And there is a similar initiative being propelled forward by the woke warriors in government in Ireland.

May I suggest that light is shed on many of the questions raised in this article by considering the imminent Scottish Hate Crime Bill. It is analysed, along with the proposer, Humza Yousaf, and his highly questionable qualifications for tampering with Scots Law (or any other), in this short film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kFam_JUqOA&f...

Sturgeon's favoured successor is, I gather, Humza Yousaf. Cherry is being targeted to smooth the path for Yousaf. To find out what a disaster he would be, it would be worth watching this film about the Hate Crime Bill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kFam_JUqOA&f...

You are quite right - and I expand on this below yoru comment. Thank you for saying it.

One of your commentators asks: "What is Scottish independence really for and do the former Labour-supporting working class enthusiasts in west central Scotland know?"
I know what I think it is for, and I suspect that the vast majority of the respectable (i.e. civilised; i.e. non-violent) element of the Scottish electorate accept this as one of the prime deciders: it is to subvert the rule of law in order to create a permanently anti-British state which can use the kind of squalid, dishonourable, dishonest and disreputable methods of controlling subjects of the Scottish state in order to retain power for life, as in the Soviet Union.
This HAS to be defeated, which is why I keep going on about this subject. You can read more here (and help the cause by spreading the word): https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1981993401?ref_=pe_30...

This article highlights one of the most important failures of the Holyrood parliament as designed by Donald Dewar to ensure permanent Labour control of Scotland. Like other Old Labour fiefdoms such as the Glasgow Corporation and the big trade unions, Holyrood was meant to be a Soviet-style organisation in which the members did not have any serious level of responsibility to those who elected them. The fact that it is now the SNP which is exploiting this attempted “gerrymandering” is important politically, but not constitutionally. The failure is still systemic. The results speak for themselves. If I may quote from the relevant section of my book:

“The disturbing fact is that ministers in Holyrood do not take responsibility for the departments they control in the way that their counterparts in Westminster routinely do under the Diceyan dispensation. There has not been one resignation due to a significant administrative mistake by the civil service in the twenty years since the parliament opened. Ministers have resigned due to sex scandals and allegations of financial irregularities, due to policy disagreements or because they want to spend more time at home. All those are personal rather than public reasons. Excluding ministerial reshuffles, there have been 14 resignations since 1999. Of these, 11 were personal. Of the three arguably political resignations, one was for an ill-advised remark by the Minister concerned, and one was related to conduct in office (and hotly denied). Only one was actually attributable to a Minister taking responsibility for a failure in a department he controlled. However, that was over such a trivial matter—failure to forecast a snowstorm—that it is hard to believe that there were no other motives in play.
“This is an essentially aristocratic, ‘prerogative’ attitude to power. The office-holder gives orders to subordinates but is not personally affected by the way those orders are carried out. Ministerial office is a no-risk “sinecure” which lasts so long as the monarch—in this case the First Minister—continues to bestow favour. In Westminster, where a sense of personal responsibility is deficient—as often happens—there is a well-established mechanism for enforcing it. That is through a motion of No Confidence. The Scottish parliament has similar procedures at its disposal, but it has largely failed to use them. In all the years since it was first convened, there have been only three No Confidence motions introduced. Two of those were within the first two years. Only one motion has been lodged in the last seventeen years—and that was for an allegation of personal misconduct by the Minster concerned, so it did not amount to an attempt to enforce ministerial responsibility for the conduct of the civil service.”

Scotland was designed to be run rather as the EU is run, by a form of bureaucratic authoritarianism. If the Union is to survive, this needs to be changed. Democracy needs to be forced on the clique now running Scotland for its own benefit, just as Mrs Thatcher forced democracy on the trade unions in the 1980s. That should be Boris’s big task, second only to securing Brexit in perpetuity.
You can get more details of the constitutional impasse in Scotland today in my book "THE JUSTICE FACTORY: Can the Rule of Law Survive in 21st Century Scotland?" (Ian Mitchell, 2020) : https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1981993401?ref_=pe_30...

Yes, it does, in the conventional way. But I am not sure I have grasped the essence of your question. Could you re-phrase it, please?

Important development, actually, because it brings into the open the fact that is highlighted by teh comment above: "Any snp who are not committed 100% to nicola, might aswell paint a target on their backs. That's the problem with a nationalist party like this scottish version."
The point is that the SNP are a bunch of HATERS. No issue is important to them than their own self-interest. They hate EACH OTHER as much as they hate the rest of us who do not bow down to their self-proclaimed political divinity. The fact that this spat is about, as Henry Hill says, a feminist versus trans activists. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INDEPENDENCE.
Nicola Sturgeon herself confessed to Mandy Rhodes, in a book called "Scottish National Party Leaders" (2016), that hatred (of Mrs T - presumably because she was neither a feminist nor a "trans activist") has been "the motivation for my entire political career" (p. 358). This is an essentially negative position, especially given the fact that Thatcher has been out of office for thirty years, and dead for nearly ten. It springs from a psychological rather than a political root. The SNP leadership is full of frustrated egotists who find normal socialisation difficult due to the fact that the world by and large does not take them at their OWN estimation of their value.
I have written a book which describes the threats to the rule of law springing from their hatred at any restraint on their power, and their desperation to be in control of every aspect of all of OUR lives, which in my view amounts to a disguised hatred of the people at large. As the rule of law depends ultimately RECIPROCITY between the rulers and the ruled, Sturgeon’s hatreds amount to a mortal threat to the main legal principle which Scotland has lived under since the seventeenth century.
The book is called "The Justice Factory: Can the Rule of Law Survive in 21st Century Scotland?" (Ian Mitchell, 2020) The Foreword was written by Lord Hope of Craighead, ex-Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court and the Professor of Public Law who is author “Constitutional Law of Scotland” wrote the Introduction to Part II. It is not a party political argument, and has been endorsed by both Ian (“Stone of Destiny”) Hamilton QC and Adam Tomkins, the Tory MSP who is also Professor of Constitutional law in the University of Glasgow.
It is an as yet untold story, but a very, very important. You can support the cause of ridding Scotland of political haters by circulating the book as widely as you can. Details here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1981993401?ref_=pe_30...

Very worried by your saying "at last it arrives on A". It has been there all along in both paperback or Kindle. Can you not find it at the link?
Hope you like Isles of the Wet too - was very successful 20 years ago and helped dent the image of the RSPB, which is about as useful to the Scottish environment as Boris Johnson is to the Unionist cause on a rainy night outside the chippie in Port Glasgow.

All this is true, and it is certainly the case that Boris Johnson's manner puts off many Scots. Disraeli said that the English "being subject to fogs require grave statesmen". I say that the Scots, being subject to Calvinist or Catholic guilt and a socialist inferiority complex require grave statesmen, though of a different sort. Sturgeon understands this with her relentless focus on details and practicalities, intermingled with shrill but meaningless statements like "I'll take no lessons from the Toariees."
However, not for the first time, my point is that politicians' etiquette is one thing, real ideals are quite another. Johnson could be less offensively "public school", it is true, but Thatcher was offensive in much the same way, despite her very different background. What the English (and in this category I now include Gordon Brown) do not understand about Scotland is that there are two classes in this country – the noisy, socialist-style complainers and the silent, stern-faced grafters.
It is a mistake to try to please the complainers as they will only want more and more, until they start dispossessing the grafters. They are lost to reason in their ludicrous dream of financial fairies at the bottom of their Coonsil hoose garden. What the Unionist side has to do is concentrate on making a case to the grafters, by no means all of whom are pro-Union when folk like Boris are in charge. The case to be made to them, which will also appeal to a large part of the more responsible whiners, who are often complaining in order to find social, political or professional acceptance, is that the fundamental rationale for the Union is the RULE OF LAW.
Defending it is what we have been doing together since 1707. It was the irreducible essence of our struggle against Louis XIV, Bonnie Prince Charlie, Napoleon, the landed franchise pre-1832, the Kaiser, Hitler, Comrade Scargill et al and the Kremlin from Lenin to Putin. It is, or should be, why we are bracing ourselves for defence against President Xi and his capitalistic totalitarian imperialists.
I have written a book about this, citing Scotland as a specific case, but with a view to a wider application in London, Brussels and Washington, etc. It is called "THE JUSTICE FACTORY: Can the Rule of Law Survive in 21st Century Scotland?" (Ian Mitchell, 2020)
It is not a party-political screed. It has been endorsed by both ends of the political spectrum here: Ian ("Stone of Destiny") Hamilton QC, the renegade nationalist, and Adam Tomkins, who is both an MSP (Tory) and Professor of Constitutional Law in the University of Glasgow. The Foreword is written by Lord Hope of Craighead, ex-Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court and Alan Page, Professor of Public Law at Dundee, who is the author “Constitutional Law of Scotland”, the main reference work, has written an Introduction to Part II. Details of the book here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1981993401?ref_=pe_30...