger people tend to be much more pro-independence than older ones. So 'settled will' even a few years later, may be very different.

Nicola is doing the right thing in my opinion, to see if the 'will' of the Scottish people, in both referenda can be accepted: ie, Scotland remain a part of the UK and a part of the EU.  That's after all what the Scots said back in 2014 and 2016.

It's not as fantastical as it seems. In the Kingdom of Denmark, part is in and part out. And the Irish situation may well demand a much more flexible viewpoint, for the sake of peace or again the possibility of a part of the UK breaking away.

If, as Westminster seems to be indicating it will, that fails, then the views of the Scottish people may be sought again. Not to do so would be letting down the 62% who are about to be dragged out of Europe with the attendant loss of jobs and increased costs. Particularly because of the specific promise made by UKOKers in 2014.
Well, there you go. The Queen must hate Celtic, Murdo?
Did you ask her how she feels about you telling the world that?
Murdo Fraser, seems to be unaware of what his government is doing in London. He says that the Scottish government must explain what Brexit means, while Mrs May and her Three Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox and Davis) are steadfastly refusing to explain that even to their own MPs. (Maybe that's what Murdo means.) 

How the hell can Nicola, or the Scottish public, possibly know what it means when the folk that are supposed to be in charge won't tell us (or don't know themselves)? And how can the Scottish government plan for something that the Brits haven't sorted out?  This is a good read.

What the Scottish government has tried to do is establish the facts. So Nicola has been to Brussels to meet with people there. What she wanted to know was, what would this mean for Scotland...was there a possibility of a Greenlandic solution in reverse... and how would the EU react to Scotland if it decided independence in Europe was superior to dependence in the UK?

She seemed to get more done in the first few weeks than the mighty British government which acted like a rabbit blinded by headlights from the four winds.

But of course, all negotiations must, in the end, be between London and Brussels.

We are dependent upon people who seem to have little regard for us, and certainly won't much care about our wishes when it comes to negotiating. To be fair they all represent English constituencies and the English population is massive in comparison to ours.
Boris wanted the yacht to travel the world with his two buddies (and presumably Mr Werrity). His boss said NO.
Seriously do you imagine that Johnson, Fox and Davis will give much thought to the people in Gibraltar, Scotland or Northern Ireland when they are sorting out the future?

At the moment they seemed to be more interested in getting the royal yacht recommissioned so they can steam around the world like the colonialists they are, striking up trade deals with anyone who is impressed with a royal yacht. Opium anyone? Watch out, Dean, if some suspicious looking English fellow with a haystack on his head  comes up to you in the street saying "Me sell you opium. Velly good stuff, ask Lord Sewell". Oh no sorry, that was coke!

I'd be interested in people's views on this, and on whether parliament should be given a chance to debate Brexit, albeit with no veto on the referendum result, or whether it should all be done by the back door, privy council, statutory orders or whatever they have up their sleeve when they want to be sneaky... 


  1. Problem with using the Royal Prerogative is that it's not a reserved matter.

    1. But surely the constitution is a reserved matter and treaties are a reserved matter and one that traditionally has been decided by royal prerogative?

  2. Perhaps nobody has challenged before. It's quite explicitly not reserved.

    1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
    (a)the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

    (b)the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,

    (c)the Parliament of the United Kingdom,

    (d)the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,

    (e)the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.

    2(1)Paragraph 1 does not reserve—
    (a)Her Majesty’s prerogative and other executive functions,

    (b)functions exercisable by any person acting on behalf of the Crown, or

    (c)any office in the Scottish Administration.

    1. Oh thanks Foxy... that's interesting.


  3. Interesting but I'm still not sure of impact. If they tried to use Royal Prerogative to Brexit. Queen would have to refuse if ScotGov advised that they do not approve? This is interesting http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-sovereignty-for-dummies/

    1. Thank you very much. I'll read that at my leisure tomorrow, when I might be capable of understanding it. Most interesting it looks.

      You're not, I'm assuming, any relation to Liam Fox, are you??? :) :)

  4. Replies
    1. Thank goodness. I did read that article tonight, and I'll read it again tomorrow. It was fascinating.

      Thank you very much. It does make it possible for Scotland to refuse to agree, given that the expressed will of the Scottish people has precedence over that of the UK parliament, and the Queen would be in breach of her duties as Queen of Scots if she signed it. Furthermore it appears that the Supreme court might be obliged to back that.

      This might force the Uk to consider the Greenland in reverse option. it would remain to see if the EU would buy that.

    2. Pretty much what I was thinking but not seen much talk about it.

    3. I'm afraid that if the UK government want to pull Scotland out of the EU they pretty much can due to the Sewel convention. A summary is here:


      The original text here:


      The key part in all of this is the phrase, "... not normally legislate".

      The interesting part is that invoking the Sewel convention requires Parliamentary intervention and, I assume, a Parliamentary vote. I would guess the SNP would vote against leaving the EU because that is their policy and they would argue that they only represent Scotland. Still, dangerous for them given that they may need Parliamentary assent after any future indyref. Would Labour join in? Would any pro-EU Tories? Still room for more mess beyond the mess we already have.

    4. Hmmm... so, it seems one set of laws against the Sewel Convention... (Things go better with Coke)... oh the other Sewel Convention, you mean?

      Ah right.

      Interesting to see what would come out on top, if you know what I mean.

    5. He put away more than his fair share of midnight powder. I wonder if there an illicit price list for the inhabitants of Dolphin Square ranging from knee-trembler to full-on Sewel Convention.

    6. Ewwww. You wonder the weirdest stuff... :)

      But if you find out let me know!

  5. I would accept the 2014 result if the No side gave us Devo Super Max as promised.
    They didn't, so hell mend them.

    1. I'd accept it as a step on the way. Although to have them organise our foreign policy (ie take orders direct from Washington DC) and our defence (ie have Trident and let them pretend to be important, at the knee of Washington DC) sticks in my throat. Also, and less important, the continued obeisance to that family of scroungers in Buckingham Palace is such a waste of money.

      But, as I say, it would have been a step in the right direction. But they lied.

    2. When i say i would accept the result, i don't mean that i would stop wanting independence.
      I think independence could have been put off for decades if the Yoons had actually delivered Devo-max.

    3. Yes, a deal that put us ion the same sort of footing as Jersey and Guernsey (although clearly not the Crown Colony thingy), would have put the whole thing off for a while, but if we had done a good job, I suspect that it wouldn't have taken too long before we were starting to ask about the cost of defence and a foreign policy that still thinks its in the 19th century. (I'm assuming that we'd have to pay Britain a fee for their services, unlike the CCs, which get it for free.)

  6. Imagine being Murdo Fraser. I'll just leave it at that.

    1. I'm glad I read that at lunchtime and not at night. :)

    2. I have this horrible mental picture involving pigs, a The Rangers strip and a life sise picture of Thatcher.
      And mandarins. :-(

    3. In a past life, i witnessed a well known Tartan Tory from Perthshire, now deceased, being secreted into a Tayside hospital in the middle of the night. He had a Domestos bottle removed from his arse. It had been inserted blunt end first.

    4. The life size pic of the sainted Margaret is enough to put one off one's sleep!

      I suppose if the said MP was sticking Domestos bottles in his nether regions, then at least he was giving the local youth a break for the night.

      God knows he needed disinfecting.

  7. I am always flattered to see my name in big lights on Munguin's Republic.

    Good post Tris, one of your best to date to my mind. Very considered. I've a couple of comments.

    ". You don't give up on a dream if at first you don't succeed."

    True, and fair enough. But just be careful, polling currently shows the majority of Scots (as a whole) just don't support a repeat indyref. Even if we accept (and I do) that there has been a small shift to YES post Brexit, this is very slight. According to ICM it leaves the new average 48%/52% in favour of remaining British. Add to this, Sturgeon's rhetoric surrounding indyref2 and Brexit perhaps opening the door to it has hurt her job satisfaction percentiles (don't take my word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZeJ6VHminA#t=714.137847)

    Putting all of that aside, I just want to defend David Mundell a moment.

    Like myself, he was pro-remain. But we lost the EUref, now we need to fight for a 'soft brexit', the alternative is leaving the field clear for a 'hard brexit' which is simply too horrible to contemplate. And let us be fair, 'soft brexit' IF handled correctly could result in many trading positives (over the medium term, nothing right away I accept). I don't think Mundell is being hypocritical to accept the result, and try and talk up Britain and her new opportunities in the context of fighting for a 'soft brexit britain'. He is doing the only thing we can now do.

    1. Thanks you Dean. Of course being featured by Munguin is, indeed an honour something akin to a Nobel Prize!

      That aside, of course the balance has shifted only a little and there is much to do. But bad polls don;t make you give up on something you believe firmly in.

      It's equally admirable that you, having lost that referendum, be positive about what can be taken from it. Soft Brexit could bring advantages. I'm not sure what they are yet, but I'm certain that there may be some. After all, I have always stood in awe of the Norwegian lifestyle which is close to some sort of soft Brexit option.

      The big trouble with "soft" is that Farages, Davis and Fox, and there are many more in the Tory Party (and probably some in Labour) who are absolutely resolute about this will not do. They won't have foreigners "taking all the jobs"; they won't have ECHR; they won't have rules and regulations which control trading.

      One of the things that came over, apart from the xenophobia, in the Leave campaign was the anger at having regulations made in Brussels. OK, that's xenophobia again. Foreigners telling Brits what to do. The trouble with the soft option is you have no say in these rules and regulations. You do them or you are kicked out.

      Advantages? You get to pay your own farmers the subsidies that made food affordable, and try to keep the countryside fit for wildlife, and you get to say who fishes in your waters, but if your fishermen have already sold their boats and quotas to Europeans, you can't take much advantage of that.

      I take your point about Mr Mundell, but as I've said a hard Brexit or nothing, is what a group of Tories have said. And with a small majority Mrs May may be more than a little tied by that.

      Additionally, if there are no visible signs that the foreigners have started to leave and that EU regulations have stopped, and that £350 million a week is being pumped into the British economy, I can see trouble coming.

      Incidentally, I heard a snippet of an interview last night with Nigel. Apparently the idea for the £350m a week to the NHS was Gove's idea. Nigel apparently told him it was a bad idea but Gove was insistent.

      Maybe that is why he got to bullet.

      Thanks for the link correction.

    2. Dean, is that the actual latest 'satisfaction' poll? I noticed in the previous blog your claim that Scotland exports 60 billion to the rUK. The last figures I can recall was that exports from Scotland were 51 billion but, significantly, that rUK exports to Scotland totalled 63 billion. It is difficult to imagine that these exporters who generate that 63 billions will willingly tolerate the restrictions placed on them by the hard border you refer to. It is also difficult to justify having a hard border imposed on an independent Scotland whilst not imposing one between the rUK and the Irish Republic without resulting chaos and hostility.

      The impression given by unionist sources is that the UK is so valued and held in such regard that they will retain all the advantages of the EU without any of the disadvantages. Still they cannot failed to be impressed by a UK Foreign Minister who is contemptuous of foreigners, and others, and goes around with his trousers at half-mast and his shirt escaping from his trousers.

      John Brownlie - Munguin does not accept my google account - maybe it is only for sensible comments.

    3. I am very, very much against even a soft Brexit. For me the EU acts as the nearest thing we have to a formal constitution. Take it away and the UK Parliament will try to do pretty much anything it wants: ban trade unions, bring back the death penalty, reduce costly environmental protections etc etc. There are certainly problems with the EU but the problems with the UK political system are far, far graver. Countries like Norway and Switzerland are naturally far more liberal countries than the UK. Yes, I know, they have their problems too but none have suffered the kind of unchecked xenophobia or blind faith that markets will provide that we seen recently in the UK. I don't believe that we should just fixate on market opportunities here.

      Many might view Switzerland as a non-EU success story. The level of EU integration, however, is actually astonishingly high and definitely far higher than anyone on the Brexit side would ever contemplate.

    4. Anon. I'm shocked at Munguin not accepting your account... But frankly, with Blogger, you just never know.

      Maybe to make it easier for us you could sign your comments, even with a made up name?

      I agree about the exports. They manage to confuse these things so much so as to make it difficult for the layman to understand.

    5. I agree with every word Terry.

      I think your average xenophobe in the UK has no idea what they are demanding of the UK. And I'm pretty certain that most of them would HATE the UK that would result were there to be no EU influence.

      However, that is their choice and they must live with it.

      I seriously can't imagine living in a UK constantly ruled by the Tories for the benefit of the rich and well born, and with no where else to go.

      In a recent gathering of some 11 friends of a friend, 6 were entitled to foreign passports albeit at quite a cost (the Polish one cost £800), but all were considering it.

      I wish I could find a relative from another EU country.

    6. I also wish I could find a relative from another EU country. My family tree is way too Glaswegian. Generation after generation of them. I blame the parents!

    7. Totally unreliable, aren't they, letting you down just when you need them to be foreign.

  8. I should add that youtube link takes you to stv's commentary on approval ratings, ICM polling and indyref debate on this whole topic.

    1. Actually can you specify which link. I've had a look at them and they all seem ok... :)

    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZeJ6VHminA#t=714.137847

  9. Replies
    1. Not quite sure of your point there, Anon. :)

    2. Positively Pompously Pathetically Puerile? #

      He's describing Farage!

    3. Dean, "He"? do not be sexist!

    4. Anon: We have to guess if you don't put any name on it. Sorry, on Dean's behalf if he got it wrong, but he had a 50-50 chance.

    5. "Dean, "He"? do not be sexist!"

      Given the poster is utterly anonymous, and given the nature of the English language demands gender forms...

  10. Debate brexit as much as the snp
    Wish but debate not whinge whine
    And generally blame all of Scotland
    Woes on Westminster which can only
    Magically be solved by an Independent
    Scotland ... Rejected decisively by a
    Free vote of the Scots

    1. I thought I was debating it. You turned it into an SNP thing.

    2. And a free vote of Scots, told Labour to sod off; just saying.

  11. Brexit is a mess, they clearly didn't expect it to transpire. WM was totally wrong footed, ScotGov at least came out fighting.

    I reckon this will bring down the Tories and there will be another hung parliament meaning some sort of coalition nobody wants after the next WM election. I also think May wanted Brexit, she was never keen on membership but decided she couldn't back the Leave campaign - presumably because she never thought people would vote for it and that would leave her out in the cold in future leadership contests.

    I was think however; thinking about indyref2, I sort of came to a potentially depressing conclusion - I mean Brexit hasn't happened yet, but its been voted for and with the noises coming from Westminster... Yet, Yes is still way down in the polls from where I think it should be - given how much of an issue EU membership was during indyref1.

    I wonder if there will ever be a sizable enough percentage of Scots willing to vote yes. I worry that the die hard unionists, the cowed and the apathetic will always outnumber those on the Yes side.

    Its quite depressing.

    1. Ahhhhh....I wonder if you are right.

      The Tories fail... Labour still in turmoil... what will the coalition be? The Liberal Dems raised from the dead? It won't be the SNP!

      I suspect that the enthusiasm for independence may rise, if and/or when the brexiteers make a mess of it and the deals they get cost us all money.

      I don't give up hope. We surely can't go on wanting to be a part of this!

    2. The pollsters are saying there's been movements in both directions - Yes to No and vice versa. Pro-EU No voters who are alarmed about losing European connections are almost cancelled out by anti-EU Yes voters who were alarmed by Sturgeon's bold mission to Brussels. See Arc of Prosperity's recent blog posts.

      Mostly I think folk are generally in a holding pattern until it becomes clear what Brexit means. A deal perceived as very bad would be the material circumstances required for Indyref2 - I think at this point, most of Scotland would be willing to put up with a soft Brexit.

    3. It seems sensible that people would wait to find out whats going to happen... Don't hold your breath folks.

      Maybe noting much will happen; maybe a lot; maybe there will be riots; maybe shortages of labour; maybe prices will rocket and jobs will disappear; maybe they won't.

      And I think it's logical that there will be people who will move both ways... people are all different with different needs and desires

  12. Tris

    Great post and it will certainly be interesting to see which way it goes. I must admit, sticks in my throat, I think Dean is correct when he talks about the figures for Indy2. I don't think we would win if it's held in the next two years, too many people are still afraid and Project Fear 2 will be bigger and better funded than the last time as we all know they outspent YES considerably while getting the media to say how poor they were, that is not even counting the money poured in from Westminster against the YES side and the BBC etc. The Brexit deal would have to be really bad to convince Scots to go for Indy2 and even then I just think too many are defeated Scots. Too many come across as if Scotland is a conquered nation, they might say the right words blah blah but they don't believe it. I even had one guy during the indy ref tell me he wished Scotland had just ceased to exsist at all and we were just England, you can't convince that kind of defeated person of anything.

    Brexit will be what England wants it to be, they will talk of the four nations but they won't mean it. They will focus on London and England and the rest will have to live with whatever deal they get. Scotland I susppose is slightly different in that we can, and may, decide to have another referendum and I would support it, get more involved the next time, and vote YES but if we lose it then it's off the table for a long time, maybe forever or certainly my lifetime. The stakes now are far bigger than they have ever been.

    I don't believe the Government will ignore the referendum result for the EU, they can;t afford to do that and it would be a disaster for YES and we have to fight to make sure they don't. They could turn down any deal made, which could happen or put it to the people in another referendum leading to ever more uncertainty in the medium to longer term and eventually go for another membership referendum. The problem with that is that the EU will not be that patient, they have big problems and problematic elections on the horizon that could result in the EU falling which would probably be May's preferred option. Either way it is a mess as we all agree, and it will be interesting to see how it all works out.


    1. Thanks Bruce. I don't think the British government will go against the referendum. I could see riots if they did.

      If they get soft brexit there will still be trouble becasue there is a fee for joining the single market. Norway, I read somewhere, pays more per capita than the UK. Of course it is a LOT richer soit can afford it. But there are people out there that want that money spent on England, not given to the EU.

      People don;t want foreigners, although they will find that they need them. When the big infrastructure projects (rebuilding their parliament and their royal palace, building their massive railway, etc come on line, where will they get the trained people?

      They may be able to strike some deals, but the EU can't be seen to give England all it wants, otherwise everyone else will want it too.

      London is in dire straights if it doesn't get some deal where it can trade with the EU, and obviously the UK government will care VERY deeply about that as so many of their friends are in the banks.

      But it's interesting what that link from Scoptsfox says. The Scottish parliament can be seen as the will of the Scottish people. And the Queen cannot go against that. That MIGHT cause some disquiet.

    2. A good cough usually dislodges a something nasty stuck in ones throat :P

    3. Or a bottle of malt....

  13. Dean, any truth in the rumour that Boris wants the Royal Yacht to be re-furbished to be used as a gun-boat against any EU country who reject the UK's Brexit demands? Good luck in Luxembourg, Boris!

    1. Boris would just have to use his nukes on all these inland countries.

      Nothing to an Eton and Oxford man.

    2. I understand (no special insight mind) that BoJo thinks the royal yacht Britannia could function as a useful tool sailing round the world drumming up business and fresh market opportunities for Britain.

      I have no idea and have given no thoughts as to whether this is likely.

    3. LOL own up. You are a close confidant of Boris. I bet he's let you in on a few secrets...

    4. Boris is a walking, talking shambles - an appropriate representative of the Tory government...

    5. Yes, he does. He splutters and hurumps all over the place acting like an overgrown public schoolboy. A complete shambles.

      Like May's government.

    6. Slight problem - Britannica is clapped out. Especially by the standards of modern millionaires and billionaires' yachts.

    7. Bit like Britain then

  14. As I posted on Eric Joyce's blog,I am pretty sure Westminster will do a deal with the EU for NI and Gibraltar since they share a "hard" border with EU countries but that Scotland will be ignored.
    However,they will have to explain to Scots why the wishes of voters in NI must be respected but not ours.
    This may not be enough to sway No voting Scots to change their minds given their fear of standing on their own two feet but it will surely expose the real nature of the UK "union".
    Either way,we win.

    1. Yes, that's a possibility. It will be interesting to see what the Scottish parliament says to that. The Tories will acquiesces, of course, but will the rest of us?

  15. From Stirling Bridge to Culloden, Scots win when they choose the ground.
    Mr Salmond had no choice but to call IR1. And it was not the disappointing defeat that was significant. It was how close we got to victory.

    May has 8 years in power now. Labour's infighting, UKIP hoist, and the boundary changes guarantee her that. Even if Brexit is a mess the shit won't really hit until after 2020. So Nicola can afford to wait it out. To choose the ground.

    The much vaunted 48/52 opinion polling is hard now. Despite an immense propaganda war on all media. And even the butcher's apron being shoved down our throats at every turn. Demographics are in our favour. If we just wait it out and chose the ground. Imagine how delighted the EU majority Scots will be when (if ) they get that Brexit they didn't vote for. Dean the Tory and his ilk should reconcile themselves to the inevitability of Independence. What is he doing to make the most of it? For it is coming as sure as midges at a Scottish picnic.


    1. I don't think there is much doubt that independence is inevitable at some point. But people are scared by all teh project fear stuff, particularly old people who are less able to do anything about whatever they do to us.

      As you say, just by the laws of nature, demographics are on our side.

      Munguin just hopes he can hang on long enough. He quite fancies being the president.

  16. My tuppence worth.
    1 Scots voted to stay in UK in 2014, fair enough - true,
    2 Scots voted that the UK Remain in the EU,

    If Art 50 is triggered it is against 'the sovereign will of the people of Scotland'. Ipso Facto the Act of Union is annulled. No need for indyref2, the deed is done. We just need to negotiate our UK exit and EU entry.

    Am I missing something here?

    1. Well, if you are, I am too, :)