The third guest article from regular reader Mia. My thanks for another excellent article. The first and second articles were widely read, while the second article seemed to enrage our friend Cosy Slippers (aka Pete Wishart or Pension Pete). We can only hope for the same reaction this time round. THAT FRANCHISE It has beenContinue reading "THAT FRANCHISE"


The third guest article from regular reader Mia. My thanks for another excellent article. The first and second articles were widely read, while the second article seemed to enrage our friend Cosy Slippers (aka Pete Wishart or Pension Pete). We can only hope for the same reaction this time round.


It has been reported that a majority of native Scots voted Yes in 2014, but that vote was frustrated by the No vote from the non natives. One could argue therefore that the only reason why the no vote won is because an excessively open franchise was used. One could question then the legitimacy of such a referendum when the non natives were allowed to frustrate in such fashion the right to self determination of the natives. I don’t remember Nicola Sturgeon opening her mouth about this.

You can give those in charge the benefit of the doubt and consider that the first time they used a flawed franchise they made a mistake because they did not know any better. Now that the evidence showing how the vote of the natives was frustrated has been in the open since 2015, if they still insist in forcing through the same flawed franchise again, then it can no longer be considered a mistake. It will be either unforgivable negligence or simply a deliberate strategy to make yes fail. Both unacceptable.

Nicola Sturgeon has been in power for 7 long years. During that time she has had the opportunity to change that franchise 100 times over. So why didn’t she?

Both Gibraltar and the Falklands, both UK colonies, have a rudimentary form of citizenship and a constitution. Scotland is an ancient nation and we don’t have any of those. Why not? We have had for more than ten years a nationalist government in Holyrood. That is plenty of time to start a new census and form the basis for that citizenship. If other UK colonies have that citizenship and constitution, albeit rudimentary, there is absolutely no excuse for Scotland not to have one. So what is Nicola Sturgeon’s excuse?

In the case of the Falklands, for example, this rudimentary citizenship status is called Falklands Islands status. It may be rudimentary, but in order to obtain it, the candidate must pledge loyalty to the Falkland Islands.

Gibraltar has citizenship too. Citizenship is fundamental to take part in referendums or general elections, not just in Falklands or Gibraltar but in countries all over the world. So where is Scotland’s?

In every country in the world, to gain citizenship you either are a native of the country, or a child of a native of the country, or you have been naturalised, which implies invariably to have lived in the country for a certain length of time and having acquired citizenship by pledging allegiance to the country.

If Gibraltar and Falklands, significantly smaller than Scotland and not older as nations than Scotland can demand allegiance, then what is the reason why Scotland cannot have hers?

Is it because of Nicola Sturgeon’s lack of interest? Is it because of her incompetence as a pro indy leader? Or rather because setting up a citizenship would leave her and her masters with no credible excuse whatsoever to restrict the franchise to only those who hold Scotland’s citizenship?

A quick glance at the Census 2011 shows immediately that the number of people from outwith Scotland being added to our population is many, many times bigger than the increase of Scottish population due to people being born here.

Actually, if my calculations are not wrong, this should send alarm bells ringing and will immediately cast doubts about the legitimacy of a referendum with such an open franchise to be used as a valid exercise in self determination.

According to the National Records of Scotland, the total population in Scotland at the moment of writing the 2011 census that were 16 years of age or older and that had been born in Scotland were 3,569,936. 473,695 were born in the rUK and 335,441 were born outside the UK. All those could vote in a referendum with an open franchise.

Based in that 2011 census, when you calculate the total number of potential voters born out of Scotland the figure is 809,136, which is equivalent to a 22.7% of the voters born in Scotland. Those 22.7% might have no allegiance to Scotland at all. That percentage is huge and can totally trash the expressed democratic will of the natives.

These figures do not take into account how many of those born in Scotland have no allegiance at all to Scotland because they are of direct rUK ascendency and do not see Scotland as their country (or worse, as a nation). The figure of 22.7% may well be a huge underestimation of the infiltration of rUK population into Scotland’s and therefore now how flawed the use of such an open franchise has been.

Why is this important?

Because there is something that nobody likes to talk about for fear of being called racist, blood and soil nationalist, extreme ethnic nationalist or some other vacuous and meaningless insult of the sort. That something is the inexcapable fact that being born in Scotland does not immediately give you natural allegiance to Scotland. You may have been born in Scotland just because your parents were passing by or because your parents moved from another country and brought with them their own allegiance to the country where they came from and that they transferred to you. I should know this very well because it defines me and my siblings down to a T. I never had allegiance to the country where I was born. I have never identified with it. and neither did my siblings, also born in the same country as I was. We were born there because my parents happened to be living there at the time, but neither my parents (despite having been living there for over 12 years) nor I or my siblings ever grew any allegiance to that country. I am sure this is not uncommon among those born in Scotland from parents who bring their allegiance from their country of origin.

Where I am going with this?

Well, it stands to the obvious that an increase in population thanks to more and more people coming from outwith Scotland does not increase the sense of Scottish nationhood but rather dilutes it.

Lets think this imaginary scenario:

On the day of the referendum, let’s imagine that only 70% of those born in Scotland go to the polls (that would be 2,498,955 natives voting)

Let’s imagine that due to the strong motivation of “not allowing Scots to breaking up their country” or avoiding depriving the rUK of Scotland’s natural assets, or stopping Scots separating them from the rest of their family down in England, or fear of a hard border that may force them to use a passport to come and use their holiday home in Scotland, 90% of those born outside Scotland go to the polls (that would be 768,679 voters).

Now let’s imagine that as much as 55% of those born in Scotland who go to vote, vote yes (that would be 1,374,425 yes votes from the Scots natives). Let’s imagine that only 10% of those born out of Scotland vote yes (that would be 76,868 yes votes from those born out of Scotland). The total number of yes votes would be 1,451,293.

For those of you that think 90% against yes is an exaggeration, I invite you to look at the figures for the last indyref in Quebec. In some anglo speaking areas in Quebec, the vote against independence was 100%. I think I may have been generous, actually.

If 45% of those born in Scotland and 90% of those born outwith Scotland vote no, then the total figure for No would be 1,816,341

Do you start to see the problem?

In that imaginary scenario, if only Scots natives had voted, yes would have won by 55%. When you include those not born in Scotland with a strong motivation for the UK to remain intact, then that yes vote plummets to a 44.4%

Do those figures sound familiar?

Although the above is just an example and an imaginary one, it is not an unlikely one and it serves to illustrate just how easy it has been for the powers that be to frustrate Scotland’s yes vote through that flawed franchise and through the denial of a constitution and Scottish citizenship that would immediately restrict such franchise rendering it unlawful.

The information available in the 2011 census does not allow you to work out how many of the voters born in Scotland will never vote yes because their ancestry is from the rUK (for example with MOD, civil servant parents or oil workers for example). Needless to say, that there are others who will never vote yes because members of their family live outwith Scotland and perceive Scotland’s independence as an obstacle to see their family.

This means that the message that Nicola Sturgeon and her minions have been sending for 5 years that “we have to convert more no voters” is bollocks of the highest order. Given the demographics and ancestry in front of us, in my personal view, expecting anything more than a 55% yes vote among the natives is unrealistic with such a percentage of people from a different ancestry among natives Scots. It is also my personal opinion that the noise of pushing the threshold of a yes vote to a 60% is not about making the vote more clear, but rather ensuring independence never takes place. It is another damage limitation lever just like the current franchise is.

Now let see something even more alarming:

Between 2001 and 2011 Scotland’s population increased by over 233.000 people. Of that number only 1484 were Scots born ( a net gain of Scots born)

What this tells us is that of the extra 233,392 people Scotland gained in those 10 years, a huge 99% are from different ancestry, with no sense of Scottish nationhood and much less motivation to vote yes. Scotland seems to be haemorrhaging yes voters and swapping them for no voters.

Again, when you see that of all the extra people Scotland gets in 10 years, only a 1% are more likely to be yes voters because have some form of allegiance to Scotland, you start to see that what the Sturgeonites have been peddling for the last 5 years when claiming that the key to become independent is to “convert no voters”. or that “we have time on our side” is nothing but bollocks. We only “have time on our side” if the ultimate goal is to frustrate the yes vote of the natives with the no vote from those coming from elsewhere. The more we wait, the more build up of no against yes will happen.

What these figures tell us is that Nicola Sturgeon’s is either a deeply flawed strategist or a fantastic example of what is in practice setting deliberately something to fail. Going with the 2011 census figures, for every 1484 natives that you convert to yes in 5 years, you get another 231,000 extra no voters of which you will have to convert at least half to keep the balance and maintain yes as a win. This clearly shows, at least to me that, mathematically, with every year that passes, and with such an open franchise, once you have reach the yes peak among the natives, the odds are building against us and the more years that pass, the more no goes up instead of yes. 

We would have liked to use more up to date figures but Nicola Sturgeon ensured that could not happen by blocking the last year’s census, using the excuse of Covid. Amazingly the census went ahead in England, Wales and Northern Ireland it was just in Scotland that it proved impossible. What are you hiding Nicola? Big numbers of incomers I suspect.

There were reports that at some point in the last year we reached 56% for yes. Instead of grabbing that opportunity, Sturgeon has allowed it pass. Is this unnecessary wait deliberate to allow for more people from outwith Scotland to come in and dilute the yes vote?

The data above was extracted from the census 2001-2011. After brexit, the 2014 referendum have happened and Covid, nearly collapsing the nHS in England that is becoming increasingly privatised. I do not think is mad to think that the amount of people coming from the rUK has increased even more since 2011.

So what have been the real motives behind forcing on us this flawed franchise and delaying the referendum?

All the data above has been either taken from or calculated from that data after downloading the tables.

* Information from

“Majority of Scottish born voters said ‘yes”, written by MIntosh, L, March 2015 in The Sunday Times

“Independence referendum figures revealed: Majority of Scots born here voted YES while voters from elsewhere in UK said NO”, by Clegg D, March 2015, in The Daily Record.


I cannot think of any more important matter than this. using the same franchise as 2014 is a trap. When designing a strategy to win you follow the data. This shows overwhelmingly that the Yes position is being weakened daily by an influx of likely NO VOTERS. A FRESH REFERENDUM USING THE 2014 franchise will cost us victory, exactly as it did in 2014 when 53% of Scots born voters voted YES. I BELIEVE NICOLA IS DECEIVING US ABOUT TIME BEING ON OUR SIDE. ALL THE DELAYS SHE HAS INTRODUCED ONLY BENEFIT THE ONE SIDE AND AS THE DATA PROVES THAT IS NOT YES.. TIME TO WAKE UP FOLKS…BECAUSE TIME IS MARCHING AGAINST US.

If we want Independence then a plebiscite election is the best course and the decision being based on a majority of Parliamentary seats in Scotland being the determining factor. It is entirely democratic and has been used all over the World to secure Independence.

I am, as always



Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience.Sharing is very important and helps the Independence message to reach a much wider audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.