The Sabotage of Scotland’s Democracy

At the beginning of the two year referendum campaign on the question of Scottish independence the Department of the Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland circulated a memo to all of the departments of the Irish civil service to the effect that the Irish government would remain silent throughout the campaign. It was to be understood that the question of Scotland’s future would be a matter for the Scottish people. Dublin is a small European capital where news gets around. Media and government in Ireland adhered to this principle of neutrality. As the campaign in Scotland progressed it became widely known in Dublin that the British government and the British Embassy were applying pressure on the Irish state and the press to speak out against Scottish independence. One source within Oireachtas Éireann, the Irish parliament, has let it be known that the agenda of the British government was to paint a bleak picture of an independent Scotland in order to depress the growing support for a Yes vote in Scotland. Ireland, heavily dependent on trade with the United Kingdom, remained neutral throughout the campaign. At about the same time it became clear that this was very much part of a global offensive against Scotland. France, Spain, the United States, Canada and others began to make pronouncements echoing the sentiments that had been pressed upon Ireland. Certainly, the opinion within Dublin was that this was policy as far as Britain was concerned. Russia made the decision to break the silence of Downing Street’s international conspiracy and spoke out.

As the campaign progressed into the final year analysts in both Berlin and Dublin predicted that support for independence in Scotland would overtake support for the union and issued memos to various of their government departments with instructions to begin the process of drafting policies to deal with the breakup of the United Kingdom and the arrival of a new European state. It can only be assumed that this, as a standard practice of government, was replicated around the world. Such a provisional measure no doubt undermined the confidence of Westminster in securing a No vote in Scotland. It was clear in the final months of the campaign that Britain was indeed in a state of frantic desperation. It was at this point that Mr. Cameron himself entered into secret discussions with the Council authorities on the Shetland Islands. Britain was preparing for defeat, and was not prepared to leave empty handed. This was the state of play until the date of the referendum.

Quite unexpectedly it was noticed that those supporting a No vote were openly celebrating and congratulating one another almost as soon as the polls were closed. One person who called a moderator of this page at half past ten in the evening shared his suspicion that “They know something. They know they have this in the bag.” Through the early hours of the morning calls started arriving from election officials who were in a number of counting centres over Scotland claiming that they witnessed deliberate election fraud. This was, of course, merely anecdotal evidence, but it was the same story being repeated from as many as fourteen different officers – three of whom had been campaigning for a No vote. On Friday evening we were put in touch with a counting officer from Kilmarnock in East Ayrshire. She had been campaigning for Yes Scotland and had contacted us in an agitated state. Over the course of a lengthy telephone conversation she recounted what she had witnessed. She was not allowed to ensure the closure of the ballots boxes over which she had responsibility, they were moved and left unattended, eventually being transported in a van without security to the central counting station and she was not permitted to be present at their arrival to verify that these were indeed her boxes. Other election officers had contacted her to inform her of open bribery of caretakers and other security personnel at polling stations.

Over the past few days she has been working with the Butterfly Rebellion to gather witnesses and full statements. Every hour the list of witnesses is growing. It has now been arranged for each of these competent witnesses to meet with a legal team outside of Scotland and the United Kingdom to have all of these reports recorded as sworn statements. All of these statements will be posted first to the Butterfly Rebellion page before being sent to the Scottish government and all other relevant friendly authorities. We have made the decision to by-pass the police at the present time. It is at least plausible that elements within the police force were part of a larger conspiracy. We apologise in advance to the police force of Scotland if we are wrong in this suspicion, but in good faith we are acting for the good of Scotland and we do hope that the police authorities, also in good faith, will understand.

Not a full ten hours after the declaration of the defeat of Scotland’s bid for independence the Russian observers had raised a flag that the election had not been conducted in a manner that conformed to good practice and they stated their concerns that the referendum count had been “rigged.” Two of these observers have come forward and have made it clear that they are now willing to give evidence to the effect that the count was illegal. We can have no doubt that these accounts will not stand in either a Scottish or English court of law as they come from Russian sources. The whole world knows that Russia is not to be trusted. So it now must be asked why the British government sought Russian observers. Knowingly the Westminster administration sought tainted witnesses to witness its crime; almost the perfect crime. Earlier this evening a senior civil servant in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin made it known to us that this decision was known in advance in Dublin, and that preparation for a Yes vote had been cancelled. According to this source, from whom we have requested documentary evidence, it had been made clear to his department that “Westminster will not, under any circumstances, let go of Scotland.” Open diplomatic opinion in Ireland, a young state with hard experience of an independence struggle with Westminster, is that clandestine moves were made to safeguard Scottish resources for London.

Ireland, it can be argued, is yet another tainted source. Not France. Through the course of the day today two separate French sources have reached out to us to share their full agreement with the account given by their Russian colleagues. There are no observes, who have so far spoken out, who accept the validity of the referendum count. It will be difficult to guarantee a sworn statement from these men, but we have been promised another opportunity to speak with them. We will make a special plea to them to have the courage to speak out on the record, and at present we are drafting a letter to the French government seeking full disclosure from them. All of this information will be shared on this page and with the Scottish government. We believe that it is only a matter of time before the fullness of the truth comes out. There can be no doubt that the count was a fraud.

– Butterfly Rebellion

231 thoughts on “The Sabotage of Scotland’s Democracy

  1. There are way too many anomilies even if we discount the video evidence. Dundee the city of YES with a widley accepted 85% YES vote only returns narrow YES after 2 dubious fire alarms blamed on ecigs. Ecigs are water vapour and have no way if setting off smoke/fire alarm heat or smoke sensitive, I tried for 2hrs.
    Glasgow also widely accepted to be 60%+ YES again return v small majority, 10 ballot boxes removed with no proof of return.
    All day from all over the country voters claiming they are being turned away because their vote has been cast.
    Discrepinces of ballot papers reported from all over country, some appear to have no barcode.
    Complaints of ballot boxes being collected by solo drivers with no checks, stamps or signatures.
    Reports from enumerators that sorters and counters told to hide YES votes in no piles.
    Twitter trending YES all day in Scotland, this was majority of YES voters stating they voted YES.
    Google trends predicted easy victory for YES, Google trends have predicted outcome if last 3 American elections state by state with 95% accuracy.
    Reports suggesting Eire Parliament told by uk to stop preparations for Independent Scotland as no will win 3 days before vote.
    BT stating 65% no in postal vote in August when votes are not counted until 18th Sept.
    Clackmannanshire, Skye, Barra, Fife, South Lanarkshire, and many more all claiming with utmost confidence YES by at least 75%.
    I feel that not only was the vote rigged it was set up in such a way that both SNP and Scotland would be demoralised. How else can you explain SNP strongholds being resoundingly no?
    There are countless reasons for doubt in our referendum and all should be investigated.

    Liked by 2 people

    • All the pollsters had been knobbled? What is the evidence that Skye, Barra et al would vote 75% yes? What evidence do you have that Dundee would vote 85% yes? Only in one part of the country had people found that someone had ‘used’ their vote and this is being investigated by the police. Why is Twitter and Google more accurate than professional polling organisation like Yougov, Survation, IPSOS/MORI, Panelbase etc? I could go on. Your post is just one very daft conspiracy theory.


    • Sorry, but all circumstantial and very little basis in fact.
      – nowhere in Fife voted 75% Yes, the box samples show that.
      – Yes had in excess if 100 Counting Agents overseeing the Count.
      – Not one had any issues on the night.
      – Boxes were sealed by the council officers with numbered security tags, which were checked during the day and at the count.
      – Yes Polling Agents added 1000 security tags.
      – Yes had in excess of 600 polling agents all across Fife for the 185 polling places.
      – Yes had an agent at every postal ballot opening. Project Fear sent one person for 1 hour and they saw nothing.

      It’s easy to get reassurance off your Postal Vote supporters; you ring them up and ask if they have voted, they say they have! Easy.

      As for SNP strongholds voting No, check the detail, ‘working class’ areas mostly voted Yes.
      On the same day we have seen Wards vote 70%+ SNP in Local elections and the same people vote 40%+/- ‘SNP for Holyrood. So it’s perfectly normal behaviour, if you actually track what people do.

      Those with money, mostly voted no.
      I know lots of voters who vote for the SNP who voted no, just as they Vote Labour for Westminster.

      There is nothing to be demoralised about. The campaign started at 30% yes. And finished at 45%. Not far to go. Almost anyone associated with either side expects us to be back at the polls within 10 years. This is not a defeat, it’s a big step on the road to independence.

      We lost, time to move on and go and convince 5% more real people to vote Yes.
      We the people lied to by Project Fear, of course they were! But that doesn’t prove the 32 vote/counts were fraudulent. Not even close. One is minded to ask, why were people filming alleged ‘ count fraud’ but not actually intervening and pointing out the ‘error’ as they should be doing?


    • No one in the Yes camp us claiming 85% vote in Dundee.
      If there was an 85% Yes vote it would have been evident when the first ballot boxes were opened.
      There is still no evidence of any electoral fraud.
      Why wld a Scot Govt Civil Servant (and one wld need many thousands of them) be any more or less corrupt than 2 locals who know who many of the electorate are?
      How many papers were void by lack of the official mark (the mark in the back) ??? In Fife, NONE! I suggest you check the rest of the returns. And let’s face it in a production run of 4 million it’s always possible that a page or two slipped thru. Ask a printer, these things happen!!

      As for errant ballot boxes, stuffed Boxes, mislaid boxes and this great warehouse where 1000’s of boxes were transferred to, only to be opened, stuffed and resealed….. Well that’s just delusional claptrap.

      We lost, let’s move on and convince another 5% of the electorate, rather than chase Alice down the rabbit hole. Seriously, time to give our opinions to the Electoral Management Board and look forward. .


  2. We need a new ref held with neutral observers so there can be no doubt as to the validity. I am so sick we have been treated this way ballot papers were not the same from place to place some had writing and id numbers others blank they should have all been same so why is this. Where I live in Clackmannanshire was strong Yes camp yet turns up No. And from what I have read the correct procedures were not at all followed when we went to the polling station as to them reading out the id number on or papers and giving us instructions on how to fill it out there was nothing just a paper ripped from a pad of ballot papers with no id and nothing printed on the back and then a pencil to make your mark why. People think a Government cannot be corrupt but believe me they can have faced this first hand years ago and I understand the Butterfly Rebellions problem how do you find someone you can trust when the tentacles of this corrupt system spread so far. I will warn you all now to fight the Government is almost impossible but having said that I will not stay silent on this I do this for my Country Scotland.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. There is a fairly easy way to put the results to the test: go door to door asking people how they voted. Perhaps start with a small constituency. Compare to poll. Even in larger areas a pattern should emerge fairly quickly. With the swell in support there should be enough volunteers to carry this out.
    If the powers that be start to get twitchy that May lent support to the suspicions.
    If it appears the vote was not rigged we can focus our efforts elsewhere.


  4. This is truly horrendous if even some of it is true. You can only try banging away and eventually someone will listen. For the life of me I cannot imagine why the SG did not arrange for the referendum to be carried out under unpartisan [foreign] auspices, for the possibility of fraud has to have been mentioned..


    • Where are you gonna get these impartial (foreign) vote counters from? Belgium/Spain/Italy? Maybe some of the newer EU member states from Eastern Europe who had to battle for years to obtain membership, unlike Scotland who assumed they would be able to gain automatic entry upon winning the alleged ‘corrupt’ poll. Could always ask Alex’s good friend Mr. Mugabe to send a few trustworthy pals to ensure fairplay, Grow up and get over it, YOU LOST BY 10%.


  5. Pingback: Cheer up folks | laidbackviews

  6. No campaign celebrating at 10:30 – might have been the YouGov poll confirming their canvassing? Denis Canavan’s body language on Newsnight said he knew that yes had lost, even if his words said otherwise. The margin of the result was too big to have been rigged. Face it people you entered the echo chamber where all you could hear was people saying Yes.


    • Margin was not too big… Just in Glasgow alone 121,557 registered to vote and then didn’t bother? And its turnout at polling stations for the different constituencies was between 66.24% and 78.65% yet postal votes return was between 82.09% and 87.99%. Besides in Glasgow over 10,000 people register to vote by post and then just don’t bother? To add to this, I’ve contacted Highland Council to ask if they would publish YES/NO results breakdown (as Glasgow’s did), was told that the Chief Counting Officer has asked them not to…What? Why? Do they have something to hide? Highlands was expected to be a comfortable YES… I, too, like many others, am not convinced…

      Liked by 1 person

  7. The Carter Center has been contacted and would be willing to oversee a recount or re-vote at their own cost if it requested by the proper authorities. I saw this on Facebook stated by Linda Larson Kemp on the International Support for Scotland’s Independence FB page. They were talking about the Ruth Davidson video.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Well, paranoia was being exhibited by Yes supporters well in advance of the vote (make sure you take a biro with you to mark your ballot paper, because the buggers will all have pencil erasers, there are secret warehouses all over Scotland ready with ballot boxes stuffed full of no votes, that No campaign directmail looks like an official document, how can that be allowed, etc, etc) so I suppose I shouldn’t be surpprised at the level of paranoia on show after the event. However, the paranoia we see here is quite remarkable. The closest parallel I can think of the 9/11 conspiracy theory that holds that the world trade centre was deliberately demolished by American government forces and not by terrorist extremists. A moment’s thought tells you that for a conspiracy on such a massive scale to hold water, the sheer numbers of people required to keep schtum in order that it remains unrevealed alone render it totally impracticable.

    The “evidence” that there was ballot rigging in the referendum that I’ve seen is similarly anecdotal and often based on a misunderstanding of process.

    Certainly, where there is genuine concern over an apparent irregularity that cannot, as can most such “evidence” be very simply, easily, and quickly explained, there should be an investigation and the findings publicised (and I do think it is a mistake for you to bypass police procedure in this – in my view it merely lends further credence to the Bacofoil hat aspect of the Butterfly Campaign) and if in fact criminal practice in the conduct of the referendum count can be substantiated, then it should be taken further, with the potentially serious consequences that suggests. But if, in my view more likely, such concerns cannot be substantiated, they really must not be gnawed on as a dog with a bone.

    Which begs the question of course of what will it take to satisfy “The Butterfly Rebellion” that there was no ballot fixing?

    Like far too many (almost all) conspiracy theories, I suspect that the answer is that nothing will satisfy you. And there is where you hit the buffers. My advice? do try to look at things realistically. The No Campaign was ahead in every single opinion poll bar one (or was it two?) for 24 months before the ballot. Why on earth would anyone even feel a need to rig the vote? And finally, put yourself in the position of the UK government. In a country with a democratic history of several hundred years and virtually no record of electoral corruption or fraud, the risks of attempting to engineer such a massive fraud and being discovered (which I’d say were almost certain) simply are not worth it.

    The level of public engagement in the referendum campaign and debate were absolutely wonderful. It was good to see so many people genuinely committed and organised on both sides. but in my humble opinion, the energy of too many of those inthe Yes campaign will simply be wasted if it persists in going down this cul-de-sac.


  9. I do detest conspiracy theories. The problem with them is they are so damned hard to disprove, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are true either.
    I have continually (despite video evidence) put it down to people being upset at the result, or fiddling with video footage. Anyone can give themselves out to be someone that they are not and write what they please online. Interestingly enough there are just as many writing in who claim to have been at various counts as observers and who are dismissing voting fraud and saying everything was above board.
    As for me. I am dismissive of a conspiracy. Why, because there were 222 foreign observers present and none, apart from Russia has indicated that there was voter fraud. Have some voted twice?- probably. Have some tried to fiddle postal votes?-probably, has there been fraud of some sort at the various counts?-maybe, has there been fraud on a massive scale, enough to affect the outcome?-unlikely!
    A second referendum in the future is almost inevitable so why try to force a recount? If there is a recount and it shows a no (which I think it will), then the entire movement will be dismissed as crackpots and conspiracy theorists. That indeed would be extremely damaging for the entire movement. And thirdly. If there was voting fraud on a massive scale don’t you think it would be perpetrated in such a way as it would nearly be impossible to prove? My point is let it go and channel your energy into something which can take us forward as this is just holding us back from accepting where we are at the moment. We are at post defeat.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I notice a lot of people think this is all just a pointless conspiracy theory with no hard evidence. This may be partly true but getting a proper enquiry into this vote is nevertheless important because we must learn as much as possible for the next time. Elections are supposed to be free and fair in the democratic world, that’s the benchmark. This vote was free but certainly not fair. If we do get another referendum it has to be on an equal footing for both sides with no state broadcaster propaganda or big business intimidation.
      That said I think enquiries should focus on the postal vote as that is where any fraud is likely to have occurred. For all future elections the postal voting system needs to be more secure as a 2008 official council of Europe report has already stated. Anyone who thinks fraud in the UK is impossible should quickly research the Birmingham 2004 local elections to see how very real a possibility it is. Personally I think the Northern Ireland systems of voting should be imposed across the UK immediately. If you still think it couldn’t possibly have been rigged you probably also believe that old myth that the UK is the worlds oldest democracy etc etc. Universal suffrage came to mainland Britain much later than the USA and many other European countries. In no way could the British Empire be described as democracy. Finally I don’t know many democracies where the head of state, prime minister and majority of parliament are not directly elected.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Dear foaming at the mouth lefties, surely you are aware that democracy is about majority vote and not about giving you lefty poofters what you want all the time? I notice your sort are very pro-democratic up until the vote goes against you, then you bandy around words like “traitor” and vote-rigging because you yourselves do not respect the democratic process.


    • A Charaid – We voted for independence because we reject the all-too-common and ‘common’ racist and homophobic language that comes with British nationalism. So ahun43@***.com thank you for reminding us of how much harder we will have to work.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. When my partner and I turned up to vote in Ardersier we were not asked to supply any ID. My partner went first and gave her address (it could have been anyone’s address really) to which they stated her name off the list, she nodded and was allowed to vote. I merely said “same address” and was also allowed.

    I was also concerned that we were given pencils to vote with (soft lead pencils that perhaps wouldn’t leave the same impression on the paper that an HB might).

    Finally, on leaving the polling station we were told by the Yes campaigner situated some distance from the entrance to the station that she had just been approached and intimidated by a No campaigner who informed her she would be reported for breaking the law. I wonder if others have had a similar experience and if this was a co-ordinated tactic of intimidation by the Better Together side.


    • Tim, what you are describing is the voting procedure that has been in place in the UK for decades. Now it could be argued that we need to update to a system where proof of identity is required but seeing as the UK population are, on the whole, opposed to identity cards and the like and we currently operate many of our systems based on trust you are talking about a cultural shift. I believe that around 10 people in Glasgow found that they had ‘already voted’ when they came to do so and the police were informed and those ballot papers were removed from the count. Undoubtedly there was some minor fraud committed and some mistakes made but 400,000? I’m sceptical.

      The pencil used is hard to rub out and, writing as someone who was at the count as an agent overseeing the procedure for Yes, I saw no such indications in the 5000 or so papers I personally saw. All that would be needed in any case is a second X in the other box and that invalidates the entire ballot. There were only a handful of spoiled papers and all the ones I saw were clearly spoiled by the same hand.

      I would also say, that as a Yes Polling Agent, I approached a No campaigner who was standing a little too close to one polling station and informed her that she might be breaking the law. I also spoke to the Presiding Officer at the same station to make her aware of the situation. That could have been seen as ‘intimidation’ by the No campaigner even though I was very polite and non-threatening. Perhaps it was something along those lines that went on in your situation?


  12. Pingback: An Independence Vote-Rigging Conspiracy Theory Is Sweeping Scotland | Industry Insider

  13. @John Purdie, I am happy to give a statement to any authority that requires it. However as far as the count is concerned, apart from the problems with computers etc, I saw nothing to suggest anything dodgy. I feel this is merely removing focus from our campaign for indy, independence can be achieved by other methods, maximum votes and seats possible for SNP at the 2015 election is the next step. After all if the system can create a systematic fraud at or during the vote then they can probably bury any evidence. As I said I’m happy to make a statement, but now I am focusing on a massive SNP vote in 2015. If you want to contact me or for that matter the Butterfly Rebelion, you can find me on Facebook.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Pingback: An Independence Vote-Rigging Conspiracy Theory Is Sweeping Scotland | Bicara Niaga

  15. Pingback: An Independence Vote-Rigging Conspiracy Theory Is Sweeping Scotland | An Independence Vote-Rigging Conspiracy Theory Is Sweeping Scotland | Social Dashboard

  16. Pingback: An Independence Vote-Rigging Conspiracy Theory Is Sweeping Scotland - Set Squared Centres

  17. I emailed the Police with concerns, as my ballot paper was blank on the back, this was their reply (incidentally, she says I did not recall, but I stated definitely, that the back of the paper was blank):

    Thank you for your e-mail/enquiry in which you have stated that you do not recall your ballot paper, as issued to you at your polling station on Thursday 18 September, having a unique identifying mark on the reverse as is required by legislation.

    The administration of the referendum on independence was under the remit of the Chief Counting Officer, Mary Pitcaithly. Logistical arrangements are the responsibility of the Counting Officer for each local counting area. However, please be assured that there are several stages of the process at which the ballot papers used are quality checked. Part of this quality checking includes ensuring that the unique identifying mark is present on each ballot paper. These checks are carried out:

    • During the printing process.
    • Prior to the ballot papers leaving the elections office for the counting area, when the ballot papers are allocated to each polling station.
    • At the polling station, before the poll opens.
    • At the polling station, when the polling staff issue the ballot paper to each elector.

    It is also worth noting that, in the extremely unlikely event that a ballot paper is issued, completed and placed in the ballot box and does not have a unique identifying number on the reverse, it will still be included in the counting of votes and would not be rejected on these grounds alone. There are measures in place to ensure that each ballot paper counted in the referendum was a validly cast vote, but the presence of the unique identifying number is not one of these measures. Therefore, please be assured that even if you do not recall your ballot paper having a unique identifying number on the reverse, this would not cause your vote to be rejected when the votes were counted.

    I hope this clarifies matters, but if you wish to report this matter to the Counting Officer for your local area you should contact the elections office at your local council.

    I’m happy to discuss this in more detail if it would be helpful.


  18. Here is the relevant section from The Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013. Any petitions regarding voting irregularities have to be put through the judicial review process stated here no later than 30th Ocotber 2013. Any evidence you are collating must proceed under these regulations to have any validity.

    Orders for production of documents.40(1)The Court of Session or a sheriff principal may make an order mentioned in paragraph (2) if the Court or the sheriff principal is satisfied by evidence on oath that the order is required for the purpose of— .
    (a)instituting or maintaining a prosecution for an offence in relation to ballot papers, or .
    (b)proceedings brought as mentioned in section 34. .
    (2)An order referred to in paragraph (1) is an order for— .
    (a)the inspection or production of any rejected ballot papers in the custody of a proper officer, .
    (b)the opening of a sealed packet of the completed corresponding number lists or of the certificates mentioned in rule 15(6), or .
    (c)the inspection of any counted ballot papers in the proper officer’s custody. .
    (3)An order under this rule may be made subject to such conditions as to— .
    (a)persons, .
    (b)time, .
    (c)place and mode of inspection, and .
    (d)production or opening, .
    as the Court or the sheriff principal considers expedient.
    (4)In making and carrying out an order mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) or (c), care must be taken to ensure that the way in which the vote of any particular voter has been given will not be disclosed until it is proved— .
    (a)that such vote was given, and .
    (b)that such vote has been declared by a competent court to be invalid. .
    (5)Any power given to the Court of Session or a sheriff principal under this rule may be exercised by any judge of the Court, or by the sheriff principal, otherwise than in open court. .
    (6)An appeal lies to the Court of Session from any order of a sheriff principal under this rule. .
    (7)Where an order is made for the production by a proper officer of any document in that officer’s custody relating to the referendum— .
    (a)the production by such officer or the officer’s agent of the document ordered in such manner as may be directed by that order is conclusive evidence that the document relates to the referendum, and .
    (b)any endorsement on any packet of ballot papers so produced is prima facie evidence that the ballot papers are what they are stated to be by the endorsement. .
    (8)The production from the proper officer’s custody of— .
    (a)a ballot paper purporting to have been used at the referendum, and .
    (b)a completed corresponding number list with a number marked in writing beside the number of the ballot paper, .
    is prima facie evidence that the voter whose vote was given by that ballot paper was the person whose entry in the Polling List (or on a notice issued under section 13B(3B) or (3D) or 13BB(4) of the 1983 Act) at the time of the referendum contained the same number as the number marked as mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).
    (9)Except as provided by this rule, no person is to be allowed to— .
    (a)inspect any rejected or counted ballot papers in the custody of the proper officer, or .
    (b)open any sealed packet of the completed corresponding number list or of the certificates mentioned in rule 15(6). .
    Power of Chief Counting Officer to prescribe.41(1)In this schedule, “prescribed” means prescribed by the Chief Counting Officer. .
    (2)Where a form is prescribed under paragraph (1), the form may be used with such variations as the circumstances may require.


  19. I have proof of one person cheating. A better together campaigners (who should have known better) son back from 5 years abroad (oz) especially to vote, returning home on the 19th September. I took exception to him as he was bragging about it and threatened me if I reported him, which I have done.
    I also have suspicions about other conversations that I was part of or overheard whilst trying to smile at voters outside polling stations:
    1. An english woman who had only been here since the start of september and I suspect she is now back in Stratford area. May have special interest proxy vote?
    2. A young woman on a bike explaining to a conservative councillor that her parents live in France and have a proxy vote (special interest proxy?). She went on to explain her parents knew “hundreds” of Scottish no voters in France (all special interest proxy?). The councilor in question looked at me and changed the subject, as a polling agent does he not have a duty to report this conversation? The same councilor was saying all day how he felt that yes was going to win, this made me comment to a fellow yesser that I had suspicions that he knew something we didn’t.

    I don’t believe in conspiracy theories but, I cannot forget what I experienced on the day! I have all names and times recorded ready for whoever wishes these details.

    I am bitter because I was brought up to respect the democratic process. My grandfathers proxy vote was destroyed by my father because he claimed he did not care about the outcome. I am proud to have played fair!



  20. I think there is much potential for fraud during transportation of ballot boxes from poll station to counting hall. My ballot paper had no numbers on either side,same situation reported by my daughter and her boyfriend.,we live in prestonpans and I hear of others who say same.I’ve been told that it is normal practice for council person with van to take boxes to counting hall without other present ie no independent security. It could be possible that persons in council could fill out the genuine ballot papers,eg with lots of no crosses a day or so before,put them in ballot boxes,sealed, then issue to staff at the election desks,fraudulent ballot papers to hand out to those arriving to vote and people on the desks may not realise this.This would explain why I,and others received a ballot paper devoid of I’d numbers which normally link that paper to the named voter.So in other words,at 10pm,you have ballot boxes with votes that never reach the counting hall.Why? ,because there is nothing to stop your council man with van,,who is unaccompanied,swoping the boxes he was given at the polling station,with the rigged boxes.This cd be done within the van, or by meeting another person enroute.I am sure there are council employees who fervently support the union who would be happy to undertake this undercover work! ,in the dark hours!,particularly if there was a nice wee cash in my and reward.This may sound far fetched but I am more than happy for someone to prove to me that this would not be possible!And if its possible,then its also probable,given the very high stakes at play for those who wish to maintain the Union.


    • I’m assuming that the people upset about ballot papers that were blank on the back are calling for a revote because they somehow think the reports about such ballot papers mean that the vote was rigged and should have shown a Yes majority instead … am I correct in assuming this?

      If I am, would you kindly explain the following to me please:

      The minimum swing required was ~200,000 votes. The average polling station caters to ~1,000 voters. For the sake of argument let’s say BT would have targeted only polling stations in areas where they expected an extremely high Yes percentage, e.g. 75%. To make it not look completely suspicious (i.e. not have vast numbers of ballot boxes with 100% No votes in them turn up at the counting stations) they would have to turn that into a less suspicious looking low Yes percentage, e.g. 25%.

      That means we’re talking about ~400 polling stations. And ~400 council officers who transported their polling station’s ballot box to the counting station – let’s also keep in mind the fact that any polling agent from either Yes or No campaign was free to follow any such van and witness the unloading.

      So in order to pull this off, BT would have had to approach at least 400 council officers and get every single one of them to collaborate with their criminal attempt, as opposed to refuse and report it, and they would have to switch ~400 ballot boxes somewhere out of sight.

      If you are suggesting the vote was rigged that way, not only are you suggesting that they had a 100% success rate with bribing hundreds of council officers but you’re also suggesting they somehow managed to prevent each and every single one of the polling agents from both campaigns from exercising their right to follow the van to the counting station.

      If that isn’t ridiculous enough, you’re also suggesting that the presiding electoral officers at ~400 polling stations would either think nothing of receiving only unmarked ballot papers or that they were indeed in on it too, increasing the number of people involved to ~800. And not one of them came forward and reported this.

      Please explain to me how that theory makes any kind of sense to you.


    • you forgot to add that there may not have been such a high turn out as claimed.
      If say about 70% actually voted, 15% of the votes could have been made up.

      Does anyone have any pictures of long queus at polling stations? I haven’t seen any.


  21. Thank you. I feel so helpless, like the world turned their back on Scotland. I appreciate the work you’re doing, please keep it up. If there’s anything I can do let me know (skilled hacker).


  22. Hi, great work! What’s happening with this? “It has now been arranged for each of these competent witnesses to meet with a legal team outside of Scotland and the United Kingdom to have all of these reports recorded as sworn statements. All of these statements will be posted first to the Butterfly Rebellion page before being sent to the Scottish government and all other relevant friendly authorities.”


    • We are still coordinating with witnesses and a legal team. We have also reached out to another group have already begun a legal case. You will be updated.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. To Chamallaextract, thank u for challenging my theory re vote rigging.May I start by disagreeing with your assumption that BT would focus fraud activity in areas where the Yes vote was expected to be high.I disagree because in such areas we can assume they are most likely to be SNP held local councils. Therefore,SNP would not have the motive to rig the vote if they were confidant of a high Yes vote.So I certainly cannot agree with your starting assumption of 400 councils being involved. The area of concern ,as I see it, would be with the Unionist held local councils,the majority being Labour of course. To explain, Labour is a staunchly Unionist party and has everything to lose if the vote is Yes to independence. Indeed the stakes are immense,with passions running high,both sides of the debate. However, many Labour held councils do not hold a strong seat in recent times, due to the growing movement to the SNP vote. Therefore I can see the motive for vote rigging in a Labour held council, to try to reduce the yes vote and to maintain staying in the UK Union. I could not possibly predict how widespread any fraud could be,as you seem to propose, but I can provide motive and have previously explained potential mechanism ie transportation of ballot papers. IIndeed,I recently asked a person who was involved at high level in my local Yes campaign,about whether the ballot boxes were accompanied in transit, from polling station in my town,to the counting hall 20 mins drive away.His answer was “no,but that doesnt happen anywhere in Scotland and never has”. Therefore we can assume that in many cases, its simply the man with the van from the council, who transports these very important political papers to their counting destination, unsupervised.Therefore,I state again, there is potential for ballot swopping enroute. To Chamallaextract,I will continue to address the points you made,in my next posting,thank you.


    • So Fife, a Labour held council with the support if the Torys, will according to the above have been riddled with these blank backed forms?

      Frankly the allegation that officers of the council are open to instruction by elected members to break the law in the referendum, shows a complete ignorance of the relationships and processes.

      So, one is then minded to ask, how come not a single paper that was void on the back, was found by the 100+ Counting Agents that Yes had in the hall??? Let alone the No people or the 180 staff at the 36 Counting tables, (some of whom were Yes and others were also No supporters). Or their managers, etc.

      You may also wish to read the guidance produced by the Electoral Commission WRT dealing with doubtful ballot papers (

      You may further wish to note that of the 250k votes cast in Fife, not one was rejected for being want of the official mark.


  24. To Chamallaextract, continued. Your final point re presiding electoral officers at polling stations receiving ballot papers devoid of I’d reference numbers or bar codes, and those persons either not noticing this or being part of fraud ,is a valid point to raise. My answer to that is this, I do not know the status of each person manning the polling station desks, they may be paid employees of the council or even volunteers. In any case,those persons at the polling desks may not have enough knowledge or authority to question the validity of the ballot papers they have been asked to administer by a council official, and council officials manage the running of the polling stations at local level. One thing is clear,there are now huge numbers of people reporting to the police etc that their ballot paper was blank on the back,as mine was and several other people that I know personally. Also, I have voted in numerous elections but this process was very different. Normally I have entered into a large hall with anything up to 6 desks placed apart in the hall, with 2 administrators at each desk. This format is to ensure openness of process. However, on the 18th, it was the opposite. Desks were situated in small individual rooms,along a corridor.This does not allow for free and open surveillance by all concerned,the public and administrators alike. Indeed,it could also be possible that council officials could remove ballot boxes,when full throughout the day, as space is restricted, these boxes would be stored in another part of the building,another potential opportunity for vote swopping. Also,it is usual for the voter to be directed to his polling desk,where one clerk locates his name on the register and the other clerk locates his specifically numbered individual polling card. This process typically takes about a minute. This did not happen to me. I arrived,gave my details and was immediately handed a ballot paper from the top of a pile of papers that lay flat on the desk.The ballot paper had no identifying numbers on it,front or back as I took some time to look at it. These are not normal procedures. Like many others,I simply feel a great sense of injustice that I now see that I did not receive a legal ballot paper. I hold very dear,the principle of democracy and my right to it. It may well be,that there is a revote and it could well be also that the Yes vote increases but does not win the overall vote,however the key issue for me is the principle of fairness in democracy. If we do not strive to have that, then the process of democracy is a pointless one. Finally, there remains the issue of proof. I would say to that,if I and others claim that our ballot paper was not as it should be,then surely we must have the legal right for our ballot paper to be located that we may see for ourselves how it was filled in.


  25. keep up the good fight the truth will out !

    dont forget most establishment orgs will cover up any wrong doing and msm will not report look at the tory who sneaked a peak in the box she should have resigned there and then after the LNS verdict it will be whitewashed via courts there grip is strong but not unbreakable keep the faith and 1 day we will see a free scotland !


  26. I am very dubious about the YouTube video Jon son of David! He also made a you tube film where he appears to be wasting police time in a traffic offence.I doubt he is genuine,indeed he says he is not going to the police with his evidence!


    • Good point people are asking if any1 knows him what we have to be careful of is planted misinformation to discredit factual this seems likely here after what u said another thing that bothers me is crown investigations being White washed when real stuff comes throw soz for posting it

      There is to many discrepancies with it alland the dirty tricks leading up to it as well means they will stoop well low we need an international investigation in to it
      Thanks for reply ! Mick


  27. I would ask everyone who is concerned about vote rigging to please google; sott net signs of the times .They write about vote rigging in depth, how it occurs in other countries and how it has occurred in the Scottish referendum.,particularly. They confirm how the main part of vote rigging would be done done via production of fraudulent ballot papers, en masse. Such papers would be devoid of reference numbers and blank on the back,as mine was and many other people I have spoken to.They also explain how the genuine ballot papers would be filled in, in favour,mostly of no vote,and kept aside. The useless fraud ballot papers that so many of us were given, would never reach the counting venues,as they would be swopped with the proper ballot papers, mainly in transit.The authors of sott net also say a major part of the vote rigging was done with postal votes,which were sent to England!but I urge everyone to read their articles on the Indy ref in detail! I had not read their articles before I had put forward my previous posts. I had simply shared my own experience and observations of my voting experience and my great concern at the lack of security in transporting ballot boxes. However, the authors views certainly mirror the concerns I have. One thing I am sure of! We really need to tighten up our lax standards of election administration to prevent future wide scale abuses of the electoral system. If we don’t then we do not have democracy in Scotland! For example, we must never again rely on local council officials to oversee the polling station situation.There should be an observer allocated from our Scottish Government to be at every polling station,throughout polling day, to make sure the council officials and others are following correct procedure,and there must be put in place very strict rules to ensure that ballot boxes must be transported to counting venues with guardians eg from the Scottish Govt., to accompany the council employee driver.The authors are in no doubt that our Scottish referendum was rigged ,to the extent that we did not win the election . I certainly agree with that. If you read sott net as I urge you to do!! ,if you are persuaded by their information ,can you please tell as many people as possible to read it also. Thank you.


    • Doh! What about the secrecy of the ballot….. ??
      The yes campaigners will no doubt ask for a copy if the marked register and do some spot checks, but looking at an individual ballot paper and bringing it to the voter and asking them if that’s how they voted, would likely be a breech of several laws!


  28. To Stephen Mckibben, yes,that seems sensible,or to put it another way, those of us,and we are many, who were issued with a fraudulent ballot paper, should have the right to request to see the actual ballot paper,number referenced to our name.,and to Vlad the Overseer, as you are not quoting any specific laws that this request would breach, I suggest that you find out which those laws are before dismissing this aspect out of hand.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ms Livesy, maybe you could tell me what law/s you think would allow a ballot to be taken from a secure store and then cross referenced with the electoral register and the voters name and address who cast it, then bring the ballot to them and ask them if this is how they voted. Thereby complexly negating the secrecy of the ballot.
      I would love to know what legislation you think would allow you to do that.


  29. The Unionists want evidence; I’d suggest a thorough investigation of all Clackmannanshire votes, which are now be stored in a secure place. This Should be done by two groups of UN inspectors, one from the East and one from the West. If Fraud is proven then other voting areas should be inspected.


  30. On the day that registration to the electoral role close I received a phone call from a lady at my local electoral office asking if a man was trying to register to vote at my address. I said yes, that’s my husband (we had recently moved). She then told me the man’s name to check, thankfully, because it wasn’t my husband’s name! We were both very puzzled and she said she’d look into it. While I had her on the phone I asked if she’d received my husband’s registration form ok as I was a bit concerned by this development. She graciously went and checked and came back with a ‘no’ – apparently it went missing. Thankfully she allowed us to e-mail her a scanned copy of the form as it was after 4pm on closing day. Just saying…


    • Schmaved – Thanks. All of our information has been shared with another interested party. Once we are ready to raise funds we will make sure to post an update.


  31. No marks on the back of my ballot paper, which was torn from a pad.
    No ID number passed from the electoral roll to my ballot paper as in all other elections.

    Our Scottish voting process needs to be updated so that it’s fit for purpose.

    1. Proxy votes for voters registered at addresses in Scotland, or vote in person.
    2. A council statement at each polling station setting out the legal requirements e.g. each ballot paper has to have an ID number carried over from the electoral list, votes to be placed inside the ballot box (there were reports of some voters being told to leave their votes ON TOP of the ballot box), no campaigning literature to be handed out in the immediate vicinity of the polling station (BT had to be stopped from doing this in some areas) etc etc
    3. Votes to be counted at the polling station, not transported round the countryside, and confirmed by reps of each interested party. Not only is that easier to monitor, it’s cheaper and virtually impossible to cheat.
    4. Tallies passed to the regional council, each polling station listed with its tally on an online register.

    People fought and died for the right to vote. Votes should be treated with respect, not left open to fraud.


Comments are closed.