The Scottish Politics Thread

[Slick]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I think it would be easier to have a tiny bit of sympathy if he had been found guilty by a court and did his time. But with what has happened and an apparent lack of any contrition I don't have much.

[Biffer]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I think the lad's character is important and can't be ignored if we are asking whether or not the actions of the council, the women's side and the club are justified, if it wasn't for his actions he wouldn't in the situation he is now.

Also worth highlighting that he hasn't paid a penny of the compensation the court ordered hinm to pay. He declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying it.

[Slick]

Anyone done jury service before? Just been called up which is a bit of a pain. Can probably get out of it using the kids as an excuse but also feel I should do it.

[inactionman]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I'd say Raith and Clyde are ultimately free to do as they wish (frankly, good on Raith for making a stand, although Cylde have well and truly missed the boat), they're privately held bodies who are community clubs and as such should be concerned about the character of members or associated persons, but what the council think they're doing I have no idea. Do they even have a legal basis for this? You can't ban someone from council property just because you don't much like them, and any claim on safeguarding and duty of care would seem mad if he's been there for years since the offence. He was found against in a civil proceeding, granted for a particularly nasty reason, but there's no criminal liability.

Not a good precedent.

[Tichtheid]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I think the lad's character is important and can't be ignored if we are asking whether or not the actions of the council, the women's side and the club are justified, if it wasn't for his actions he wouldn't in the situation he is now.

Also worth highlighting that he hasn't paid a penny of the compensation the court ordered hinm to pay. He declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying it.

aye and that's absolutely a part of his character that can't be ignored when talking about his situation.

[Tichtheid]

Anyone done jury service before? Just been called up which is a bit of a pain. Can probably get out of it using the kids as an excuse but also feel I should do it.

I got called up once but after I'd arranged child care (for which they said I could claim expenses) the big case was dropped at the crown court in Lewes and they had enough jurors to cover the other ones

[Biffer]

Anyone done jury service before? Just been called up which is a bit of a pain. Can probably get out of it using the kids as an excuse but also feel I should do it.

I did High Court in 2020. First time I had to do it. I know that in theory it's an interesting expeerience to see how the system works but it very much depends on the type of case. I did it because we all have to - if we go out of our way to find reasons to get out of it, it'll be left to the weirder elements of society and it'll become impossible to find a jury of peers. The justice system is struggling enough without all of us deliberately undermining it.

Having done high court I'm exempt for five years after the trial date.

[Slick]

Anyone done jury service before? Just been called up which is a bit of a pain. Can probably get out of it using the kids as an excuse but also feel I should do it.

I did High Court in 2020. First time I had to do it. I know that in theory it's an interesting expeerience to see how the system works but it very much depends on the type of case. I did it because we all have to - if we go out of our way to find reasons to get out of it, it'll be left to the weirder elements of society and it'll become impossible to find a jury of peers. The justice system is struggling enough without all of us deliberately undermining it.

Having done high court I'm exempt for five years after the trial date.

Yes, that’s pretty much how i feel. Do have genuine concerns about child care as it will probably be over the Easter holidays but I’ll go along and see where we are

[Blackmac]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I think it would be easier to have a tiny bit of sympathy if he had been found guilty by a court and did his time. But with what has happened and an apparent lack of any contrition I don't have much.

Struggling to understand how people think he should express his contrition if he absolutely maintains his innocence. Also overlooking the fact that any public admission of responsibility might just be enough to tip COPFS in favour of pursuing a prosecution.

[Blackmac]

Anyone done jury service before? Just been called up which is a bit of a pain. Can probably get out of it using the kids as an excuse but also feel I should do it.

I did High Court in 2020. First time I had to do it. I know that in theory it's an interesting expeerience to see how the system works but it very much depends on the type of case. I did it because we all have to - if we go out of our way to find reasons to get out of it, it'll be left to the weirder elements of society and it'll become impossible to find a jury of peers. The justice system is struggling enough without all of us deliberately undermining it.

Having done high court I'm exempt for five years after the trial date.

Spot on. Things have got so bad that they are now citing retired police officers, having reduced their exemption period to 3 years from retirement. Almost any police officer in the country will have the opinion that if the person has reached the threshold of being tried under Solemn procedure then they certainly bloody did it. Not the best of jurors.

[Blackmac]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I think the lad's character is important and can't be ignored if we are asking whether or not the actions of the council, the women's side and the club are justified, if it wasn't for his actions he wouldn't in the situation he is now.

Also worth highlighting that he hasn't paid a penny of the compensation the court ordered hinm to pay. He declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying it.

Indeed, but thats a common action for anyone who genuinely felt they had got the wrong side of a verdict, regardless of the circumstances of the case.

[dpedin]

Anyone done jury service before? Just been called up which is a bit of a pain. Can probably get out of it using the kids as an excuse but also feel I should do it.

I did High Court in 2020. First time I had to do it. I know that in theory it's an interesting expeerience to see how the system works but it very much depends on the type of case. I did it because we all have to - if we go out of our way to find reasons to get out of it, it'll be left to the weirder elements of society and it'll become impossible to find a jury of peers. The justice system is struggling enough without all of us deliberately undermining it.

Having done high court I'm exempt for five years after the trial date.

Spot on. Things have got so bad that they are now citing retired police officers, having reduced their exemption period to 3 years from retirement. Almost any police officer in the country will have the opinion that if the person has reached the threshold of being tried under Solemn procedure then they certainly bloody did it. Not the best of jurors.

Done jury duty in both Sheriff and High Courts. Bit of a pain but it needed to be done. Both nauseating cases - Sheriff court druggie breaking into ex house and threatening her and High court a sexual assault within the family. Like to think I have done my duty now. When in High Court we were having lunch and the clerk looking after us said we should be thankful we weren't trying the case the jury at next table were - a complex tax case which had been sitting for months and still had a while to go!

[Biffer]

I did High Court in 2020. First time I had to do it. I know that in theory it's an interesting expeerience to see how the system works but it very much depends on the type of case. I did it because we all have to - if we go out of our way to find reasons to get out of it, it'll be left to the weirder elements of society and it'll become impossible to find a jury of peers. The justice system is struggling enough without all of us deliberately undermining it.

Having done high court I'm exempt for five years after the trial date.

Spot on. Things have got so bad that they are now citing retired police officers, having reduced their exemption period to 3 years from retirement. Almost any police officer in the country will have the opinion that if the person has reached the threshold of being tried under Solemn procedure then they certainly bloody did it. Not the best of jurors.

Done jury duty in both Sheriff and High Courts. Bit of a pain but it needed to be done. Both nauseating cases - Sheriff court druggie breaking into ex house and threatening her and High court a sexual assault within the family. Like to think I have done my duty now. When in High Court we were having lunch and the clerk looking after us said we should be thankful we weren't trying the case the jury at next table were - a complex tax case which had been sitting for months and still had a while to go!

Yeah, I sat on a child abuse case. An unpleasant week, but when you're part of justice being done to someone like that you know it's worth your time.

[Blackmac]

I did High Court in 2020. First time I had to do it. I know that in theory it's an interesting expeerience to see how the system works but it very much depends on the type of case. I did it because we all have to - if we go out of our way to find reasons to get out of it, it'll be left to the weirder elements of society and it'll become impossible to find a jury of peers. The justice system is struggling enough without all of us deliberately undermining it.

Having done high court I'm exempt for five years after the trial date.

Spot on. Things have got so bad that they are now citing retired police officers, having reduced their exemption period to 3 years from retirement. Almost any police officer in the country will have the opinion that if the person has reached the threshold of being tried under Solemn procedure then they certainly bloody did it. Not the best of jurors.

Done jury duty in both Sheriff and High Courts. Bit of a pain but it needed to be done. Both nauseating cases - Sheriff court druggie breaking into ex house and threatening her and High court a sexual assault within the family. Like to think I have done my duty now. When in High Court we were having lunch and the clerk looking after us said we should be thankful we weren't trying the case the jury at next table were - a complex tax case which had been sitting for months and still had a while to go!

Yeah, sadly it can by quite a trying and often a very harrowing experience for some. I was brought in as a Specialist Interview Advisor for one of the biggest fraud investigations in Scotland to that time. I remember being called to give evidence at the very end of the prosecution case. I looked at the jury and it was apparent that half didn't have a clue what the evidence meant and the other half had long given up caring.

[KingBlairhorn]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I'd say Raith and Clyde are ultimately free to do as they wish (frankly, good on Raith for making a stand, although Cylde have well and truly missed the boat), they're privately held bodies who are community clubs and as such should be concerned about the character of members or associated persons, but what the council think they're doing I have no idea. Do they even have a legal basis for this? You can't ban someone from council property just because you don't much like them, and any claim on safeguarding and duty of care would seem mad if he's been there for years since the offence. He was found against in a civil proceeding, granted for a particularly nasty reason, but there's no criminal liability.

Not a good precedent.

On the delayed reaction, does pointing out bad behaviour have a time limit? Since the Goodwillie civil case we have had the me too movement and a general societal change in attitude to men getting away with sexual deviance with no impact on their continuing life. I would say a large part of the reaction now is grounded in that change.

On the legality of the council's action, they released a specific statement explaining their actions when they made their decision. In particular they pointed out that the stadium was under a private management contract when Goodwillie was first playing for Clyde so they had no standing to take any action. They now have the stadium under direct management and are very clear they have exactly that provision in the agreement to ban any person they like from the stadium on the grounds of undesirable behaviour.

Goodwillie is a repugnant rapist who also has 3 separate convictions for assault. He is very much reaping what he sowed.

[dpedin]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I'd say Raith and Clyde are ultimately free to do as they wish (frankly, good on Raith for making a stand, although Cylde have well and truly missed the boat), they're privately held bodies who are community clubs and as such should be concerned about the character of members or associated persons, but what the council think they're doing I have no idea. Do they even have a legal basis for this? You can't ban someone from council property just because you don't much like them, and any claim on safeguarding and duty of care would seem mad if he's been there for years since the offence. He was found against in a civil proceeding, granted for a particularly nasty reason, but there's no criminal liability.

Not a good precedent.

On the delayed reaction, does pointing out bad behaviour have a time limit? Since the Goodwillie civil case we have had the me too movement and a general societal change in attitude to men getting away with sexual deviance with no impact on their continuing life. I would say a large part of the reaction now is grounded in that change.

On the legality of the council's action, they released a specific statement explaining their actions when they made their decision. In particular they pointed out that the stadium was under a private management contract when Goodwillie was first playing for Clyde so they had no standing to take any action. They now have the stadium under direct management and are very clear they have exactly that provision in the agreement to ban any person they like from the stadium on the grounds of undesirable behaviour.


Goodwillie is a repugnant rapist who also has 3 separate convictions for assault. He is very much reaping what he sowed.

Interesting and agree

[KingBlairhorn]

Spot on. Things have got so bad that they are now citing retired police officers, having reduced their exemption period to 3 years from retirement. Almost any police officer in the country will have the opinion that if the person has reached the threshold of being tried under Solemn procedure then they certainly bloody did it. Not the best of jurors.

Done jury duty in both Sheriff and High Courts. Bit of a pain but it needed to be done. Both nauseating cases - Sheriff court druggie breaking into ex house and threatening her and High court a sexual assault within the family. Like to think I have done my duty now. When in High Court we were having lunch and the clerk looking after us said we should be thankful we weren't trying the case the jury at next table were - a complex tax case which had been sitting for months and still had a while to go!

Yeah, sadly it can by quite a trying and often a very harrowing experience for some. I was brought in as a Specialist Interview Advisor for one of the biggest fraud investigations in Scotland to that time. I remember being called to give evidence at the very end of the prosecution case. I looked at the jury and it was apparent that half didn't have a clue what the evidence meant and the other half had long given up caring.

I've been called twice but never selected. It was a close call on both occasions as other potential jurors were using anything and everything they could to get out of it - there weren't too many of us left come selection.

The second time was thoroughly depressing. We got taken in to hear the charges (serious sexual assault) and then went back to the waiting room while some legal stuff happened. There were people openly agreeing that the guy had done it having only heard the charges and seen the guy. No idea the result of the trial but my view that jury trials are fair and just was heavily shaken by that experience. I hope to God I never do something stupid enough to end up in front of one.

[Big D]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I think the lad's character is important and can't be ignored if we are asking whether or not the actions of the council, the women's side and the club are justified, if it wasn't for his actions he wouldn't in the situation he is now.

Also worth highlighting that he hasn't paid a penny of the compensation the court ordered hinm to pay. He declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying it.

He's a scumbag, but Clyde ladies making a stand now, after he was club captain 6 weeks ago isn't particularly convincing.

I'm not sure how I feel about civil courts and the lower threshold for guilt dictating how people are viewed. It takes the power to find guilt away from a jury and puts it in the hands of a single judge. I do generally have faith in judges and in this case it was pretty clear so fuck him but it does create a two tier justice system somewhat

[KingBlairhorn]

I think the lad's character is important and can't be ignored if we are asking whether or not the actions of the council, the women's side and the club are justified, if it wasn't for his actions he wouldn't in the situation he is now.

Also worth highlighting that he hasn't paid a penny of the compensation the court ordered hinm to pay. He declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying it.

He's a scumbag, but Clyde ladies making a stand now, after he was club captain 6 weeks ago isn't particularly convincing.

I'm not sure how I feel about civil courts and the lower threshold for guilt dictating how people are viewed. It takes the power to find guilt away from a jury and puts it in the hands of a single judge. I do generally have faith in judges and in this case it was pretty clear so fuck him but it does create a two tier justice system somewhat

I would turn that around and say isn't it great that Clyde ladies now feel empowered enough to say that they don't accept the situation.

Let's remember, Clyde ladies aren't directly impacting his employment, they are saying that they no longer want to be involved with a community club that in turn employs Goodwillie. They are making a personal sacrifice (i.e. no longer playing the sport they love for the team they want to and in many cases part-own) in order to make their point. I think that should be commended. Clyde is owned by supporters, so this is very much the supporters saying what they believe is acceptable within their club (or company if you prefer). Rapists are unable to take jobs in lots of high profile places because of the reputational damage their employment causes the organisation, Clyde is no different.

[Blackmac]

I think the lad's character is important and can't be ignored if we are asking whether or not the actions of the council, the women's side and the club are justified, if it wasn't for his actions he wouldn't in the situation he is now.

Also worth highlighting that he hasn't paid a penny of the compensation the court ordered hinm to pay. He declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying it.

He's a scumbag, but Clyde ladies making a stand now, after he was club captain 6 weeks ago isn't particularly convincing.

I'm not sure how I feel about civil courts and the lower threshold for guilt dictating how people are viewed. It takes the power to find guilt away from a jury and puts it in the hands of a single judge. I do generally have faith in judges and in this case it was pretty clear so fuck him but it does create a two tier justice system somewhat

That is partly what I find alarming. I think we are heading down a dangerous path. Balance of Probability can be an exceptionally low threshold which then sets the mob mentality loose on anyone on the wrong end of such a decision. Allowing people who have a total disregard for the consequences to administer their own form of justice is just wrong. Even some of the responses on here show that, essentially "fuck him, he's a prick so we don't care".

[inactionman]

I'm not going to discus the lads character but what does everyone see as the ultimate aim of those involved in the Goodwillie pile on. The Clyde ladies sudden reaction and the behaviour of the local council after 5 years is just pathetic. Lynch mob mentality at its worst. I wonder if any of them will accept any responsibility if the lad throws himself under a train.

I'd say Raith and Clyde are ultimately free to do as they wish (frankly, good on Raith for making a stand, although Cylde have well and truly missed the boat), they're privately held bodies who are community clubs and as such should be concerned about the character of members or associated persons, but what the council think they're doing I have no idea. Do they even have a legal basis for this? You can't ban someone from council property just because you don't much like them, and any claim on safeguarding and duty of care would seem mad if he's been there for years since the offence. He was found against in a civil proceeding, granted for a particularly nasty reason, but there's no criminal liability.

Not a good precedent.

On the delayed reaction, does pointing out bad behaviour have a time limit? Since the Goodwillie civil case we have had the me too movement and a general societal change in attitude to men getting away with sexual deviance with no impact on their continuing life. I would say a large part of the reaction now is grounded in that change.

On the legality of the council's action, they released a specific statement explaining their actions when they made their decision. In particular they pointed out that the stadium was under a private management contract when Goodwillie was first playing for Clyde so they had no standing to take any action. They now have the stadium under direct management and are very clear they have exactly that provision in the agreement to ban any person they like from the stadium on the grounds of undesirable behaviour.

Goodwillie is a repugnant rapist who also has 3 separate convictions for assault. He is very much reaping what he sowed.

This isn't a good thing, not least because I doubt that the criteria for who constitutes 'undesirable' is in any way consistently applied. Who is the arbiter of this? Are others with 3 convictions for assault also banned, or just those who appear in the press? I'd prefer the clause for undesirable behaviour should only be applied for those exhibiting the behaviour in the premises, at least there's some justification for it at that point.

I think you're being very generous to Clyde if you're intimating they've had a fundamental moral retrenching over the last 5 years and this is what has driven their volte-face (if that's what you mean by 'delayed reaction'). They're responding to bad PR, nothing more. They accepted him back on loan, it took an outcry for them to reverse that decision.

I'd say simply responding to the court of public opinion is not a good way to conduct your business. If we want a fit and proper test for footballers, for whatever reason, let's have one, but let's not have this.

I'm not crying any tears for the man, he's caused great harm and is reaping what he sowed, I am worried that we're reaching a point where outcomes are driven by outburst.

[inactionman]

I should caveat my post above by saying I'm reserving my ire for the council, who are not a member's club and who do not have a prerogative to limit association.

[Paddington Bear]

A significant amount of us on a rugby bored will have played rugby with people who have served time and for whom the sport was a crucial part in getting their life back on track, as well as providing them with structure, purpose etc. Goodwillie deserves no tears but the principle of banning people from sports facilities on the grounds they have strikes me as a very bad step.

[Big D]

Also worth highlighting that he hasn't paid a penny of the compensation the court ordered hinm to pay. He declared himself bankrupt to avoid paying it.

He's a scumbag, but Clyde ladies making a stand now, after he was club captain 6 weeks ago isn't particularly convincing.

I'm not sure how I feel about civil courts and the lower threshold for guilt dictating how people are viewed. It takes the power to find guilt away from a jury and puts it in the hands of a single judge. I do generally have faith in judges and in this case it was pretty clear so fuck him but it does create a two tier justice system somewhat

I would turn that around and say isn't it great that Clyde ladies now feel empowered enough to say that they don't accept the situation.

Let's remember, Clyde ladies aren't directly impacting his employment, they are saying that they no longer want to be involved with a community club that in turn employs Goodwillie. They are making a personal sacrifice (i.e. no longer playing the sport they love for the team they want to and in many cases part-own) in order to make their point. I think that should be commended. Clyde is owned by supporters, so this is very much the supporters saying what they believe is acceptable within their club (or company if you prefer). Rapists are unable to take jobs in lots of high profile places because of the reputational damage their employment causes the organisation, Clyde is no different.

They (all involved at Clyde, including the council) were empowered 6 weeks, a year ago, when me too movement was at its peak or when deciding to form a womans team at a club employing a rapist to speak out about feeling uncomfortable about the situation. The council didn't just this year take over the stadium. The womans team could have spoken out after he left saying they are glad he's gone and want none of the transfer fee to be spent to their benefit.

Raith Rovers (bar the board) took a stand and lost in many ways, including financial when they can't really afford it. Their stand was the hardest one to take. I live in Kirkcaldy and the kick back was instant when it became known in the community he had signed.

Clyde as a club, may have by accident reached the right decision, but i don't think any of their actions were convincing when they do so only after handsomely profiting via promotion and a transfer fee (rumoured in local press to be 6 figures, likely 125k or so) from him. No one at the club complained when he signed, was made captain or played up to the end of 2021. He'd still be playing now if not for Raith.

The above is in no way a defence of Goodwillie and IMO both clubs have made the right decision, I just remain to be convinced anyone involved on the Clyde side would have done so if not for Raith and after they have happily benefitted from a rapist being their goal machine and captain.

[westport]

Anyone done jury service before? Just been called up which is a bit of a pain. Can probably get out of it using the kids as an excuse but also feel I should do it.

If its the High Court they are guilty if not you will have to listen what is said then find them guilty.

Hope this helps.

[westport]

I did High Court in 2020. First time I had to do it. I know that in theory it's an interesting expeerience to see how the system works but it very much depends on the type of case. I did it because we all have to - if we go out of our way to find reasons to get out of it, it'll be left to the weirder elements of society and it'll become impossible to find a jury of peers. The justice system is struggling enough without all of us deliberately undermining it.

Having done high court I'm exempt for five years after the trial date.

Spot on. Things have got so bad that they are now citing retired police officers, having reduced their exemption period to 3 years from retirement. Almost any police officer in the country will have the opinion that if the person has reached the threshold of being tried under Solemn procedure then they certainly bloody did it. Not the best of jurors.

Done jury duty in both Sheriff and High Courts. Bit of a pain but it needed to be done. Both nauseating cases - Sheriff court druggie breaking into ex house and threatening her and High court a sexual assault within the family. Like to think I have done my duty now. When in High Court we were having lunch and the clerk looking after us said we should be thankful we weren't trying the case the jury at next table were - a complex tax case which had been sitting for months and still had a while to go!

Mate from work was involved in one of those tax ones he was away from work for about 8 months.

[Blackmac]

Anyone done jury service before? Just been called up which is a bit of a pain. Can probably get out of it using the kids as an excuse but also feel I should do it.

If its the High Court they are guilty if not you will have to listen what is said then find them guilty.

Hope this helps.

Oh, you are my sort of juror.

[Slick]

I see Douglas Ross backtracking about Johnson and using Ukraine as one of the reasons.

What a cunt

[Blackmac]

I see Douglas Ross backtracking about Johnson and using Ukraine as one of the reasons.

What a cunt

He is certainly a lad that bends easily in the wind.

[Blackmac]

Has anyone seen the Kate Forbes interview around the ferry fiasco. Absolutely astonishing how much they struggle when blaming Westminster is off the table.

[Slick]

Has anyone seen the Kate Forbes interview around the ferry fiasco. Absolutely astonishing how much they struggle when blaming Westminster is off the table.

Yes, really embarrassing, and she’s one of the best. Also struggle when a journalist actually ask them a tough question and demands an answer

[Tichtheid]

Anything Glasgow can do...

Protesters block Edinburgh immigration detentions


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... e-61342165

[Tichtheid]

Indy Ref 2, 19th of October 2023

[Slick]

Indy Ref 2, 19th of October 2023

In her heid.

In all honesty it just feels really tired now, can’t be bothered

[tc27]

Indy Ref 2, 19th of October 2023

Wanna bet -she's just marching you up the hill again Ticht.


No legislation bought forward (probably because the SGs governments own lawyers wont sign if off)


In fact just a submission to the Supreme Court.

[Tichtheid]

Indy Ref 2, 19th of October 2023

Wanna bet -she's just marching you up the hill again Ticht.


No legislation bought forward (probably because the SGs governments own lawyers wont sign if off)


In fact just a submission to the Supreme Court.

The SG are going for the legality of any referendum from the off, in order to see of any huff and puff from the usual suspects. The date is the preferred option but in the scheme of things it doesn't really matter, what is important in this, to my mind, are two issues, one following on from the other.

1. Is the UK a union by consent?

If yes then any part of the union should be able to hold a referendum on its continued membership at any point it sees fit.

2. If it is not a union by consent, then how does a member of that union leave if its citizens desire it, but the government in Westminster refuses to allow a legal referendum on the subject?

The SNP have said that if the Supreme Court find that acting without "permission" from Westminster is illegal then they will stand at the next GE with independence as their only manifesto policy

[tc27]

Indy Ref 2, 19th of October 2023

Wanna bet -she's just marching you up the hill again Ticht.


No legislation bought forward (probably because the SGs governments own lawyers wont sign if off)


In fact just a submission to the Supreme Court.

The SG are going for the legality of any referendum from the off, in order to see of any huff and puff from the usual suspects. The date is the preferred option but in the scheme of things it doesn't really matter, what is important in this, to my mind, are two issues, one following on from the other.

1. Is the UK a union by consent?

If yes then any part of the union should be able to hold a referendum on its continued membership at any point it sees fit.

2. If it is not a union by consent, then how does a member of that union leave if its citizens desire it, but the government in Westminster refuses to allow a legal referendum on the subject?

The SNP have said that if the Supreme Court find that acting without "permission" from Westminster is illegal then they will stand at the next GE with independence as their only manifesto policy

Seems to me its fairly straight forward that the UK is a unitary state formed by the merger of former nation states just like Germany, France, Holland, Spain or even the United States ETC. For the record none of those nations consider themselves voluntary unions or loose federations.

I haven't read the act of Union cover to cover but I am not under the impression it contains any of the terms or language you mentioned.

[Blackmac]

Plenty sources suggesting that Nicola will be gone well before then. That super injunction preventing the press from revealing the lies behind her farcical marriage and her real relationship status isn't going to hold forever.

[tc27]

Plenty sources suggesting that Nicola will be gone well before then. That super injunction preventing the press from revealing the lies behind her farcical marriage and her real relationship status isn't going to hold forever.

I am baffled by the secrecy around this. Doubt it would make any real difference politically - maybe Kate Forbes would get upset by it?

[SaintK]

Plenty sources suggesting that Nicola will be gone well before then. That super injunction preventing the press from revealing the lies behind her farcical marriage and her real relationship status isn't going to hold forever.

Never seen that written before, not even in Private Eye!!