_86576131_flagafpWell that’s been quite a couple of days…. In the last few days I’ve been called a ‘poster boy’ for the ultra unionist group Scotland in Union, I’ve had my commitment to Scottish independence questioned, my ‘lifestyle’ has been disapproved of, I’m apparently ‘settling down’ in Westminster and I’ve even been called an ‘Etonian boot licker’. None of this came from political opponents – all of this is from people who claim to support Scottish independence on Twitter.

Now, I’m a reasonably robust political character, hardened by almost 17 years in Parliament and used to the occasional scrap on Twitter. I was one of 6 MPs who had to put the case for the last referendum in the most hostile environment imaginable when we had to face down 640 unionist MPs at Westminster. I won my seat against all the odds last year when the Tories told me that it was a 99% certainty that they would take it. I am not easily thrown of my stride by criticism or attacks but I was genuinely surprised by the vehemence of people I presumed were political comrades. It would be easy to dismiss this as ‘just twitter’ but I know that environment reasonably well and I have to conclude we might have an issue and difficulty in our movement.

My ‘crime’ was to simply express my view that we must be as pragmatic as possible in calling a second referendum on independence. I referred to my experience in the most canvassed constituency in Scotland and I asked legitimate questions about the gap between support for independence and support for ‘an early referendum’. I asked how we may re-engage yes leavers and I, again, put the need for a new case to persuade those amongst our fellow Scots who remain unconvinced about the case for independence. My conclusion was that we simply can not afford to lose another referendum.

People then seemed to somehow presume that by suggesting a pragmatic approach I was ‘calling off’ a second referendum. That I wouldn’t use a ‘hard earned’ mandate that I was being ‘defeatist’ and ‘depressing’ the Yes movement. The thing is I didn’t say anything about when a referendum should be held, I simply put forward my view that it should be held when there was good evidence it could be won. Even the most enthusiastic proponent of an imminent referendum would concede that ‘if’ consecutive opinion polls showed support for independence plummeting to below 30% a degree of caution should be exercised?


This unleashed the most extraordinary response on Twitter (and I have to say exclusively on Twitter) and led me to question how we can proceed with debates such as this – because believe me, we need these debates. Positions have to be challenged and analysed. Evidence has to be presented and judgements have to be made. Shouting people down, name calling and misrepresenting people’s views will not help anybody. If this happens people with legitimate views will be silenced and discouraged in coming forward with their own views. No one in our movement has all the answers and at this juncture in the fight for our nation’s independence we need as much input and ideas as possible.

I withdrew from the Deputy Leadership because I got a little bit of a flavour of this when I was working up a few ideas whilst considering standing. I was concerned that the debate might descend into what I have just experienced and I didn’t want our contest dominated with all of this. I will certainly not be deterred from forcefully speaking my mind and I will not be silenced. I will continue to put forward what I think is right for my country and right for the case in securing our nation’s independence.

I will say this once again. The only thing that matters to me is my country securing its independence and I believe losing again is simply unthinkable. So let’s unite, lets welcome all views with respect, and let’s get out and win…….


  1. Mike Haldane

    Unfortunately this is the problem both sides of the debate have. There are too many “supporters” who are the same folk who go home after the football and batter their partners. Scotland is not alone in having this issue, but we appear to be taking the Balkans route, where discussion actually means violence – sorry that will be fucking violence!

    1. Peter A Bell

      I see absolutely no sign of any inclination to violence – or fucking violence – within the Yes movement. Quite the contrary, in fact. I cannot, of course, speak for British Nationalists.
      What I have heard is increasing numbers of people voicing concerns about what happens when the British government closes off the democratic route to independence, as they surely will if we don’t act urgently to prevent this. I don’t mind admitting that I’m reluctant to even talk about that scenario. I’d rather focus on acting to save Scotland from the British Nationalist ‘One Nation’ project.

  2. Peter A Bell

    You were not “called a ‘poster boy’ for the ultra unionist group Scotland in Union”. It was pointed out that you had been adopted by Scotland In Union as their ‘poster boy’. That your views found favour with such British Nationalist extremists seemed rather pertinent to the debate.
    I had hoped that today would find you actually addressing some of the criticisms and questions about your position. But it seems that you are determined to continue evading the very debate you claim you want to engage in. You persist in diverting from that debate with bleating about how some people have been mean to you. And, of course, the falsehood about being called SIU’s poster boy.
    You chose to declare a position that is evidently controversial. If you are not prepared to defend that position in debate then we have little alternative but to assume that you really haven’t thought it through.
    Nne of this reflects well on you. This is not the behaviour I expect from a seasoned politician.

    1. Val Strathdee

      I agree with everything you have said Mr. Bell. Exceedingly disappointed with Pete Wishart. I just do not understand him at all.

  3. TSD

    I ask you yet again; what will show you when the optimum time for a second referendum will be? Do you really think that Westminster will let Scotland hold another referendum once we’re dragged out of the EU? You ask lots of questions but don’t seem to have any answers. You say that you want a debate and yet you block people who disagree with your point of view. I bet you wish it was that easy in Westminster!

    And it was Scotland in Union who made you their “poster boy”, not anyone in the indy movement. They just shared the image. I think an apology is due to Peter Bell for that error.

    1. Peter A Bell

      I’m not interested in an apology. What I’d like are answers to some questions. For example,

      What are the criteria for assessing the ‘optimum time’ for a new referendum? What might that ‘optimum time’ look like?

      How is this ‘optimum time’ to be predicted months, or of some Postponers are to be believed, years in advance?

      What account has been taken by those advocating indefinite delay of what the British state will be doing during this period of procrastination?

      So far, I’ve had no meaningful, or even ‘respectful’, response to any of these questions from any Postponer.

  4. Ken Ross

    A second referendum is indeed the only way to get our independence but it has to be done at the optimum time for the result we all want. To lose again would put the cause back decades. For it to have any credibility it should also have a 60/40% split and then we can rightly say the people wanted this to happen.

  5. craig sheridan

    Hi Pete,

    I’ve been a long time admirer of the job you do ‘down there’ especially in exposing the absurdity of the HoL, it must be soul destroying. I would be interested in you expanding your arguments on prudency and optimal timing, as so far that’s as deep as the opinions seem to go so far.

    I, and many others believe the expedient time is September 2018 while we have the mandate and while we remain in the EU. There’s already evidence of a Machiavellian plan do delegitimise the Scottish Parliament such as:
    • Exclusion from Brexit negotiations
    • Brexit power grab plans with ‘UK frameworks’
    • Ken Macintosh going against our top law officer over the Continuity Bill,
    • Westminster permission being required for a ref
    • Section 30 order being a prerequisite).

    Of course they have no moral right to stop us and the Scottish people remain sovereign in this ‘union of equals’ but increasingly many of us believe this is exactly what they will do. They seem to have a plan that revolves around playing for time, weaken our parliament be out of the EU and ultimately treat us as the Spanish are the Catalonians.

    So surely you see why people are asking legitimate questions as the timing of the indy ref is absolutely critical in a multi-faceted way and as you say none of us want to lose. So the questions that comes to mind for discussion and debate are:

    How do you judge the optimal time?
    What are the characteristics of the optimal time?
    Why isn’t that time September 2018?
    What are the risks of waiting?
    Why is it pragmatic to wait but not seize the moment?

    Probably all of the above could be answered by a pros/cons of different timing options. Cheers!

    P.S. We’re all on the same side and indeed we are comrades so lets all give each other some more patience and respect something often difficult in the twittesphere and social media in general where misinterpretation of a single word often descends quickly into nonsense.

    1. Alan

      “I, and many others believe the expedient time is September 2018 while we have the mandate and while we remain in the EU.”

      We would still have the mandate in 2019, 2020 and the first two or three months of 2021. Whether we are still in or already out of the EU makes no difference. It has become clear that the United Kingdom is the member state which must leave the EU and Scotland cannot “inherit” its place in any way – a new place must be created for us.

      At this juncture, it is clear there will be either a) a deal involving a transition period lasting to Dec 2020 or, b) a crash-out exit with no deal. Also possible is the unlikely c) it all gets cancelled.

      If A happens, we don’t need to worry about losing the EU acquis. If B happens, a referendum would be a slam dunk due to the maximum disruption, I think. If C happens – perhaps due to parliament rejecting the deal and the no deal options and even citing the Scottish referendum as a reason – well, there would be no mandate at all.

      I do not think a referendum could be held by Sept 2018 anyway. Five months. Do-able if Westminster throws in the towel and cooperates… which they will not. They will ignore the messages for weeks, go to court, assert their supremacy, etc..

      IMO, assuming March 2019 is the trigger point, we will see a referendum by September 2020. This might cut it a bit close, but satisfies the 2016 mandate which binds the SNP to its voters.

      1. Peter A Bell

        How easily some people forget the only thing we need to know about Brexit. Scotland voted decisively against it. There is no ‘deal’ which negates the democratic will of Scotland’s people.

        The mandate for a new referendum is not predicated on Brexit. It is predicated solely on the imperative to ensure that the people of Scotland can fully exercise the sovereignty that is theirs by right.

        Those who insist that there can be no referendum in September 2018 come under the same obligation as the Postponers who want it delayed indefinitely. They must acknowledge that the British Nationalist ‘One Nation’ project is not going to stop while we dither. It will proceed inexorably. So those who favour postponement or meekly accept the inevitability of delay must explain how they propose we deal with the onslaught against our democratic institutions and public services.

        It would be gratifying if even one of them were to show some sign that they are actually aware of the British state’s intentions for Scotland.

      2. Alan

        Mr. Bell,

        My point was that the only mandate we can legitimately use is currently in a quantum state. Until the March 2019 deadline, it has become what I think of as “Schrodinger’s mandate” because the possibility of Scotland being dragged out of the EU isn’t a fait accompli until the UK parliament no longer even has the theoretical option of withdrawing the Article 50 notification in good faith. That box HAS to be opened, to verify whether circumstances will materially change or not. It doesn’t matter how high the probability for one of the options is.

        The only way to legitimately obtain the mandate you seem to be referring to – “predicated solely on the imperative to ensure that the people of Scotland can fully exercise the sovereignty that is theirs by right” is to call a Holyrood snap election. If a majority of MSPs are returned with a manifesto committment to hold a referendum without any caveats, then it can happen.

        That is the definition of a political mandate, I believe.

        I agree with you that it shouldn’t be that way. But it is and we’re stuck with the consequences. We are also stuck with the simple reality that Scotland is not and never was a member state of the EU and cannot inherit Britain’s membership in a divorce deal.

        We cannot fall into the trap of thinking there is something to save. There isn’t. But that isn’t the end of the world – it’s quite easy to get back into the EU after we are independent. I have not seen a convincing argument which explains why a 2020 referendum is so unacceptable.

      3. Alan

        Yes, it jolly well is. The mandate for an independence referendum comes from the SNP’s 2016 manifesto:

        “Right to a Referendum

        We believe that independence offers the best future for Scotland. However, Scotland will only become independent when a majority of people in Scotland choose that future in a democratic referendum – it will not happen just because the SNP wants it to, or because there is an SNP government.

        At the same time if there is a clear demand for a referendum no politician has the right to stand in the way of the people of Scotland to choose their own future.

        We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”

        Strip the padding out and the grounds are either Brexit(which if cancelled would reverse any impending power grabs altering the constitutional settlement) or “sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people.” If you have evidence of the latter, I would love to see it.

        If not the above, then what exactly is ‘the mandate’ based on? Your own words earlier – “It is predicated solely on the imperative to ensure that the people of Scotland can fully exercise the sovereignty that is theirs by right.”

        It’s a lovely romantic notion. But legally, it is nonsense. Westminster(and the EU for that matter) doesn’t recognise that right and certainly doesn’t respect it. The only precedent they have – grudgingly! – allowed is that a majority of Holyrood’s MSPs may vote to call a referendum. That is our foot in the door.

        We have to dot the i’s and cross the T’s. The slightest hint of impropriety will be all the pretext Westminster needs to pull a Rajoy and send the police in.

    2. yesindyref2

      Seems to me the reason some (not Wishart) want to delay the Ref is so that we will be out of the EU, that’s their priority not Indy, but that’s not only the mandate the SNP have for Indy Ref 2, it’s the obligation as it says in the 2017 manifesto, to give Scotland the choice.

      To have the choice Indy Ref 2 must be complete with a YES vote before the UK actually exits the EU completely including any transition that keeps it in the Single Market and Customs Union. That would then rely on the EU-27 cobbling together a further transition for Scotland only, while the formal application was made – which would need to be done in any case.

      It’s possible just the announcement of the Indy date would give the EU-27 time to work that out, as long as the YES itself was within that timeframe. But for the strongest influence, the YES itself should be before March 30th 2019, so as long as the transitional arrangements could be made with the EU-27 – perhaps by a conditional clause in the Brexit agreement itself – then as long as that was in enough time for it to be ratified by the EU-27, then the job would be done. A YES followed by some sort of EU Ref, probably STV with an EFTA option, then a transitional period in the EU / EEA via EFTA.

      That means as long as the announcement was made very shortly after the UK Brexit deal terms were known, it could be made to work, making March 2019 just in time.

      Having the Ref itself in Sep 2018 would mean it being announced in at the latest reasonably, June 2018 which is a bit soon to know all the details, or even if Brexit actually will happen, there’s still time for it to be cancelled with a bit of a putsch in the Tory ranks and a bit of firmness instead of wobbling jelly in the Labour party.

      But hey, Sep 2018 works for me too, if that’s the way it goes. We must be given the choice in time to avoid being dragged out of at least the Single Market and the Customs Union, even if we lose voting rights for a couple of years, that is what 62% of Scotland that voted Remain, deserve and are owed. Even if that was indeed a vote for the UK to remain in the EU rather than just Scotland, it leaves a gap in democracy which the Scottish Government have a complete bounden duty to perform, whether Pete (Wishart) likes it or not. I think Pete has failed to understand that – it’s not just a mandate, it’s a total democratic obligation to give Scotland the choice, and if the SNP fail in that duty, they have broken their election promise to the people of Scotland, and fully deserve to be thrown out next Holyrood election.

  6. yesindyref2

    “Now, I’m a reasonably robust political character”

    yesindyref2 – aka Peter Piper who posts on the Herald and The National – and occasionally ultra-unionist or ultra-far-right forums under a different moniker where any insult Pete Wishart thinks he received would be classed a compliment. And apart from that under this moniker, I’ve been accused of being a fake Indy supporter, a Unionist plant, just for having a different opinion. It’s annoying, but then you have to look at who makes the accusation, and realise the passion – yes Pete, that’s “passion”, a word you understand, behind peoples’ over the top comments. Get over it, it happens. Suprisingly we’re not all clones, but we do share Independence as an objective – presuming (cough) you still do.

    “My conclusion was that we simply can not afford to lose another referendum”

    And how, exactly, do you propose to guarantee that? Rig the ballot? Get all the ballot boxes sent to Bute House to be opened and ballots re-marked?

    “I simply put forward my view that it should be held when there was good evidence it could be won”

    That will be never. Opinion polls are a state of the second event from a small self-selecting sample, the only one that counts is the actual ballot. I never do surveys.

    “My conclusion was that we simply can not afford to lose another referendum.”

    Tosh. There can be no certainty, none at all, until all the votes are in. And if Indy Ref 2 loses then we have Indy Ref 3, Indy Ref 4 … who dares, wins. Including the mouse. Look at Jerry!

    “Even the most enthusiastic proponent of an imminent referendum would concede that ‘if’ consecutive opinion polls showed support for independence plummeting to below 30% a degree of caution should be exercised?”

    What a ridiculous argument, all the polls show somewhere around 45%, within margins of error as they call it (I did stats, that’s a meaningless term in fact). That’s without a campaign, and without the urgency of an actual ballot two weeks away.

    “I won my seat against all the odds last year ”

    Yes, but you won didn’t you? Stop going on about your 21 majority, the whole of Scotland isn’t interested in you increasing your majority next time. In fact large amounts of Scotland would prefer you not to even be standing because, as far as Scotland is concerned, there will be no Westminster elections, you may not have reallsed this but that’s an inevitable consequence of – what was that word again – Independence.

    Remember 2007? The minority SNP Government that led to an overall majority one which enabled Indy Ref 1? My own constituency returned the one MSP that made the SNP the largest party with a majority of just 45 votes. The losing candidate thought about challenging as a ballot box from Arran had gone missing but sensibly and courageously, decided not to challenge in the court. Just 45 votes, without that there would have been NO Indy Ref 1.

    Move on Pete, the whole Indy movement has huge respect for you, you’re throwing it away with your display of arrogance and petulance because people disagree with you.

    Now that’s you tellt. Campaign for Indy and come home to Scotland when it’s done.

  7. Robyn Leith Stewart (@RobynLStewart)

    Dear Peter:

    I hope you do not ignore the very reasonable debate offered here in the comments. No one is being nasty, although I do sense some exasperation. Yes, you have experience down south, but I hope you are not trying to package your reasoning as the absolute truth that must be followed. Because, frankly, most of the independence movement in Scotland disagrees with you. There is a sense of urgency, because, by March of next year, it will be too late. The handwriting is on the wall, the Tory government (which is looking to try to remain in power indefinitely) will shut down Scottish parliament in a blink of an eye and there will be no EU to make them stop.
    For some strange reason (irony here), the Scottish people have been educating themselves and have learned or relearned as the case may be, that THEY ARE SOVEREIGN. That is the real Scotland, that is the Scotland that has never died, just been stamped down, downtrodden, and brainwashed into thinking that they never existed. It is written as you know well yourself. And now Scots have awoken, and are waking their fellow Scots. The ground roots are swelling and growing.
    No matter how well-meaning your thoughts are, they will not stop the groundswell. All you will do is anger a people who are truly beginning to believe the truth. So, I guess you need to ask yourself: do I go along or do I, by dint of my slow-down approach, become the darling of the Westminster govt. We know you want independence. Please join in.

  8. Catherine Perrie

    I find this depressing that folk who want Independence cannot get along Bad enough not agreeing but to allow our enemy to hear about it is not good for our dream of Independence Of course it would be a disaster if we called it and lost but we have to hang there like that little old spider and try again I have been counting on wee puffs of wind at 74 to see me thru to 75 I will never give our enemy ammunition. Stick together Divided we fall that’s for sure brothers and sisters.

  9. dereklouden

    Seems to be some very angry people writing here. The only thing that can defeat us is division. What unites us is a desire for independence. If we play our opponents game we’ll fight over stuff like “Go now” – “No go later” – thus ensuring we lose. People want real change in Scotland in a whole host of areas: planning, housing, health care, education, fuel poverty, business start-ups, business growth, social care, pensions, taxation, local democracy, tackling monopolies, fishing. That should be our narrative. If we descend into internal warfare then we’ll persuade no-one to back us. We must stop bickering now and remember what we’re in politics for, to make people’s lives better and to do so through independence. Attacking one another won’t help.

    1. Peter A Bell

      Why do you imagine people are “angry” just because they criticise, ask questions and seek clarification? Pete Wishart publicly stated a position. He’s a big boy. He should be able to defend that position. And I’m sure that, eventually, he shall.

      What do you propose we do instead of discussing obviously important issues? Are we to avoid talking about anything that is even mildly controversial? How does democracy proceed without debate?

      Is everybody in the Yes movement to be issued with a copy of the approved ‘narrative’? Who, apart from yourself, is to be authorised to formulate and/or approve this prescribed ‘narrative’?

      All questions asked in a spirit of genuine inquiry and without a hint of anger.

      1. Peter A Bell

        Perhaps I got the impression you weren’t keen on debate from the derogatory and insulting manner in which you refer to those who are actually trying to have a debate. Terms such as “bickering” don’t speak to me of respect for people doing no more than attempting to take forward a sensible discussion about the timing of a new independence referendum. Likewise, seeking to dismiss and diminish others’ contributions to that debate by calling them “angry”.

        Speaking of contributions to the debate, where is yours? All I’m seeing is pointless and inappropriate bleating about the fact that others are seeking to discuss the issue rather than pander to Pete Wishart’s wounded ego or pontificate about how people should express themselves.

      2. dereklouden

        Each reply I get from you is more aggressive than the last. Apologies. I’ll not trouble you with any further comments. I didn’t realise all commentators were working with you. If you and the others feel I’ve been derogatory or I’ve insulted them I’m very sorry. I was trying to move the discussion from personality to policy but it seems that’s futile on this forum so I’ll desist. My contributions to the policy debate over a number of years can be found at: https://www.slideshare.net/LoudenDW/edit_my_uploads Happy Reading!

      3. Peter A Bell

        What aggression? I made some perfectly valid observations. Evidently, you prefer not to address the points made. That’s fine. But take responsibility for your own choice. Don’t try to blame it on imagined “aggression”. That is dishonest and cowardly.

    2. yesindyref2

      “The only thing that can defeat us is division”

      Derek, Scotland is not currently independent, we are part of the UK. With inaction we REMAIN part of the UK, the only way to achieve Independence is action, the opposite of inaction, That action is a Referendum, and if a Referendum is never called, because the chicken guts are the wrong colour, the birds are flying in groups not alone, it’s the wrong time of year, or it’s an odd numbered year, then we are “defeated” without even trying, and we remain part of the UK for another 311 years. Don’t take offence, it’s just my way of trying to put things explicitly, reductio ad absurdum. Not doing anything defeats us without even trying. No Referendum = no Independence.

      As for division it’s difference in opinions, if we had no differences in opinions then the first person to voice an opinion means that opinion would be adopted by the whole. So for instance if I was the first to voice an opinion that the next Independence Referendum should be held on a Friday the 13th, then if there’s to be no division and no debate, then Friday the 13th it is, as I said so and got in first.

  10. Daisy Walker

    I’m very loyal to the SNP believe it or not. I even have a lot of time for Pete (although maybe’s no just at the minute).

    But it is deeply, deeply, concerning that anyone within the SNP does not realise the danger we are in from Brexit.

    Last time was a simple choice – change or no change.

    This time the economic destruction (long term according to forecasts) will devastate the UK as a whole and Scotland twice over as they double down on the asset stripping and destroy devolution / Holyrood.

    There will be no majority SNP Party after Brexit, (anyone in the SNP who thinks that, is deluded – they will have even less credibility than Scottish Labour) and no new mandate for a new ref either. Pete’s days at Westminster are nearly over – one way or another, however this plays out.

    The ‘Can we / should we? attitude is a luxury position we’ve gone beyond. Now we must.

    Once this is realised, the concept of losing is simply not an option.

    Once this is understood by the public, they will be onside, provided there is a clear and consistent path ahead – which is where the SNP and all within it have got to start providing the clear message.

    It is not enough now to simply say ‘when the time is right or when we can win it’ (Shades of Brexit means Brexit). That is a missed open goal to bang home the consequences of Brexit if we do not.

    I completely understand there will be posters here that think the above constructive criticism should be only for the meetings, not on a public forum. You have a point, but clear voices and clear criticism can clear the path and right just now Pete Wishart is the one doing the muddying.

    While it would be naive to declare a date for Indy ref2 at the moment, it is clear that information about the true condition of Scotland’s economic status, and all it stands to lose after Brexit, should be getting circulated now. That is a gap the SNP have continued to fail to fill.

    This is no longer a simple choice of Change or No Change – this time its a fight for survival and we simply cannot afford to lose, it must be soon, and it must be while we have a triple lock, democratic mandate.

    Kind regards to all.

  11. Peter A Bell

    Optimum conditions for a new vote on independence refers to conditions on polling day – not the day that the referendum is called. Those conditions won’t arise spontaneously. They will be created by campaigning. The ‘optimum time’ is the time we decide upon and work towards. #Referendum2018

      1. Peter A Bell

        It doesn’t look promising. It looks very much as if he’s hoping we’ll all just go away and take our presumptuous questioning of his authority with us.

      2. yesindyref2

        Surely that would be an offence against the “WE MUST CONDUCT OUR DEBATE WITH RESPECT” agenda? Or has ‘tinternetwebby thingy become write only these days?

  12. Robyn Leith Stewart (@RobynLStewart)

    I think perhaps we HAVE spent too much time on this particular track. It is my fervent hope that Mr Wishart will think and plan before speaking about things. One thing is becoming clear to me – if you spend enough time away from home, you will forget what matters to those at home. No one whom I’ve spoken to or read has advocated waiting. Except Peter Wishart and also Jim Sillars. I cannot believe I saw him agree with Jim Sillars, whom, as we all know, has lost the plot. This troubles me more than I can say and I hope that no one else from within all of a sudden decides to try to scuppers the indy ship. I’m speaking with a lot of frustration here, so try to take my tone with the good intentions the words are meant. It is so very troubling that Mr Wishart could try to cast a spanner into the works of indy.

  13. Pingback: #Readytogo? Rift over timing of indyref2 marks a axis point for yes movement – Planet News

  14. Pingback: #Readytogo? Rift over timing of indyref2 marks a turning point for yes movement | Politics | Android Lover

  15. Pingback: Three candidates for SNP deputy leader - Marketing,Networking, Information Marketing

Comments are closed.