So I have been up to the eyeballs this week building the new home for AFI on the web (the website). Should be online in the next week with easy access for everyone. Woohoo!
The AFI team now churning along and gaining speed. Just like Scotrail - we're getting there!
Choooo chooo.
Dare I say it? Afi Gid?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lord Malcolm has rejected our application for a protected expenses order again.
A few people asking what a protected expenses order is so allow me to explain.
We launched the people's action crowdfunder to raise funds to pay our lawyers. A protected expenses order limits liability for fees to the other side. In otherwords, if we win, the Governments would only be liable for a percentage of the fees.
This is good because it limits the fees that the taxpayer would have to fork out to us in a win. In other words, good fiduciary responsibility. At the same time. If we were to lose, it would limit my personal liability (because I am the named pursuer) for fees to the UK Gov.
The Scottish Government had no involvement with the SNP's route map. In other words, NO SCRUTINY ON WHETHER IT WAS FACTUAL. And considering the lawfulness of that bill is one of two major matters in the #peoplesas30. We could tell that.
The #PeoplesAS30 is trying to establish that the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a referendum without permission from Westminster. I have stated many times that this means also establishing the fact that they can pass the draft bill the SNP are proposing.
I also said that the SNP simultaneously claiming it was lawful, but then stating right at the back of it, that they expect a legal challenge shows us that they are not sure if it is or isn't lawful. Because you can't assert something to be lawful, and expect legal challenge.
I have vehemently stayed away from expressing an opinion on certain rights debates at the moment, and that's not because I have no interest, or am being dismissive of it. I'm an optimist - I believe a solution can be found to enshrining the rights of one group without....
....diminishing the rights of others.
No, my focus has been on the larger threat to the human rights of all of us. A post-Brexit Tory UK Government.
With independence, we have the ability to enshrine rights for everyone, without having our nation's hands tied behind our backs.
But right now, the biggest threat we face is a right-wing Tory Government that has the power to overturn the rights already won over hundreds of years. All of which, if we do not act now and move to independence, will be sacrificed on the altar of shareholder dividends.
If you love the SNP vote for them on the constituency ballot.
If you hate the SNP vote for them on the constituency ballot because the only thing holding them together is independence so they'll disintegrate after indy.
If you love the SNP vote AFI on the list so they can support them wholeheartedly on the question of independence.
If you hate the SNP vote AFI on the list because they'll keep on at the SNP about delivering independence (their sole goal) and keep them honest.
I guess what I am saying is that love em or hate em, everyone wins with SNP 1 / AFI 2.
@JodeHarrisonHT Your opening question in this article is faulty. It's not a question on whether Scotland CAN or SHOULD have the power to legislate for Indyref - It already does. Indeed, the UK has advanced no argument against our legal opinion that it does - All they've....
....tried to do is say that we mere plebs can't ask the question to ensure clarity. Snobbery basically!
All the Adv Generals counsel has done today by trying to character assassinate me in open court (by taking tweets out of context) is make me more determined to push for independence. One more reason being to get rid of the Office of Advocate General from Scotland. Permenantly.
For the record by the way, the RT interview, was scathing of the Advocate Generals waste of public money. He read one half of the conversation and simply said that I opined on the UK Government. Of course he wouldn't want to read that in open court. Because it gave context....
....and it also called out the office of the advocate general for wasting taxpayers money.