On pete wisharts interview with Broadcasting Scotland (and I am just going to go out here and say that apart from the the likes of Indy Live, TNT and The peoples international chatshow, I'm noticing this sort of thread appearing with the media that everyone else...

...seems to be talking about the case (or should I say get the opportunity to talk about it) except for the ones who actually know the ins and outs. However, that's by the by. All Pete Wishart has proven tonight is his staggering misunderstanding of both the case and the...

...subject matter. Considering that Pete is supposed to be the SNP's spokesperson on the constitution at Westminster, it's rather disturbing.

Let me first address Mr. Wishart’s tactics when he expresses himself about the case. He uses a very old tactic which was deployed by unionists in 2014 (which we are all familiar with).

He reduces complex issues to very simple soundbites which misrepresent the matters at play. This way it takes me (and others) a lot of time to explain each of the individual matters, by which time he’s onto the next lot.

You’ll remember this tactic from 2014 (and indeed it still goes on today). “What currency will you use”. Then you spend 10 minutes explaining, by which point half way through “but yeah! What about pensions”.

You’re still answering the first question, by which time they are already asking the second, and while you are busy explaining the complex issues – they’re busy putting forward misrepresentations and more soundbites.
To this tactic, I just say – it’s beneath you pete!

It's a tactic deployed only when the person is unable to properly answer the question with any substance. So here we go.

His opening lines talk about creating a cage if I should lose the case. But I am just going to point something out. His party were invited to the table to defend the powers of the Scottish Parliament - they bailed out on that responsibility. If this case is lost....

(and although I am cautiously optimistic it would not be proper not to concede that there might be a chance of that) he says......well if this case is lost - the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party will be just as much to blame for not defending devolution!

And they can try to twist that fact and whitewash it with as much spin as they can muster, but the fact remains, they opted not to defend the Scottish Parliament and devolution in this case - that's their cross to bear.

He talks about a "cage" and then states with some authority that Westminster would just change legislation at Westminster citing "as we have seen" which I assume is a reference to the continuity bill.

This is another deflection - the reason its a deflection is because what Mr. Wishart fails to mention is that if we win, what happens next is squarely on the Scottish National Party's shoulders. If we win, we will have established the constitutionality of the Scottish Parl...

...to legislate for a second referendum. It's then up to the SNP to get a bill through parliament quickly before Westminster can change legislation in the commons, power exercised is power retained. The court will have ruled that the Scottish Parliament can....

...legislate for a referendum, the UK Government would have nothing to challenge. The only thing that would give them something to challenge is if the SNP were too slow to actually pass that bill through the Scottish Parliament before they could modify legislation at Westminster.

If the SNP failed to act in that instance, they'd have absolutely zero defence, because it's exactly the same as what happened with the continuity bill. Falling for the tactic once would be an error - falling for it twice, just sheer complacency.

If the SNP get a bill through fast enough, then those powers are retained, any attempt to try and change laws at Westminster to undermine that bill would then allow the Scottish Government to put the show on the other foot!

What he also fails to mention is that this trap is exactly where the SNP are heading if they are not careful. Under Section 31 of the Scotland Act, the law states the person responsible for a bill MUST make a declaration that it is within the competency of the parliament.

The SNP have announced a draft bill, indeed the way it is promoted is that it is a dead certain bill. But it's not, and the reason it's not is because the SNP cannot make the declaration that it would be competent. Why? Because they've never established it would be.

The only way to establish the competency of that bill is to establish that it is competent for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on a second referendum - INCASE YOU ARE WONDERING - THAT'S WHAT THE #PEOPLESAS30 IS ALL ABOUT.

In otherwords - if the SNP try to introduce that bill without establishing its competency. Guess what happens. Yup! The UK Government challenge it and while Scotgov are arguing the toss in court, the UK Parliament changes legislation to undermine it....

...EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE CONTINUITY BILL.

And this is where Pete Wisharts clear lack of the substantive issues comes into play. He's trying to say that what we are doing will result in the very thing...

...that he is completely blind to happening with the SNP's current direction with this draft bill.

What? Did you think they were going to enter the draft bill to parliament. Have an election. Come back and pass it?

No! What's going to happen if they don't establish it's competency is that they will introduce the bill, then head off for the Scottish Election and while we're voting, Whitehall will be drafting legislation to undermine it BEFORE the SNP enter the bill formally.

Westminster, with a tory majority will then pass laws to undermine it. The Scottish Gov will enter the bill. The UK Government will challenge it. The Scottish Government will lose because it wont be competent and then SECTION 30 BECOMES A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

What we are doing is establishing that it is legally competent for the Scottish Parliament to legislate so when the SNP enter the bill it is legally competent. Westminster have nothing to challenge and the SNP and other yes parties can pass it before Westminster can....

...completely kibosh it. And if they then try to undermine it, the court having already ruled it to be legal, Westminster loses, not the Scottish Parliament.

In summary - pete has gone to great lengths to avoid debating this with me - this entire dummy out of the pram is only one thing - he and others like him wish to retain complete control of the entirety of the process.

The problem is that they are walking headlong for a cliff!

The very fact that he (and others) have gone to great lengths to deliberately avoid debating the issues directly with me, instead of going around the way, should tell you everything you need to know.

As for this cage that he speaks about - sorry pete, that's a cage of your own making. The fact that you were lured into it by your own complacency is unfortunate, but ultimately your own fault.

The SNP have had a decade to establish whether it is competent for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on a second referendum. They chose not to. The SNP have had 4 years (since brexit) to pass a bill protecting the right of the Scottish Parliament to call a referendum...

...on independence at any time of their choosing - they chose not to.

His entire assertion is that the UK Parliament is sovereign - No! The people of Scotland are sovereign. We have the right to determine our own future period!

His entire assertion is that apparently, the case is knocking the SNP's "plan" out of sync. No! They don't have a plan. That should be obvious considering their own MP's have been demanding one, and from the paperwork, I've seen. It's a fallacy!