And Then What?
Look, we know that mocking front pages on The National is low-hanging fruit, and this particular example could hardly be any more of a self-parody if it tried.
But just for the sheer mental exercise in that stone-dead last week of December when nobody even knows what day it is, let’s imagine if it came true.
We probably shouldn’t even do that, because there isn’t going to be a UK general election until 2029 and it basically just gives the SNP an excuse for another half-decade of inaction. But for the sake of argument we’ll picture the scene.
Nigel Farage has just walked into 10 Downing Street, somehow. The new SNP leader Karen Adam – look, if we’re imagining crazy stuff let’s do this properly – immediately slaps a demand for a second indyref on his desk, even though the SNP only got 31% of the vote (their current Westminster polling) and 26 Scottish MPs, on the grounds that polls now show indyref support at 60%.
PM Farage says “LOL no, I’m a Unionist to my core, you had your indyref in 2014”.
Karen Adam now does… what, exactly?
Because there’s not a single thing she could do in those circumstances that the SNP couldn’t do now, or that they couldn’t have done for most of the last decade. Since Alex Salmond resigned the SNP haven’t had anything even remotely resembling a coherent and practical plan for achieving independence. In so far as they had a strategy at all, it was “Whine occasionally and just hope that makes Westminster spontaneously cave in for no coherent reason”.
Yes support has already hit almost 60%. In October 2020 it peaked at 59% and spent almost a year consistently above 50% across dozens of polls. The SNP did absolutely nothing about it.
At the time the UK had a Prime Minister so bad he was literally a threat to life. But still the SNP did nothing except string its voters along with empty promises.
Any election resulting in Nigel Farage occupying Downing Street is likely to be one of such chaos and arithmetical volatility that a sizeable minor party could theoretically wield disproportionate power. But again, that’s somewhere we’ve already been, and we know how it pans out.
Back in the spring of 2019, as the UK Parliament was deadlocked over Theresa May’s hamfisted attempts to enact Brexit, the SNP held unprecedented power. Their votes could have ensured a much softer Brexit, and they could have attempted to secure any number of concessions from May for their support, whether that was a second indyref or just Northern Ireland-style special exemptions for Scotland.
Instead, of course, they did nothing. Too terrified of losing popularity to grasp the nettle and strike while the iron was hot (if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor), they bottled it and sat uselessly on their hands and waited until the government collapsed, creating the conditions for Boris Johnson to win a whopping Tory majority and render the SNP an irrelevance again.
And if they were too afraid of criticism to work with/exert any pressure on the Tories, then just imagine their quivering, paralysing horror of being seen to do any sort of deal with Nigel Farage.
(Ironically, they could actually learn a lesson here from the Scottish Greens, who didn’t give a monkey’s about their colossal unpopularity with 90% of the Scottish electorate as they mercilessly squeezed the SNP’s soft and dangly parts during the Bute House Agreement, basically controlling the entire government with just eight MSPs. But the SNP learn lessons like Ian Blackford refuses pies.)
Nicola Sturgeon – who loathes heterosexual men with every fibre of her being and once said she hoped she’d never have to shake a man’s hand again as long as she lived – emasculated the SNP so thoroughly that it now doesn’t even know where its cojones are, never mind what to do with them.
(Because let’s face it, her credentials as a self-proclaimed “feminist to my fingertips” certainly don’t come from any interest in protecting women’s rights.)
There is nobody left in the party with either the tactical vision or the steeliness of character required to force change in difficult circumstances. Can you really picture Stephen Flynn or Kate Forbes issuing a unilateral declaration of independence? Both appear far more interested in a nice long career as a party leader than actually doing anything about the SNP’s supposed purpose. What sort of practical indy strategy have you ever heard from either of them?
It’s also vanishingly unlikely that anyone could lead the SNP back to the sort of electoral mandates it commanded from 2011 until 2024. Even if Labour’s spectacular post-election implosion has made the SNP the most popular (or to be more accurate, least unpopular) party again, the heady era of support in the high 40s and even 50s and leads of almost 40 points is gone for a generation. On a good day it now just about struggles fractionally past 30%.
(Thanks once again to Nicola Sturgeon, and the pivotal defining moment two years ago when she went all-in on the transgender madness, forcing the ill-fated and toxically unpopular Gender Recognition Reform Act through Holyrood in a series of midnight sittings in late December of 2022 and triggering the final collapse of the SNP’s unbroken decade-plus poll lead.)
Somehow the National manages to scrape by on feeding endless chump-fodder to the tiny handful of people who still subscribe to it. Either that, or it’s being maintained as a loss-leader for the purposes of undermining the indy movement by continuing to give amplification and sustenance to some of its dullest, stupidest and most counter-productive voices – a big Wings shout-out to Kelly Given, Stephen “genocide” Paton, Gordon Macintyre-Kemp, Paul “TORIES BAD!!!!” Kavanagh, Richard Walker and of course Gerry Hassan, a man so relentlessly vapid and tedious that if there were to be a mass popular uprising for independence the UK government would probably deploy him on the streets just to bore people into going back home.
But either way, nothing it puts on its front page ever has any meaning in the real world. It’s a fantasy comic for the intellectually retarded, about as convincing as a bout of WWE wrestling but aimed at a less demanding and sophisticated audience. It’s like if you made Pete Wishart into a newspaper.
Which means we’ve just wasted 1000 words on talking about it. But then, as far as the pursuit of Scottish independence goes, it’s not like there was much better to do.
I bought every issue for the first few weeks, so glad to have an indy paper. I haven’t bought it for years now. As disappointing as The Gruniad.
It is relentlessly ‘woke’ and, often, afraid of facts. Few written press outlets now have the balls to tell the truth when it happens to contradict the orthodoxy of any given day. Sad, but true.
The National is parodying Scottish independence. It reminds me of Brass Eye on Channel 4, apparently some people thought it was a real current affairs show.
And yet, and yet Reform has about 6000 of its 150000 members in Scotland. Not such a small beginning.
6,000 Reform members in Scotland means that Reform has almost as many members as Alba.
Plus, Scots actually vote for Reform, unlike 1% Alba and other fringe Indy parties.
Most of them are likely up in the e fishing stronghold North East of Scotland, taking votes from the Toerags
So, proportionately less than half what it should have?
Early days Rev.
But have you missed the heartwarming article about 5 grassroots Yessers? Surely you must be one of those 5?
I was so bored I actually did read it. The guy with the NET ZERO placard is definitely the saviour of the indy movement 😀
Oh my goodness. Mind you, Net zero describes the SNP performance since 2014.
The SNP is doomed to oblivion, one way or another. Independence will come, but it will come in the same ways in which almost every other independence movement has won its fight – when people have had enough and will not take any more. In Scotland’s case, that could be too late to save us from nuclear wipe-out, but, never mind, the men in frocks will be able to hide in the female loos till it’s all over bar the shadows on the walls. Won’t save them, but, hey, they’ll be incinerated as lay-dees. That thought should warm their cockles.
SNP doomed to oblivion.Couldn’t agree more Lorna.
But until they go they will be a distraction, an impediment to independence. That is their function.
And so they still get a bit of a vote only, and it is only because the alternative Labour and Tory are so awful – and because underlying is a national sentiment for independence.
A sentiment for independence but with no political movement and party to pursue independence is where we are.
And that is why the establishment had to destroy Alex Salmond in a coordinated strategy to enfeeble the drive to independence.
Willie;
“because the alternative Labour and Tory are so awful..”
and we must surely hope that Scots add ‘Reform’ to that list; a far-right disaster waiting to happen. There are obviously some terminally stupid Tory bumsniffers on here continually trying to big them up, but anyone in Scotland mad enough to vote for those chancers truly is a lemming. (And don’t the ‘UK’ mainstream media just love them.)
I don;t thing that Reform UK could be described as far-right.
Right of centre yes but I’m not seeing any jackboots, strange salutes or calls for genocide.
It’s a free country and citizens can vote for who they like.
Ad hominem attacks never a good idea…
Nothing ad hominem about it.
They’re bad news unless you’re some sort of Tory apologist. And historically Scots don’t approve of anything Tory/right wing.
link to statista.com
Historically Scots did approve (or at least they voted) for the Tories.
Wasn’t the same said if Boris Johnson was made PM?
The National is part of the Herald group. Its purpose was to sweep up the nationalist into one echo chamber away from soft no voters, to insulate the thinkers from any thoughts of iny.
Todays headline does not visit the point the Farage and his team would not think twice about puting the army on the street to stop indy.
Reading their headlines today
Putin apologises
Albe wants Musk factory
Yes surge if if if if
Five indy supporters
Patrick Harvie !!!!
Emma Roddick !!!!!
Go puck seaweed
Sno need to rewrite information laws – they dont comply anyway
I have now given up reading the National
I am torn about going back the the rump SNP to see if it can be taken back.
I know one person who has gone back. Locally we do have an honest SNP candidate with principles. BUT the Good Guys tried in 2021 to regain the party from the undemocratic dictatorship at the top. It wasn’t allowed to succeed then and I can’t see it succeeding soon enough.
However it can’t do any harm if decent people rejoined. You could argue for co-operating with other independence candidates.
‘However it can’t do any harm if decent people rejoined. You could argue for co-operating with other independence candidates’
That is effort that could have been better focussed on Alba or any other independence party not in the pocket of the Brutish State. Lets face it the SNP is now beyond redemption.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New one Stuart!
Multilevel Regression with Post-stratification (MRP) poll released today by More in Common predicts a hung parliament if an election was held today. Sample population 11,024, field work 31st October to 16th December.
UK wide percentages: Labour 24.9%, Con 26.4%, RefUK 20.7%, LibDem 13.9%, Green 7.8%, SNP 2.3%, others 3.8%.
Distribution of seats as follows: Labour 228, Con 222, RefUK 72, LibDem 58, Green 2, SNP 37, Plaid Cymru 4, independents 8.
Seats per 1% of vote: Labour 9.16, Con 8.41, LibDem 4.17, RefUK 3.48.
RefUK and the LibDems would be King makers, and they’re both committed to proportional representation.
The SNP are nowhere. 37 seats in the current circumstances is pish poor. They have zero mojo. Their polling in Scotland lags 20 percent behind support for independence. They ain’t winning, they’re just benefiting from fragmentation.
None of this shall come to pass. The unusually long period of field work invalidates the prediction (during this time there was a 5% swing from Labour to Con & RefUK).
The Permanent State has no interest in Proportional Representation and the volatility it brings. Either Labour or the Tories will run a minority administration with the other mysteriously abstaining on votes of no confidence and Budgets.
The numbers you give show how the SNP could achieve Indy.
It’s simple. A Tory/Reform coalition would have 294 seats. The SNP’s 37 seats (plus the Ulster Unionists) would put them in power.
The SNP would demand another referendum vote as the price for their support. The Tories would be so hungry for power they’d agree to it–as they did 10 years ago.
Yes, the SNP would have to vote for Conservative measures for 4 years. But if Indy is the object, for true Indy supporters they should be willing to do that.
The SNP could try the same with Labour. But since Labour has so many Scottish MPs, they have more to lose than the Conservatives and thus would be less likely to agree to this.
I don’t buy that. The SNP is the LGBT party of Scotland which also has an academic interest in independence. It would be impossible to persuade SNP MP’s/members that voting with a Badenoch-led Tory party is acceptable in exchange for a second referendum. It would be like asking them to shoot their first born. The party would split. Likewise, for the Tories, the risk of losing a referendum would be too high a price to pay. They’d rather be in opposition than risk breaking up the union.
Aiden, I agree that the SNP is for LGBT more than Indy. Which proves that the SNP really isn’t for Indy.
But I think you overate the Tory Party’s devotion to principle. My proposal appeals to the Tory MP’s self-interest–power–the same self-interest that guides almost all politicians, of every party, and which trumps other considerations.
As to principle, the Tory Party agreed to a referendum 10 years ago, so their “principles” appears to be flexible.
The other proposed paths to Indy work AGAINST the mainstream party’s self-interest. My proposal appeals to that self-interest.
The bigger problem would be Indy winning the referendum. I have thoughts on that, too.
The Tory party has an ability to morph itself into whatever creature is best placed to win an upcoming election, but I think this would be a step too far. Cameron agreed to a referendum in 2012 believing (wrongly, but sincerely), that it was extremely unlikely that Scotland would vote yes. I don’t think they could be that hubristic this time around. I think the vast majority view would be that elections can be won in the future, but the consequence of a referendum could be that the union is lost forever. I don’t believe that’s a red line they could cross, especially not for an arrangement with party which would be unhappy and unstable, to put it mildly.
The last big referendum doesn’t seem to have left us a result that will last “forever” so perhaps you are reading too much into the immutability of the decision.
TBQH, the downsides of Brexit should surely be acknowledged as an anchor on Indy enthusiasm. After all, it’s much harder to vote to sunder a second union when the disadvantages of sundering the first union are in everybody’s face.
But then, if we were to see rejoining the EU as a credible idea, pro-Indy supporters could float the same idea to wavering Scots: if it doesn’t work out, we could go back into the UK too.
Sure, it would all be eyewateringly expensive, disruptive, and cause an economic downturn that would blight the prospects of an entire generation, but when has that ever held back our politicians, eh? 🙂
I don’t think it’s put the decision to bed as an issue for the people of Scotland. It is strongly supported by a sizeable minority and overall appears to enjoy support hovering around the mid 40% in the polls. Although, I’m somewhat skeptical about the reliability of the polls, and I think the variation is more reflective of the methodology used than changes over time, I don’t buy that support for independence could swing by ten points in a random week when nobody is really campaigning for or against it.
Brexit could have provided a good excuse for a legitimate call for a 2nd referendum if one of two things had happened. Either that it was 15+ years after the first Indyref and therefore the passage of time plus major changes in the policy/governing arrangements meant it was democratically legitimate to open the question up a bit. The second is if as a result of Brexit a clear and sustained majority of people could be shown to be in favour of independence as a result. Because neither of those things happened, it’s been easy for the U.K. government to say no.
I do agree that Brexit has made independence a more difficult cause to argue, I think it’s a big cause of the SNP’s let’s say ‘reduced’ enthusiasm for it.
Bluntly, I think the only way for Scotland to achieve independence is for a majority of people over a sustained period of time to demonstrate they are in favour of it (through election results, polls, community action etc.). If the U.K. government saw that this majority was settled, and the strength of belief was such that it was going to become increasingly difficult for the U.K. to manage, I think the U.K. government could be brought to the table to negotiate a managed and amicable exit following a referendum. Any other route (and I think this includes Stu’s unfortunately) risks it going into the “nice ideal, but too difficult/expensive/risky/disruptive” camp. I also think morally and democratically it is the right route. Scotland should only become an independent country if a majority of people have thought about it carefully over a decent period of time and decided that it should.
Away and take a flying fuck to yourself “Aidan”.
If 7 years between referendums is good enough for Northern Ireland then it’s good enough for Scotland.
Never trust a Tory, of any hue……
Scotland is f*cked for the foreseeable future – Sturgeon the Judas and her party really done a number on the country – and as you rightly say – there’s no one (politician) who has what it takes to rid us of this ball and chain union.
The inception of the National was only ever about cashing in on the Indy £. Surprised it’s still.a thing to be honest.
Is it though? Who actually buys the thing either in print or through a subscription? Precious few I reckon. It’s a comic.
It’s a lot more insidious than that
Probably not for much longer. Subscriptions below 3,000 and tanking.
So the SNP “strategy” for Indy shall henceforth be do nothing in the vain hope that somebody else comes along, at some point the the dim and distant future, who is so utterly detestable that the electorate are scared into voting for Indy.
Brilliant!
Even then they would find a way to f*** up indy. Its what they do!
“the hope that somebody else comes along, who is so utterly detestable that the electorate are scared into voting for Indy”
We already had some of those in the form of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, for example. Yet, the useless Sturgeon managed to fk up those opportunities as well.
I have to be honest. I find it incredibly frustrating that, after 10 years of continuous betrayal, carrot dangling and wasting opportunities by the dozen and by design, some people still harbours hope for the revival of the SNP as a pro-independence party. And even worse, some people think that adding them to the “united front for indy” is going to do anything other than the SNP mandarins trying to gain absolute control over the project so they can fk it up too.
How much more does it take for people to realise the SNP ceased to be a party of independence when the political fraud Sturgeon took over, and that ever since it has been actively working to protect the union (and their own salaries)?
This is what has put me off Alba and Peter Bell’s party: their insistence in holding hands with a moribund SNP that has reneged of his raison d’etre. It is as unrealistic as claiming that we will only make progress if we convince the tories, reform or labour to join the “united” front for indy.We know that is never going to happen, so for as long as those parties keep asking for the intrusion of this devolutionist and pro-union SNP, they will not have my vote. I refuse to vote for the SNP and I do not care if there are no pro-independence parties in my constituency to vote for. I rather spoil my ballot one hundred times than continue to endorse a party that has consistently betrayed us for 10 years and continues to do so.
We do not need the SNP. What we need is the people who continue to waste their vote by casting it for the SNP. For as long as that vote remains trapped within this devolutionist and pro-union SNP, all that vote will serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever because the SNP “leadership” will continue to hinder any movement towards independence, and because they will continue to keep that vote on a leash so the independence movement goes nowhere.
Our focus should be in fully exposing the SNP and on attracting those voters to a real pro-independence party and to Salvo/Liberation.
Sturgeon killed the SNP. It is time to bury it for good because its dead carcass has been stinking the place for quite some time now.
I agree 100% with all Mia says in her post, I too joined Alba after 53yrs os supporting voting for SNP also a member for 12yrs, it only took one conference for me to see that although I have always had and always will have great admiration for Alex Salmond, his insistence that another referendum would be run on the same Franchise was enough for me to cancel my membership of ALBA. I still think he was the best politician Scotland has ever had.. But he too got things wrong..
I had been following & reposting a LOT of Peter A Bells New Scotland Party, simply because it claims not be be a Political Party.. And he did talk a lot of sense, But I stopped posting or retweeting his posts as I can’t understand his take on insisting we NEED the SNP to get us Indy..
The last thing this country needs is keeping the SNP in government..
Swinney himself is a self declared Devolutionist, as leader he was scheming to get Margo McDonald so low on the list vote that she had to lose her seat, why?
Because she and Grace elder were too INDY minded for HIS party.. Margo was warned of his plans and she left the SNP & stood as an Independent.. THAT for me, is what ANY true Independent minded person should be doing, standing on their own ticket, & if Scots had half a brain we would vote for the Independents and Not for a party..
Then put them altogether as one hopefully large group, take over HR & get us the hell out of this Colony we R forced to live in, aided and abetted by SNP..
UKIP did it overnight, Reform is doing it now.. So all it takes is for Scots to waken up, and get a glimpse of the future because it sure as hell has to be better than what we have now or had in the past..
I’m sorry the plain truth upsets you so much. Try a wee thought exercise. Set out a credible speculation on the parliamentary arithmetic after the 2026 election whereby the (nominally) pro-independence parties have a majority without the SNP.
Or try this. Imagine there is a Bill laid before the Scottish Parliament that effectively repeals the reservation of powers in regard of the constitution. Explain to us how you suppose this Bill could become an Act without the SNP votes.
Or perhaps you imagine the SNP is going to be wiped out in 2026. By which I mean, eliminated completely. No SNP MSPs at all. Is that what you imagine is going to happen? Because it’s not what the polls are suggesting. Last time I checked, the SNP was being predicted to be the largest party.
Doubtless, the SNP will be deservedly punished in the election. But even if that punishment reduces them to one MSP, that MSP’s vote will be vital.
Now, tell me how you think we don’t need the SNP. You don’t have to like a fact for it to be a fact.
They strike me that they’d vote against it for no other reason than someone took their toys from them & they weren’t in charge. Politicians seem to be childish at the moment.
The people who will be voting SNP will be unionists. I think we all witnessed that during Ash Denims leadership bid – unionists upset at the idea of a plebiscite – turned out they rather liked SNP policies safe in the knowledge they could still vote No to an indref. In other words NuSNP is NuLabour in Scotland & its not all Independence supporters.
What is your point? Your first paragraph is full of orphaned pronouns. I have no idea who “Ash Denim” is or what she was bidding to lead.
As far as I can discern, you totally miss the point. It wouldn’t matter if the comment about “people who will be voting SNP will be unionists” was not obvious drivel, the fact remains that people will be voting SNP. There will be SNP MSPs after the 2026 election. And the votes of those nominally pro-independence SNP MSP will be essential to any effort to progress Scotland’s cause.
The idea that the SNP is irrelevant is just plain idiotic. It’s the kind of idiocy that leads to the failure of political campaigns.
I listen to all the shit-brained so-called independence supporters saying the SNP is not an independence party and I wonder how people get so stupid without the aid of amateur brain surgery. If the SNP is not even a nominally pro-independence party then there cannot be even a nominally pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament after the 2006 election. These dullards are handing the Unionists a propaganda prize such as they could only dream of.
A nominally pro-independence majority is the best we can hope for, as things stand. Because there are only nominally pro-independence parties contesting the election. A nominally pro-independence parliamentary majority certainly won’t do much more for Scotland’s cause than keep it on life-support. But at least the cause won’t be stone dead and buried deep as it will be if the Scottish Parliament is not at least nominally pro-independence.
I just wish the people saying a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence would stop for a moment and – to whatever extent they are equipped – think! If a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence and if the vote for the SNP is anywhere near as big as polls predict, then the 2026 is going to be a massive vote against independence. Or to put it another way – as the Unionists surely shall – a massive vote for the Union!
It gets worse! The bollards doing the Unionists such a huge favour by saying a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence are, by and large, the same people who want to make the 2016 election a de facto referendum. They want to make the election a referendum on independence referendum that they also want to make unwinnable!
And they will complain about being called stupid!!!
Neither I nor New Scotland Party insist on “holding hands with a moribund SNP that has reneged of his raison d’etre”. What we do is recognise and acknowledge the reality that the SNP is not going to simply disappear from Scottish politics. Even if every word of the criticism and condemnation of the SNP is true – and I have contributed at least my fair share – the SNP is still going to have a presence in the Scottish Parliament after the 2026 election.
That SNP presence may be significantly reduced – for which the party leadership bears most of the blame, shared only by the party loyalists who have enabled these clowns. But it is extremely unlikely that the SNP will lose every single seat. Unlikely enough that we shouldn’t waste so much as a moment considering the scenario.
But this impossible scenario is precisely what is envisaged by those who insist we should shun the SNP like every plague rolled into one. They imagine some magical parliamentary arithmetic in which the other nominally pro-independence parties have a majority without the SNP!
The reality denied by those blinded by their hatred of the SNP is that the only way there can be a pro-independence parliament is if the SNP is included. The numbers are likely to be so tight that the SNP vote would be essential for any action on the constitutional issue even if they were reduced to a single MSP.
Stuart Campbell is far more adept at number-crunching than myself. I’m sure he would confirm what I’m saying. Which is not that we should “hold hands” with the SNP but that we should instead take the party by the throat. That we, the independence movement, should take all the nominally pro-independence parties by the electoral throat and threaten to strangle their election hopes if they do not include in their election manifestos a clear and cast-iron commitment to specified action on the constitutional issue.
It is not a matter of which party or parties the independence movement sends to Holyrood. What is important is the manifesto on which they are elected. New Scotland Party is running a petition to have all the nominally pro-independence parties adopt the Manifesto for Independence prior to the 2026 Scottish Parliament election campaign. That way, it doesn’t matter which of those parties you vote for, you are voting for the same commitment on the constitutional issue.
It’s called unity of purpose!
I urge all independence supporter to sign this petition. Only if we combine can we force the politicians to listen and act.
I had talked about how Trumps presidency is going to be the end of woke but while he is going to get rid of woke in academia, woke is still raging throughout our society and will take possibly a generation to get it under control.
The problem with woke is that it is based solely on postmoderism where everything has gone before needs to be destroyed and new one institutions put in place.
The problem is that woke is great at destroying old institutions but they have no ideas about what to put in place instead.
Radicals look to past figures for inspiration and ideas in the past that worked well and could be updated to work in the present.
Those obsessed with postmodernist woke can’t do this because everything in the past is either racist, homophobic, misogynist etc and they would have to do tremendous amounts of mental gymnastics to justify it and even at that, they are being hypocritical in their beliefs.
Because of this they don’t now how to create, only destroy with for example the constant hate we hear like labelling everyone who disagrees with them as extremists.
Herein lies the problem. This causes a vacuum and it makes the likes of Reform gaining the widespread support they are getting now. Reform doesn’t have the answers to their problems but at least they are trying to provide one, unlike all the other parties who are sticking their heads in the sand and pretending nothing is wrong.
There is plenty of things that the left can to provide an alternative but there is no genuine left wing party at the moment to provide this.
The question is what do people who don’t agree with what the likes of Reform stands for? Do they oppose them which is just playing into the hands of the establishment or simply don’t vote?
It’s a hard one. What is it they say, being between a rock and a hard place?
Trump won’t get rid of woke. Just as he won’t clear the swamp & neither will Farage. He’s already backtracking at pace regarding his anti warmongering stance by now championing invasion, imperialism & trade wars FFS lol
For any change to take place they’d need a 1st class ticket to Epstein Island & a word in the shell like of the WEF control freaks who frequent that establishment (if they’re not already).
It’s been a common theme throughout Europe too. Talk the biggest load of shit to win & then immediately do the exact opposite when they win regardless of public opinion. Even to the point of crashing their own economies & marching over a cliff.
Farage has zero hope of stopping immigration too. The Globalists don’t want nationalism, it gives ppl ideas & threatens their wealth, & the quickest way to get rid of it is to drown it out with immigrants who don’t give a shit either way…
On this point, I’ll give the Right the respect that you know that once elected, they are going to enrich themselves and their backers.
At least they are honest and upfront about it and when voting for them you are doing so in full knowledge of this and taking the chance that they will go ahead with some of the specific issues like electoral reform.
Contrast with the mainstream left who promise the world and once get elected says sorry when they can’t deliver on their electoral promises then implements their cappuccino communist agenda that nobody wants and was vaguely described towards the end of their manifesto.
“…Reform doesn’t have the answers to their problems but at least they are trying to provide one…”
You’ve nailed it on the head.
And the answer is? Private health care?
Make no mistake , that is all these ****s are interested in. Apart from making the poor poorer, obvs.
I wasn’t meaning this is as anything positive towards Reform.
I have tried to be positive about Trump’s victory and how at least, it could turn the tide in the war against Woke.
However I’ve come to the sad realisation that as Geri said, Trump has got the votes and is elected President. He’s already rowed back on some of his promises and most likely than not won’t be going to war with Woke in his own country.
Reform is trying to do the same. They are saying they want to turn the clock back to the way it was in the 50’s. That can’t be done and even Trump knows this as seen with his backtracking.
Once the likes of Farage gets a bit of responsibility of power, like Johnson, he will know of the difference between carping from the sidelines and actually having to implement his policies.
None of my business whether anybody votes for Reform or not because they won’t bring about any changes.
There is no direct evidence or statement from Reform UK explicitly mentioning a desire to “turn the clock back to the way it was in the 50’s.” Do you have a primary source for this statement?
I found a vaguely related discussion on Reddit, giving a critique of Republicans in the U.S. wanting to turn back the clock to the 1950s, and suggesting a broader conversation about political nostalgia for past decades, but this does not directly relate to Reform UK (and again no primary sources quoted).
The (rather biased) Washington Post discusses Republicans in the US wanting to return to the 1950s in terms of policy on various social issues, but again, this is not a direct reference to Reform UK’s policies or statements.
I agree that power may corrupt yada yada yada but methinks the PacMan dost protest too much 🙂
My point is that Reform UK are worth a punt. Everything we’ve had recently (in my adult lifetime) has been pretty dire.
Sturgeon boxed herself into this situation by demanding a second referendum only three years after the first one. It was an easy request for the U.K. government to refuse at the time with few negative political consequences, and it’s now become accepted as the state of affairs on both sides of the border. Every so often someone comes up with “aha I’ve come up with X clever argument/slogan as to why a S.30 order should be granted”, but nobody pays any attention.
I also don’t buy the argument that going for a plebiscite election followed by a UDI is in any way sensible. There simply aren’t enough people who are committed enough to independence to risk the potentially very serious and prolonged disruption a UDI could cause. Going down that route and then coming away with 30% would kill off the independence movement.
“I also don’t buy the argument that going for a plebiscite election followed by a UDI is in any way sensible. There simply aren’t enough people who are committed enough to independence to risk the potentially very serious and prolonged disruption a UDI could cause.”
But that’s not how it works. Every election is a normal election, but with a line in the manifesto that says “BTW, if 50%+1 vote for independence, we’re declaring it”.
?If you get over 50%, by definition you have support for it. If you don’t, you say “Well, it didn’t happen this time, now we’ll shut up about it until the next election”.
“BTW, if 50%+1 vote for independence, we’re declaring it”.
Then what ?
I understand the concept but I don’t think it’s practical. For one, the British state won’t recognise it as such so it’ll be a UDI, and by the state that also means the judiciary etc. not just the government in London.
Secondly, independence is such a consequential issue that it would always dwarf all others in every election campaign, so there wouldn’t really be a ‘normal’ election if this route were to be accepted widely in Scotland. Every election would be dominated by independence, and I think the international community would expect to see that the issue had been thoroughly and individually considered by the electorate, not wrapped up in a whole lot of other public policy issues in an election.
Finally, to my point above, I don’t think there is anything close to 50% support for a unilateral declaration. I think if that is what is offered support will be limited to the 30% or so of people who strongly believe in it and are prepared to take significant risks to achieve it. The currency issue, which caused so much damage last time, will pale in comparison compared to UDI issues like recognition of passports etc.
In other words, when you say to the most rabid “magic routes to Indy” supporter, “Put up or shut up”, they shut up pronto.
They then will spend the next ten years castigating others for not having the courage of their convictions, but that’s another story.
“…the British state won’t recognise it…”
So what? Did they ever recognise any of the previous declarations, anywhere?
I know that it’s your job to talk down any notion of Scottish independence, as per your remit, but
It’s the rest of the world that will recognise it. That’s all we need.
My “job” ??
In many cases the U.K. left its former colonies by agreement, particularly in the post-war period. In other cases (I.e. Ireland) it left after a war. Do you think we should start a war?
Re other countries recognising it, the UK’s democratic allies will definitely not recognise it. That’s the EU/USA/Japan etc. When the U.K. Government gets a judgement from the Supreme Court that the UDI is unlawful and as a result the Scottish civil service refuse to engage with it, and the Scottish Governments bank accounts are frozen, having a kindly worded statement from Iran and Russia welcoming Scotland into the international community won’t save it.
If you honestly think the likes of Spain/Italy/Portugal etc. are going to give an enormous boost to their own domestic independence movements (likely empowering them to copy) by immediately accepting a UDI in Scotland then you’re deluded. It’s not going to happen.
Who pays benefits in week 1 of UDI? Would DWP hand over the data to an “illegal” Scottish agency who wouldn’t have the capacity to process it anyway. Where would businesses pay VAT, PAYE and Corporation tax to?
UDI ? Scotland has not been in the TOU since the governing westminster parliament of England, Wales, France and Ireland dissolved the parliament of Scotland in 1707,
And that particular Scotland / England TOU ended in 1800/1801 respectively
The Westminster parliament still governs England and Wales separately whilst falsely claiming to be the governing Westminster body of Scotland.
-so the next election if you get 50.1% against independence then you have to revert?
2/3rds is the bare minimum and we shouldn’t be afraid of that. By the time we have a bunch of competent MPs and MSPs ready to form a government, we’ll get 2/3rds easy.
I have to say though, there is barely an independent-minded politician currently in either place that I would trust to run a whelk stall.
Why don’t we sort that out first.
Surely the safe-pair-of-hands guy could be ousted in a week if there was any competence left in the SNP. That would be a start, however Scottish politics is all about hate and envy. Until you get rid of the back-stabbers, you have no prospect of joined-up government.
Why would anyone vote for independence just now? Who are you giving the power to?
2/3rds – this old bollocks again?
Ok let’s vote on staying IN the ‘union’, 2/3rds required to stay. OK, petal?
I’ve given up now. Well past the 3 score and 10. I will never see Indy.
the Union flag is forced upon us by one group
the Palestine flag is forced upon us by another
the TransCult flag is forced upon us by yet another
the loony Green flag zealots demand I live and die within 30 miles of where I was born ( probably killed in a bike accident or freeze to death)
I have not changed since 2014 when I just wanted the People of Scotland to have the power to decide the future of Scotland.
Scotland is now like a Monty Python Sketch of causes you must support first before you can be deemed suitable to hold a Saltire.
The bottom line is all these sanctimonious bastards that demand “Their” vision of Scotland have done is divide and weaken us.
Westminster tested us with “Now is not the time” and they now know we will do nothing because we are too busy fighting each other.
Very well said.
So many leeching groups have grafted themselves onto the notable historical independence supporting vote only to then weasel their way into lobbying power campaigning for Scotland as a smaller entity than RUK to be an easier proposition to mould and create in their unpalatable and generally repugnant pet images and ideals.
Ex Labour types destroying the only real worthwhile cause.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the National is a Unionist rag. If the paper did support Independence, it’s for far down the list of things to do and yet the morons keep going out and buying it why? It’s simple they’re mentioning the word Independence and knocking every single person trying to achieve it and yet the people who buy it can’t see that the paper isn’t really bothered if Independence happens and would prefer if it didn’t, but the paper doesn’t have the unionist balls to admit it. I’ll give you an example of where the paper loyalty lies, it’s the something like this What do you want Independence when do you want it now, we all go home and nothing is else is done about achieving it. For me Independence should have happened years ago but that’s me, for the people who make a living out of Scottish Independence like MPs, MSPs certain bloggers and of course the journalist who write for the rag they wouldn’t dare say I’d rather Independence happened when I retire in 20, 30 years’ time so what else can they do other than keep idiots clinging to the Idea just over the rainbow England will somehow grand a section 30 order and say I wish the people of Scotland all the best and don’t worry about the 2.8trillion debt England couldn’t afford to pay back if we let Scotland go. The people who keep conning and scamming us on every election night on the idea after we’ve voted for these maggots again, they’ll restore our nationhood are nothing more than Traitors and REDCOATS and not to mention fools.
If I was to put a nail in my head every time, I heard the RAG saying vote for the SNP 1@2 for Independence I’d look like the monster in Hellraiser but I don’t, because I’m not fooled by the same conn ever election night or by the RAGS bull in order to sell another year’s subscription to the RAG, I mean if the paper wants you to buy another year’s subscription should tell you alone it’s not bothered about Independence anytime soon.
I’m going to tell you how Fucking stupid people are. I don’t know if anyone has been watching the news in Georgia they’ve been protesting in the streets and forming a chain that’s how you win Independence by being noticed by the foreign media and bring pressure to bear down on the UKG what does the SNP run councils do, puts the AUOB marches on the outskirts of the town where no one notices and here’s another one The Chain of Freedom it was formed along a canal for fuck sake a canal why not round the Scottish parliament no one ever goes or knows where a canal is apart from a passing tourist from England on a barge.
I’ve stopped listening to the bullshit it’s upsetting the wife me talking about it all the time. For fuck’s sake why don’t we mass protest outside Butes house and see if Swinney answers the door and watch what’s written in the RAG the next day, it’ll be something like Cybernats on the streets with menacing behavior towards the FM family outside his country residence north of England.
I truly have had enough of the false starts and the bull.
“Vile Cybernats”, mind…
The latest National editor Laura Webster killed it as a serious publication. Student politics written by student journalists with a QWERTY focus and ADHD off the spectrum columnist nutters writing “right-on Yoof culture deviant crap” thinking this is a serious way forward.
How utterly utterly naïve and a determined turn off to older independence supporters whose efforts are downplayed by woke priorities from cool Yoof who either have never yet voted or minced around Labour and new age deviant adoring QWERTY doctrine.
They only seek an independent Scotland if it’s created in their intolerant woke deviant image and need dumped- fast!
Absolutely right . The National is a unionist rag that supports the SNP because it it knows it is not interested in pursuing independence.
In preparation for 2026 the SNP will/are raising the spectre of Reform as a reason to vote SNP 1+2
After the last 9 or 10 years of an SNP government mismanagement and providing black comedy entertainment for most of us they have created the condition where a promise of a referendum is only accepted by the rump of sheeple that live in the fantasy land of SNP party membership.
At the moment Farage and English nationalists are indeed our best hope for independence. Has Farage said he’d close down Holyrood if given the chance? If not I hope he does.
Sadly, they’ll also close down the NHS.
Scottish politicians will never get us independence from a colonial administration run on the English Bill of Rights. Independence must come from us without political interference. Once we are near our goal opportunist politicians will jump on our bandwagon.
For me we can only do this with Salvo/Liberation.
Your commodity are accurate as always and quite entertaining in places. Thank you.
Can anyone prove that Salvo/Liberation has more that 100 members?
Ever heard of the Declaration of Arbroath?
Not only heard of it, but read it–many times.
But that 1320 document has nothing to do with 2024 Salvo/Liberation membership.
So I repeat–will anyone try to prove that Salvo/Liberation has more than 100 members? Or is it just another tiny online fringe thing?
Gloriana
By “tiny online fringe thing” I take it you are making direct comparison with the Conservative party membership in Scotland?
Just asking..
Not even a very good try at deflection.
The challenge is still there: can anyone prove that Salvo/Liberation is anything other than a tiny fringe group.
Can you prove that it is tiny?
Do you even know what it is? LOL! My guess is no.
It seems to annoy you so that’s a win for them…
Everything but an actual answer…..
Demands that fanatics provide facts, usually results in everything but an answer.
What’s it to you how many members they have?
Are you planning on joining?
Whatever number they said you’d not believe them anyway so why get yer knickers in a twist?
Stop twitching yer curtains & go find something worthwhile to do or go ask Farage for all the names & addresses of his membership for you to cross reference off yer wee nosy parker anorak list…
Salvo/Liberation isn’t a political party.
The British state security services have already been trying to destabilise their emails and set up a fake website – so Salvo must be doing something right, eh Tory Clansman?
What are you so afraid of? Go on, tell us.
They’re apparently going to registered at the UN in January, there’s a delegation heading over on a flying carpet in the new year.
On a side note, making clearly false claims to elicit donations to an organisation is fraud by false representation, contrary to S2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Gloriana
On the contrary, it’s a valid question.
As for deflection; I would suggest that rampant deflection- spiced with a dollop of agitation and smothered in “facts based on speculation” -are the sole purpose of your Westminster Uber Alles posts here.
The best commentators are those prepared to criticise and hold to account the party they actually voted for.
You on the other hand are the antithesis of this and rate about the same level of critical analysis as toilet cubicle door scribblings.
Why don’t you contact Salvo/ SLM and ask for an update on their signatories, it is a policy aimed on securing a certain number, somehow I can’t see them wielding the redaction pen like your lot.
As you know, I’ve challenged Liberation board member Al Baird a dozen times to release the figures, and like you and the SNP, he refuses to answer.
Do you like it when the SNP or Salvo/Liberation hides facts from the public? And if they won’t tell the truth about this, it’s reasonable to assume they’re not telling the truth about other things as well.
Why should he waste his time interacting with the likes of you?
Gloriana
No I don’t know.
Do your own homework you lazy so and so as opposed to spouting verbatim Fleet Street propaganda from the sidelines.
Write to them formally as opposed to sniping from your keyboard.
If they don’t answer then by all means you can get on yer soap box.
Otherwise you are just at it; agitating and spinning speculations masquerading as facts to create a “truth” of your and Fleet streets construction..
While you are at it, why not pursue your own party of choice over transparency, moral credibility and the mythical “positive case for the Union”?
And don’t hide behind “deflection” claims- the third rate excuse of the inexcusable trying to shut down analysis of their party and its doctrines failures.
Can you prove it’s called ‘Fifeshire’?
You should read it. It’s a racist, sectarian, gen0cidal rant.
(A bit like the Old Testament, but that’s for another day. By a curious coincidence, the DoA is also pro-Zonalist too, so if you enjoy reading the spittle flecked dumps of the antisemites on here, it’s amusing to consider their support for the DoA)
Bottom line – the Ancient Guff always needs to be approached with caution.
Salvo are a small bunch of moon howlers.
Says a Yoonhowler.
How so?
You’ve typed yer headline, but where’s the meat and veg to substantiate yer “claim”?
Serious question expecting a serious response..
I used to buy The National. Every day for years. I stopped as it was the same rubbish every day, but mostly because it was a cheerleader for the SNP. The columnists were so boring too. In fact I don’t think I managed to get through the first couple of paragraphs of a Pat Kane article on a Saturday.
WOW this blog is now becoming Wings over Scotlandshire , not only are the engerlish white flighters coming over the border in droves and buying up houses making homes unaffordable for our kids, they are now flooding wings with magnanimous helpful suggestions of how it would be so beneficial for independence support to vote for the various unionist greed driven tory parties , it is as if we are not already suffering the benificence of these assorted versions of corruption and vileness visited on us by our engerlish brethren, they actually want us to vote for these monsters ourselves
It must be some form of mental imbalance or sadism in these people that they can possibly think that the arsewipes they want us to vote for are actually any better than the arsewipes currently in power
It takes some mental gymnastics for them not to realise that they are as fucked as we are
“Which means we’ve just wasted 1000 words on talking about it. But then, as far as the pursuit of Scottish independence goes, it’s not like there was much better to do.”
Hmm, why were you supportive of Scotland returning to being a self-governing country in the first place?
If it was for the fundamental principle and was worth striving for then, then it’s still worth striving for now.
If your support was only for a particular type of Indy then just what were the basic headline principles you wanted for Scotland, because I’m fairly certain there is even more reason to be striving for that type of self-governing country now more than ever after the corruption we’ve seen rolled out over the past decade.
If you’re effectively done and have nothing left in the tank (which would be totally understandable after the shift you’ve put in), then why not just state that’s the case, and at least be neutral or supportive of other folk that are still trying to promote the cause, rather than endlessly stating there’s nothing going on.
You surely must comprehend that as a prominent and influential figure and site, continually stating that all is woe is not helpful as it saps motivation when folk read that, and is basically an utter kick in the teeth for the folk up here that continue to put in considerable effort to campaigning for the cause by putting their unpaid time into the likes of trying to sustain the funding and staffing of YES hubs, or who even make the significant choice to stand for election.
We will all have slightly differing views but the same overall goal, but jeezo, can we maybe try and create a bit of unity and support for one another instead of continuing with the ridiculously unhelpful divisive and negative antics.
It really doesn’t say much for Scotland’s supposedly finest political minds that they can’t come up with anything to counter the rise of Reform.
Be gentle, Dan. Stu has troubles – Dundee United just scored in the 94th minute and won.
BANNED
Oh you don’t mean it, Rev, do you? Living in W Ross I have to support the Staggies. That is worse. 🙂
On that note, Hearts appear to have morphed into Hibs…!
Oh ffs Dan, pay attention.
Lots of votes to be gained on the subject of beavers, Dan. Your efforts so far have been admirable, but maybe just a smidge off target.
Is it because you’ve successfully resisted linguistic and cultural colonisation? If so, we have here an example of why it’s necessary to know your enemy. Only then, can you communicate with them using the idioms and colloquialisms they can understand.
Sadly there are quite a few thick folk who still think sturgeon is wonderful
There’s even more that think Farages Tory party is the 2nd coming…
God help us…
Sturgeon the Judas. That evil Jezebel should be in prison. I’d rather Nigel Farage as Prime Minister. Than a roaming free Nicola Sturgeon in 2029.
Lock up Nicola. In Alex Salmond’s name. From a former SNP voter. And drain the loch!
Would I cry if Holyrood was shut down for good Naw I’d vote for it. The SNP turned the parliament into a joke along with every office it holds and the NEW Redtories have turned it into a branch office with Swinney as acting head of the county and loving it reporting to Ian Murray.
The place looks and feels like a prison, so shut it down and lets go back to the previous model of if we send more Scottish Nationalist MPs Westminster Scotland becomes Independence and Naw I don’t mean the SNP they’ve caused all the mess in the parliament under Sturgeon.
I used to live for Independence thanks to SNP and its useless membership of Union Jack waving chicken nugget morons I no longer believe that will happen in my lifetime. My only focus is 1 the SNP collapses as a political party for good and 2 GB News goes bust and the banks lose a packet.
How could we have went from 2014 to this, no clown could have done what Sturgeon’s done. I keep predicting that after 2026 Sturgeon will become FM again for god sake God take me before that happens it’ll be far to much for me to handle.
It is dismal, indeed, BUT there is a Holyrood election in 17 months. Many stout fighters are combining to organise a united independence grouping of candidates. If there is some success i.e. several real battlers with fire in their bellies get elected, they may even be like the Greens in being needed in government.
I too am getting up in years and am desperate for Scotland to escape the Union so I can’t give up.
Sarah, perhaps you can help us all on the “united for Independence” thing you advocate.
I’m trying to list all the Indy parties and movements mentioned in Wings Comments. The preliminary list of 22 is below. Did I leave anyone out?
SNP; Alba; ISP; Salvo; Liberation; Peter Bell Party; Mike Fenwick Petition; Alf Baird petition to the UN; Declaration of Edinburg; Stirling Directive; Scottish Citizens Convention; Business for Scotland; Believe in Scotland; Yours for Scotland; Barrhead Boy “summit;” Voices for Scotland; Scottish Independence Convention; Forward as One; Common Weal; STUC; Scottish Socialist Party; All Under One Banner.
There is no such thing as the “Peter Bell Party”, you ignorant oaf. You missed out New Scotland Party.
You fail miserably to make any kind of point. The point you should have made concerns the improbability of ‘uniting’ such a large at disparate collection. And that is a point that would be very well worth making. It’s just a shame you made such an arse of the job.
Unity in the sense of amalgamation is, for all practical purposes, an impossibility. It hasn’t happened despite endless pleas. It isn’t happening now. It is safe to assume that it isn’t going to happen. And even if something was cobbled together, I’d wager it would fall apart almost immediately. That kind of unity just requires to many people and groups to act in the interests of the combine rather than themselves. If you want that kind of unity, you will first have to alter human nature quite drastically.
But another form of unity is possible – unity of purpose. This is when all the different parties and groups keep their own identities and are left to pursue their own agendas, but all agree on one key point.
The Manifesto for Independence proposed by New Scotland Party is an attempt to identify a process by which Scotland’s independence can be restored. No other such proposal exists. None of the nominally pro-independence parties has a plan for restoring independence. What Stuart Campbell says of the SNP is true of all the nominally pro-independence parties.
There is an election coming. We have leverage. The independence movement must use this opportunity. We cannot be certain there will be others. To use the leverage effective, we must combine. And demonstrate that we speak as one on this matter even if on no others. What is needed is a facility by which to join our voices together. For this purpose, New Scotland Party has set up a petition in support of the Manifesto for Independence. Sign to combine!
Just ignore him.He’s a blow-in & only here to annoy ppl..
I get that impression.
But what do you think will happen if “Scotland escapes the Union” , sarah ?
I’m interested in your predictions for the state of the economy, standard of living,etc, but also the improvements in everyday life for ordinary Scots……..
Basically, what is the point of Independence ?
Our own fiscal decisions on what we spend our OWN money on, control over our own resources & a say on international matters.
What type of loon thinks another country should do it for us? Independence is normal. It’s abnormal to give a hostile nation full control over your own money & resources.
What is the point of dependence? Let’s face it, they despise Scots. They hardly make a secret of it in media & in parliament.
Hmm !
I was hoping for a sensible reply !
What’s wrong with the one I gave you?
Why do you never stop posting about the superiority of poot and the RF and BRICS, etc, yet when asked a direct question about iScotland, fail to list any of your heart’s true desires?
FFS, Geri, haven’t you sussed it yet? The people reading here BTL aren’t the neep-heids you seem to believe we are.
I gave a perfectly valid response. It’s not my fault nawbags didn’t like it.
& As for BRICS their record speaks for itself.
Independence to trade with whom they wish.Independent foreign policy.Cooperation & investment.Respect for international law & a people’s right to self determination.Forward planning & initiatives to secure a nations future security & self sufficiency.Unlike the Wests perpetual state of paranoia & control freakery of invasion, overthrowing governments, terrorism & blowing shit up & leaving nothing but chaos & rubble in its wake..
Colonialism is over, sunshine. The global majority have had enough shit & illegal sanctions. They outperform & outsmart the dud G7 across all measures. Economy, purchasing power, technology, medical advances, self sufficiency & lifting the average Joe out of poverty & dependency.
Again, unlike the perpetual state of the Wests living in a shite hole with zero prospects, zero standard of living, zero pay & their endless need for wars to protect only the wealthy few..
The future looks bright for an independent Scotland – not only being recognised under the true definition of the UN charter & international law (& not the made up pish of colonisers) but for cooperation & oodles of investment too on becoming self sufficient & secure.
Africa is getting it’s shit together & booting out the colonisers that deliberately make them backwards & poorer while they robbed them blind & had the audacity to class them 3rd world & Scotland will be right along with them in stopping the theft & plunder of Scotland by fuckwits that don’t even live here…
Suck it up, sunshine. Tick tock..BRICS is the future & more joining every day..
“Africa is getting it’s shit together
BRICS is the future & more joining every day”
I’d ask the three that drowned in The Channel yesterday about that, but they’re deid.
Good clock noises BTW. Are you available for stags and hens? That would be kind of apt, don’t you think?
The basic point of independence is to end the unlawful, unconstitutional, undemocratic and predatory governance of Scotland by England’s MPs. Their theft of Scotland’s sovereignty, and the many grievous harms done to Scotland and her people as a result, are crimes that will earn the Union its well-deserved and long overdue death penalty!
As for how an independent Scotland will look once its had time to heal, that can only be speculation, albeit fairly well-informed, but given its well-known and diverse natural wealth, there is no particular reason to suppose that Scotland will find itself in a worse state than it is in now, and there is every reason to think it will be in a far better state than most.
At least it won’t have its huge neighbour fervently impoverishing it every minute of every day.
Asking for specific details of a future that may be years away is stupid and dishonest.
Excellent reply, Xaracen..
As for..
“Asking for specific details of a future that may be years away is stupid and dishonest.”
It’s also against international law as clearly set out in the recent ICJ case regarding the State of Palestine. It’s none of their business to demand how a State will support itself post independence & it’s illegal to set conditions on it too.
It is not “stupid or dishonest” to enquire (a) what political parties propose (b) why they are proposing it and (c)and how they intend to achieve it !
This is known as democracy !
No, it’s known as stupidity.
You completely miss the point & the question on the ballot which is “should Scotland be an Independent country?” Yes/No.
It’s not shite like “When will my bins be emptied & will we still get BBC Englandshire for Dr fckwits Who? FFS
How can you predict any of the following:
1.What political parties will be established post independence?
2.What will be the seating arrangements in its reconvened parliament?
3.What their manifestos will say?
4.What political party will the sovereign Scots vote into power?
5.What the constitution of the new parliament will be like?
6. Who will replace Yoon political parties?
7. What our new arrangements will be over our own resources.
8. What Scots want as a head of state.
9. If Scots have continued referendums on important issues.
How we achieve it? 50%+1 majority voted through the ballot box.
Why are we proposing it?
Cause the Union serves absolutely ZERO purpose to Scots & has been plundered & mismanaged for centuries. It’ll never change. Even when given its final chance in 2014 it fckd up from day one.
It is stupid and dishonest if you only ever ask those questions of one party, and demand that it answers in unrealistic detail in a never-ending avalanche of whabouteries.
The bulk of voters will not be looking for such details, they will be happy if they are assured that the fundamental capacities on which Scotland’s future will rely are solidly founded.
So the answer I gave earlier, with one addition in (), still stands;
“Given its well-known and diverse natural wealth, (and its well-attested human skill-sets and ingenuity), there is no particular reason to suppose that Scotland will find itself in a worse state than it is in now, and there is every reason to think it will be in a far better state than most.
At least it won’t have its huge neighbour fervently impoverishing it every minute of every day.”
So let me ask you a question. What on earth makes you think that Scotland cannot thrive as an independent country?
And, wherever did you get such a cockamamie idea in the first place?
“At least it won’t have its huge neighbour fervently impoverishing it every minute of every day”
Ah well, Xaracen, the sovereign people of Ukr thought like that too at one time.
And here we see a problem at the heart of certain Indy support cadres, ever vocal on Wings BTL.
They’re not at all pissed at a former colonial, imperialist power deciding it wants its colony back. To the contrary in fact, they’ve been cheering on the former colony’s destruction and re-assimilation into the enlarged empire for coming up 3 years now.
And if that is not an absolutely non-negotiable red line for them, what hope that they will grow a backbone if puir wee Independent Scotland ever finds herself in the same dire straits?
“there is no particular reason to suppose that Scotland will find itself in a worse state than it is in now”
As I wrote above, there’s the example of Ukr.
And then there’s the example of Brexit, an earlier severing of a union that plenty of Wingers never cease greetin and gurnin about.
Should I raise the spectre of Scotland’s national finances being in the hands of the kind of Scots who are unable to organise a system for getting money back on jam jars?
The point at which we had to abandon “just have faith” and start demanding good answers to hard questions is long past, Xaracen. Sorry.
U started it with USA backing.
U & USA was fckn about with biolabs.
U has sold their country to the USA & BlackRock already – didn’t you know?
U turned off it’s own energy.
U ppl didn’t even want NATO.
U ppl didn’t want a conflict either.
Us UNELECTED dictator was offered a peace treaty, all territory intact, but the colonisers rejected it.
You’ll be delighted tho that the EU/NATO is about to implode & be destroyed with this U nonsense by coming to the aid of a non EU/NATO member state above the direct wishes of official EU/NATO member states & their populations. Latest being Poland over Slovakia in a long list of fuckwittery they’ve hitched their horses to..
You’re flogging a straw man, Hatey. As I’m sure you know, that’s a well-known type of fallacious argument, and it’s a sure sign of rank dishonesty and an utter lack of good arguments.
I rest my case.
If you say so, Xaracen.
If I’m displaying an “utter lack of good arguments”, it should be child’s play for you to refute the arguments I make.
Such as the example of the jam jar deposit scheme.
Such as the example of Brexit.
Such as the example of former colonialist occupier, R, taking back its former colony, Ukr, with extreme prejudice.
But you know best.
They’re just getting their quota in afore their New Year leave.
Wow….twathater has it right, it’s teeming with them; they are all coming out, blinking in the daylight, from under their collective stones.
Welcome to Wings Over Scotlandshire.
It’ll be double time minimum wage & a free Jaffa cake at the wateringhole.
The unreconstructed Marxists on Scottish Prism are not interested in the state of the economy/standard of living etc, in an independent Scotland. Their wet dream is a bankrupt, third world, socialist republic ……..as long as it’s independent.
Wasn’t that Brexshit?
Throbber.
lol. Don’t give up your day job. Beyond comical.
Have you ever watched Through a Acottish Prism……no, I thought not.
Holyrood has been gutted & hollowed from the inside out – just as it was predicted, repeatedly during indyref, by Dr Philippa Whitford.
She repeatedly said they wouldn’t be as stupid to close it completely – they’d dismantle it from the inside & make it a glorified parish council left talking mundane crap & that’s exactly what happened under Sturgeons watch. She stood aside & let Mayhem & BoJo strip it of over 80 powers & brought in the single market nonsense, Freeport’s & the great energy giveaway.
“just as it was predicted, repeatedly during indyref, by Dr Philippa Whitford”
Unfortunately, neither Dr Philippa Whitford nor any of the other MPs allegedly representing Scotland did anything during all those years they were sitting on the green seats to stop it. In fact, simply by sitting in those seats they were legitimising the sustained attack by England MPs on Holyrood.
They did nothing to ensure Scotland had another referendum either. They all knew Sturgeon was just stalling for time, but they did absolutely nothing to stop her or to protect the party’s raison d’etre.
The SNP held the majority of Scotland’s seats since 2015 until 2024, so they could have temporarily reconvened Scotland’s parliament and agreed to transfer Scotland’s powers from Westminster to Holyrood, so the referendum could have taken place. But they chose not to. They chose to abuse our anti-union votes to preserve the union and to endorse the savaging of Holyrood instead.
None of the SNP MPs lifted a finger to confront the political fraud Sturgeon and to stop her continue betraying the people of Scotland that voted SNP to deliver independence.
Every single one of the SNP MPs, with the exception of Neil Hanvey, Kenny Macaskill and Margaret Ferrier chose to look the other way and roll over so the political fraud could walk all over them, and over us, and continue to bludgeon the party destroying it as a vehicle for independence.
None of them, other than those three, had the balls to exit the party and fight for Scotland. Mr Angus Brendan McNeil left it, in my opinion, to the very last minute, and far too late to be credible. It had already been obvious for several years before that, that, under Sturgeon, our majorities of anti-union MPs had been completely defanged, had been rendered by her completely useless and their presence in Westminster was pointless.
I agree. Sturgeon was just stalling for time & feathering her own corrupted nest. Joanna Cherry did try to make a move (for leadership) but was quickly blocked by rule change that she’d have to relinquish her Westminster seat first. Obviously not a risk she was willing to take & I find her the most disappointing tbh – she’s a lawyer on our supposed team at Westminster but did fck all but become embroiled in side issues, Qwerty++ ,Brexshit & prorogation of parliament instead of furthering the cause she was elected to do & using her legal skills & obvious connections to better use..
The more I’m following geopolitical news these days the more I see it happening everywhere of CIA /MI6 involvement in every single parliament throughout the EU, across all EU member states parliaments as well as South America. The empire is still alive & well – they introduce endless NGOs, fake activists, spin off groups, charity groups, spin off groups (how many QWERTY++ groups are there now?);flood in donations & appoint ppl with very little background history into positions of authority & it’s this gargle of feckwits that get to sit on NECs, dictate conference agendas, advise policy, vote to select or deselect candidates etc to completely change a party from within.
I remember Craig Murray say in an article waaay back in 2017 that Sturgeon & the SNP had surrounded themselves with ppl in suits which just so happened to coincide with her turning “independence” into a dirty word that hadn’t to be spoken about in polite company & certainly not at conferences. McKenna also commented SNP conference was run by unknown groupies hiding in the wings shitting themselves someone would mention independence & have to be marched off stage early…
Sturgeon would have been ripe for the picking. A narcissistic control freak who’d have folded at the first sign of someone telling her how brilliant she was. Eager to please her handlers. In with the IT crowd. She was half way up Leslie Evans arse looking for an award, any award would do, the cheaper the better while she squandered three majorities & a triple in 2015/16 – the biggest award she’ll ever get.
Anyway, I’ve come to the realisation that it isn’t the actual MPs who rule the roost, it’s the legion of unelected fckwits that surrounds them. Unaccountable, unelected & foreign agents.
It’s happening all over. The West is completely corrupt. UK government is bought & paid for by Zzzs too. One wrong move & it’s anti-Semitism or a sex scandal for them.
USA congress is exactly the same as the EU. They’ve forgotten what country they’re supposed to represent. Their own or Yahoos. They even parade about their lobbies in full foreign military uniform & pick off senators who don’t toe their doctrine & cut their funding.
Romania & Georgia elections too. Trying to overthrown, yet again, a democratically elected party because they didn’t like the results.
No arguments from me.
Philippa foresaw it well. Where is she now? Those you are referring to as ‘they’ have simply been fulfilling the vow. That is to say, fulfilling the vow’s purpose. Which was to give more powers to Westminster.
When the vow said to ‘Holyrood’ it was a misprint. Why weren’t we aware of that? Murray Foote surely was, as editor. We should have guessed. One of these wee unfortunate mistakes the Record and similar publications sometimes make.
Maybe Murray will lay the blame on his copy editors. They’re probably all AI anyway (so that they can’t be held to account for all these misprints). And they keep missing out the ‘not’ in so many sentences. Thereby making sure that whoever vows anything always ends up vowing the opposite of what the readers think he was vowing. Purely by mistake, of course.
That’s how you get a good job in the SNP?
As for ‘Insider’, what’s he inside? Or, perhaps more horrible to contemplate, what’s inside him?
It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if that paper is funded by external & internal agents to be a perpetual embarrassment to the YES movement & obviously to keep other independent voices out of the spotlight by having yoons write shite for it instead.
Scotland would vote indy no matter what twat England had as PM. They’ve all been useless & no friend of Scotland in over 300 yrs..
Scotland needs to take her independence. These mugs won’t offer it under any circumstances & neither will the UKs handlers.
Does anyone else have a terrible sense of foreboding?
I’ve managed to get masel a fiveboding, Mac.
But I’m no saying where. If you want one, put in the graft.
Five knuckle shuffle? Daily Heil front page?
\Whoar what a stunna!
Good one James. I was wondering when you would get back onto your specialist subjects – onanism and the male reproductive organ.
Let me guess – the rellies were visiting over Christmas – and you could never find a minute to yourself 🙂
So if you were in charge of the SNP how would you get independence?
The Rev’s answer was given to Aidan above. Every election manifesto by SNP should include a line saying “if we get 50% + 1 we will declare independence”.
Which elections qualify, sarah ?
Local ?
Holyrood ?
General Election ?
Local election wins across the board would consolidate the country at the local level. Holyrood win would show we mean business and could be used to declare UDI and refusing to co-operate with Westminster unless it is willing to enter into independence negotiations to divvi up the spoils.
Westminster win would just send a new batch of collaborators south. Ergo, we need to win hugely in both local and Holyrood elections. They made Holyrood the devolved powerhouse against the Treaty Articles, so tougheroonie. We must, in any case, win in Scotland itself.
If a united front, with or without the SNP, is formed, and if every Scottish seat is contested by a member of that united front, it will no longer matter about the SNP. Anyone who still votes for them if they refuse to join a united front is voting for the status quo, i.e. Unionism and devolution.
That needs to be spelled out to every SNP member, councillor, MP and MSP candidate – you will be treated as belonging to just another party of devolution within the pre existing Union. They will no longer be considered part of the independence unity. From there, I would expect things to move rapidly.
Lorna, I’m sorry, but the chances of a “united front” ever coming into existence, far less winning “hugely” in local elections and Holyrood are about the same as seeing Elvis walking down Auchtermuchty High Street tomorrow !
Why? We had it before. SNP also had a triple mandate before.
What exactly do you think the SNP are made up of? Various ppl from all political backgrounds surged it’s membership after indyref & abandoned Labour & Lie Dumbs. Even a few ex Tories too.
Oh, ye of little faith. It will come. Maybe not in 2025, but it will come when people have finally had enough. Nothing will come via the SNP. They will just try their old SNP 1 & 2 again. They are the equivalent of Redmond’s party in Ireland pre independence. Once it was removed, things started happening very swiftly.
I can see this makes some sense, but it takes two to agree so you need to be prepared for long haul of disruption with WM and likely so semi violent conflict.
It won’t be easy.
Nothing worth having is easy. It will take guts, and they are sadly lacking in Scotland, and non existent in the SNP. Winning a plebiscitary election and declaring UDI then and there, followed by resiling the Treaty in international law on the grounds of breaching. They might send in the troops, but I have my doubts.
ALL.
It’s a manifesto. It stands to reason it’d be applicable to all.
Westminster cannot deny a national vote. Unless it wants to look an even bigger arse than it does already. Democracy deniers isn’t a good look – especially when they’re never off the pulpit preaching *democracy & western vales* to anyone who’ll listen…
Do you think if Farage doesn’t win over 70% of the vote he should just be ignored?
What consequences have the Spanish government suffered from using the police to shut down a peaceful referendum and imprisoning the organisers for decades? Given the round silence on that subject, the idea that a plea to have a local council election treated as a de facto referendum is going anywhere is absurd. Nobody will take any notice, the U.K. will suffer no reputational damage.
Oh jeez, not this irrelevant shit again.
Spain has a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. No region can secede from Spain. That’s an internal matter between Spain & Catalonia to sort out legally under international law.
The UK has no written constitution. The Union between Scotland & England is by consent of the Scottish ppl & voluntary. When Scots vote to end the Union it’s over. Finito. Done. Finished.
This has been explained a thousand times already. The UK is not Spain.
& just to be clear, a political party would have the same manifesto for ALL elections.
Therefore, when Westminster election rolls around, a triple mandate would be in place.
The situation is exactly identical to Spain, Scotland also cannot secede legally from the Union without an act of Parliament providing for it. The UK’s constitution might not be written in a single document, but it nevertheless exists and provides for exactly the same thing. Somewhat revealing that you describe Catalonian succession as an “internal matter” in which is exactly the phrase that would be used to describe a Scottish UDI.
Nonsense.
The UK’s so-called constitution says no such thing. The Treaty of Union asserts the permanence of the new Union, but that is not an absolute unbreakable commandment. It is only an aspiration, a declaration of intent by its two-crowned monarch, but it is fundamentally conditional on the terms of the Treaty being upheld. It is abundantly clear that breaches have been made, and all of them were carried out by England.
Whether or not Spain is a single unitary state which includes Catalan, the UK state is nowhere near as unitary as Westminster’s establishment likes to assert. It only looks like that from outside the UK, but internally, the UK is unremittingly binary in all sorts of ways. That the WM establishment has to resort to all kinds of pseudo-legal shenanigans to maintain the illusion of the UK’s internal unity tells you everything you need to know about its provenance, ie, it doesn’t have any!
The UK is a binary state whose governance is shared between two MP bodies which represent the two sovereign kingdoms that founded it and its parliament. Neither of those sovereignties gave up their sovereignty nor did either of them agree to be governed by the other. England’s sole justification for England’s MPs overruling Scotland’s MPs on any matter of that shared governance is the fact of England’s MPs vastly outnumbering Scotland’s MPs.
But that only works because of the use of a flat voting system that utterly ignores the two sovereignties the two MP bodies represent.
Neither of these sovereignties is entitled to overrule the other since there is nothing in the Treaty or Acts of Union that obliges it, nor is there anything that obliges the use of the flat voting system that vastly leverages England’s MPs’ greater numbers over Scotland’s.
You want to claim otherwise, then pony up the texts, formally agreed by both Treaty principals, in those founding documents that spell out that arrangement.
When Scotland regains its independence, it will NOT be seceding from the Union, it will be ending the Union. The UK is not Scotland’s mother country in any sense at all, since Scotland is one of the Union’s two sovereign parents, so secession is not remotely relevant.
Xaracen,
I note there is no pre- agreement or article in the treaty of union agreeing to Westminster parliament of England to become the seat of the Westminster parliament power of Great Britain or that the Westminster parliament of Wales , France and Ireland had the legal status to allow the monarchy of England from 1689 to proclaim the dissolution of the Scottish parliament from the parliamentary 1707 treaty of union with the English Westminster parliament of England and Wales.
The original Union referred only to Scotland and England, James. It is the original Treaty and Union that survives. Wales was an adjunct of England and NI became a British part of Ireland Proper, which resiled the Treaty between the UK and Ireland.
Lorna Campbell.
The contectual original union referred to only Scotland and England, the original Treaty of Union survives,
Does it survive?
It specifically states that the two parliaments would be joined as one parliament,
However the Scottish parliament was dissolved as early as 1707, leaving only the old Westminster parliament of England.now in accession
A dissolved parliament of Scotland cannot under any circumstances, terminology or phrase be joined to the Westminster parliament of England since 1707.
The reality of history to What happened was Englands parliament and Englands monarch presumed by dissolving the Scottish parliament after the treaty was signed they would subsume Scotland into their kingdom of England, however once the Scottish parliament was deleted through dissolution from the actual parliamentary union. And the pre-agreed treaty terms, The now extinct parliament members of the Scottish parliament entered the Westminster parliament of England as members of the one unitary parliament of England
A dissolved Scottish parliament and a active England parliament cannot Actually join together, it breeches the terms and conditions of the actual treaty of union,
And? Of course it bloody survives, James. The Union survives. No domestic legislation can overturn primary legislation (Treaty) and international law in this sphere supersedes domestic law. The Supreme Court got it wrong because it believed or pretended to believe the guff that comes out of Westminster and Whitehall.
If the Treaty is dead, so is the Union or it cannot stand on no sovereignty. What happened when the UK parliament set up in Westminster and Whitehall was that BOTH the Scottish and the English parliaments ceased to exist, but nowhere will you find anything at all that relates to the English parliament remaining and becoming England as the UK.
Therein lies the constitutional position. England as the UK has consistently overridden the Treaty Articles in its own favour – that is, England’s favour – and breached almost every one to the detriment of Scotland. Scotland was not swallowed up or subsumed whatever Crawford and Boyle tried to say in 2013. You have to read and understand the constitutional implications of the Treaty, all the workings around it and every speech made by Queen Anne at the time to understand how we have been conned.
Blimey Lorna !
“The Supreme Court got it wrong “
Have you told them yet ?
A UN constitutional lawyer did. So yes.
It was completely irrelevant & illegal to cite other countries constitutional arrangements & try squeeze them in to somehow being relevant to England & Scotland FFS. Who did they think would swallow that rubbish?
We’ve no fcking relation to Spain, Catalonia, Quebec or any other pish they tried to squeeze in as reference. What happens in other countries has no relation to our arrangement & the claim of right.
The Supreme Court aren’t Gods. So don’t be shocked. They’re ENGLISH lawyers appointed by the ENGLISH government. Of course they’d be biased & find in favour of their paymasters.
An external independent court would rule differently when presented with all the facts that actually relate to the treaty between Scotland & England & all the preconditions set out in the Claim of right – and not some made up shite involving something that happened in Timbuktu in nineteen canteen..
Lorna also believes Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia got it wrong about Scotland being a “country.”
Lorna is as nutty as “Geri” and “Mia”–assuming they aren’t the same person posting under three different names.
Brittanica? Who? That dinosaur still around? The one that doesn’t even grant Wales a detailed entry?
Wikipedia – written & edited by a handful of geeks & funded by the USA. Another discredited source.
Scotland is a country, ya muppet. and you wonder why yer Union isn’t selling up here? I dare you to tell the English there’s no such country as England. It’d be good sport seeing how long you’d survive…
Of course they got it wrong! They completely ignored the formal significance of Scotland’s sovereignty and of Scotland’s Treaty-guaranteed constitution. They could hardly have got it more wrong!
She is right though.
Uncomfortable?
Perhaps Blair’s creation; the “Supreme Court” requires your attention regarding the Act of Union terms..
Or, are you just satisfied with the NuLabour status quo just making it up as it goes along and claiming fabricated “legitimacy” (sic) as it’s mandate?
Would you hold such views if you were being so screwed over in a car sale transaction?
I doubt it.
James! For the umpteenth time, the English parliament did not dissolve Scotland’s parliament, it was Queen Anne who did that in her capacity as Queen of Scots, and she did so by proclamation as was her right as Scotland’s monarch. Only she had the authority to do that; England’s parliament most certainly did not, and she could do so any time she wanted because it was her parliament, and not the Scots’ parliament. Scotland’s people were represented by a different body, the Convention of the Estates, and that body had teeth, as several Scottish monarchs found out.
On top of that, it had already been formally agreed that 45 of Scotland’s MPs from Scotland’s old parliament would transfer to the new Union parliament, and that is what they did when the new Union parliament sat as such for the first time.
It was the merging of both English and Scottish MPs together within the same parliamentary debating chamber that formally effected the union of the two parliaments. That is what was agreed under the Treaty. Those Scots MPs didn’t sit at Westminster until it had renamed itself the ‘Parliament of Great Britain’, and actually sat as such on October 23rd 1707. That renaming acknowledged the WM parliament as having formally given up its old role, and adopted its new role as the new Union’s parliament. I have no issues with that, and neither should you.
Where I do take great issue is the unwarranted presumption by England’s establishment that Scotland’s MPs in the GB parliament could be completely ignored in all matters of governance of the new state of Great Britain despite them being the sole formal representatives of the entire Scottish sovereign half of that state. That has been an ongoing constitutional crime for more than three hundred years, and it is still ongoing!
Treaties can be resiled. The mechanism exists in international law to do so. Most treaties are resiled because they breach their own Articles. By the way, ‘Articles’ always refer to international treaties.
Lorna Campbell.
Englands parliament and monarch of England withdrew from the parliamentary union agreement by dissolving Scotlands parliament and Scotlands agreed terms to the union of a joint parliamentary union by dissolving the Scottish parliament,
That is Englands UDI from Scotland and its parliament,
No article in the TOU or pre- agreement and terms states that the parliament of Scotland should be dissolved by the Westminster parliament and the monarch of England and not therefore joined in a union with the parliament of England after the treaty was signed.
Dissolution of only Scotlands parliament is not one of the articles of the supposed treaty of political parliamentary treaty of union,
Subsumed, colonised,
No it is a breech of the terms and conditions of the treaty of union itself. That only the Westminster parliament of England has succession to the treaty of union and still remains the only separate government of England and Wales to this day,
So there is a dispute to carried forward on the behalf of Scotland that the parliament of Scotland was dissolved from a parliamentary union with the parliament of England and the treaty of union has not survived since 1707, when England declared itself the sole parliament successor and coloniser of the treaty of union
Queen Anne could not dissolve the Scottish parliament. She did not have the requisite powers s a constitutional monarch. The Scottish MPs dissolved the parliament at the behest of the Commissioners acting on behalf of Queen Anne, in her capacity as monarch of SCOTLAND, separately from her role as monarch of England.
If we are to get anywhere, we really do need to get our heads round the constitutional situation as it is in REALITY, not what so many appear to think it means because they have been told so, so often. There never was a joining of the Crowns. They remain separate today, although they are referred to as the ‘British Crown’. No such thing exists in reality, and it is actually unconstitutional for Charles to have been crowned only in Westminster and not in Scotland.
Don’t kid yourself: both the monarchy and the English lairdies and commons (and most of our own fearties) know this very well. What was joined were two independent states which became one state enveloping two nations and two peoples, with two crowns as nominal heads of state in one person.
“The situation is exactly identical to Spain, Scotland also cannot secede legally from the Union without an act of Parliament providing for it”
No, it isn’t at all. You have made that up. The situation in Scotland has nothing to do with the situation in Spain at all. Spain is a unitary country formed by regions. Great Britain is a political union that sits on an international treaty between its two constituent states: the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.
Great Britain is the fundamental part of the so called ” (UK of Great Britain) + NI”. If you remove “Great Britain” out of the above equation, what you have left is the Kingdom of England + NI. NI is effectively part of the Kingdom of England already. They can call themselves in the way they want, of course.
None of the regions of Spain is bound to each other by any treaty. None of them put their status of state voluntary on hold, like Scotland did in 1707. They were all conquered militarily.
If any of the regions of Spain wanted independence, they would not be revoking any treaty and restoring a former state. They would have to formally secede from a country and create a de nuovo state.
Scotland does need to “secede” from anywhere. It simply needs to revoke the treaty of union with England and restore its status as an independent state, which was simply put on hold in 1707. The geographical boundaries of Scotland and England have not changed since 1707.
What you are right about though is that the ending of Great Britain as a political union has to be ratified by parliament. But what I disagree with you on is regarding what parliament has to do so.
Westminster is a byproduct of the treaty of union, in other words, subordinated to it. For this reason, unless it is specifically empowered by BOTH Scotland and England in the form of their MPs to act on Scotland and England’s behalf, it cannot, on its own accord, revoke that treaty on behalf of Great Britain.
The parliaments that have full power to unilaterally revoke that treaty are the parliaments of Scotland and England. Holyrood can act as Scotland’s parliament, but but only after it has ditched the Scotland Act and has overruled Scotland’s MPs. England could use Westminster as parliament of England to unilaterally revoke the treaty on behalf of ENGLAND, but not as “the UK parliament”. NI has no and should have no say in the revocation of this treaty, and this is another reason why the UK parliament cannot and should not revoke this treaty.
This takes us to the reality of the last 10 years:
Despite Scotland sending three consecutive absolute majorities of anti-union MPs which could have ended this union at any time from 8th May 2015 to the last GE, the union between Scotland and England survived. Why? Because Scotland’s MPs refused to end it and chose to abuse our pro-independence votes to continue endorsing that union (and their careers) instead.
In the same way, Scotland’s MSPs chose to deny Scotland of that independence by continuing to swear allegiance to the English crown and by continuing to abide within the constrains of the Scotland Act instead of ditching it.
“Catalonian succession as an “internal matter” in which is exactly the phrase that would be used to describe a Scottish UDI”
This will only be the case if our useless and cowardly MPs and MSPs continue to actively hide under their self-serving arses the fact that Great Britain sits on an international treaty that can be unilaterally revoked by either England or Scotland at any time of their choosing. A treaty that should have been revoked and declared void 100 times over the last 300 years after blatant, continuous and sustained violation by the Kingdom of England of pretty much every one of its fundamental conditions.
Unfortunately for Scotland, we are “represented” by cowards and betrayers who rather sell their country, look the other way during those violations and bend to the wishes of a foreign crown for the sake of helping their careers and bank accounts.
In reality, Mia, the two kingdoms were never joined. They remained, and remain separate entitles. Again, this is a sleight of hand by England to convince the people that the Crown of England swallowed the Crown of Scotland, just as England has always claimed that Scotland was swallowed upon by England in 1707. Both are nonsense constitutionally. This is what I mean by a con trick.
Perfidious Albion will always seek to confuse.
There’s the Act of Union & the Union of crowns.
You are correct. A single state never happened. It was debated long & hard in Westminster & denied.
From UKgovs own website..
Unified state
James was not satisfied with this arrangement. He wanted a complete or perfect union that brought the two kingdoms into a single, enlarged and unified state.
In May 1603, within weeks of arriving in London, he prepared the way by issuing a proclamation for the uniting of England and Scotland.
Perfect union debated
A commission of English and Scottish MPs was set up in October 1604 to consider how a perfect union might be created. James was quick to grasp that it could not be achieved overnight, and that only modest steps should be taken at first.
But the idea of the unification of the laws, parliaments and economies of both kingdoms met with little enthusiasm at Westminster.
The commissioners’ recommendations were debated long and hard at Westminster between November 1606 and July 1607. Although there was agreement on the repeal of hostile laws against the Scots, there was none on union.
?
James accepted defeat on the issue, but never forgave the English Parliament, describing it as “barren by preconceived opinions”.
King of Great Britain
James’s failure to win hearts and minds with his vision of a single British kingdom under one imperial crown meant that he had to be content with symbolic reforms and gestures.
In October 1604 he decreed that he would in future be known by the style and title of King of Great Britain and not by the divided names of England and Scotland.
link to parliament.uk
We’ve been through the looking glass with this legal theory before and it’s nonsense, for the same reasons that I explained to you at length a couple of weeks ago. It does not describe how the U.K. is governed, and it is not accepted by anyone in authority anywhere as an accurate description of the constitutional structure of the U.K. It has no more authority than me declaring myself the rightful king, or that everyone has to pay me a special 5% income tax levy.
There is a single recognised state in international law, that of the United Kingdom. That is recognised in legal terms by everyone, both domestically and abroad. In terms of legal status, that is identical to the Kingdom of Spain. The fact that Scotland is more culturally distinct than Catalonia, has a separate legal system and a greater degree of devolution does not change the fact that neither Scotland or Catalonia are states in international law, and independence in both cases would mean the creation of a new state out of the territory of Spain and the U.K. respectively. The conditions that might lead to the acceptance of either Catalonia or Scotland are therefore also the same; that it has been agreed or at least accepted by U.K./Spain, that independence is necessary for the Scottish/Catalan people to exercise their right to self determination, or that Catalonia/Scotland have managed to establish themselves as a functionally independent countries and so it is sensible to recognise that diplomatically. Quite why you think a people’s being brought into a state by force in 1714 would give them more rights than under a voluntary arrangement to merge two states in 1707 is beyond me, but it is obviously a nonsense idea in the context of the principles of self determination and the territorial integrity of states. The fact is that an attempt at a democratic exercise in Spain was suppressed with considerable force, and the international community did nothing, so we can be virtually certain that they would also do nothing about the U.K. preventing a second referendum/UDI by much gentler means.
Again, if you think I’m wrong then prove it by pointing to sources of legal authority that back up your point of view. I can point to dozens, from the Quebec Case, to the hunting ban case, to the S.30 order, to the UNCRC case, all explicit and all heard at the Supreme Court. I recall last time you retorted with the phrase “my view . .”, unless you can point to where/how your view is recognised as legal authority then I refer you back to my earlier point.
That the UK is a single state and recognised as such by other countries has no relevance regarding the UK’s internal disposition, which is no business of those other countries. That disposition differs from Spain’s and that is what is relevant when comparing their constitutions regarding the independence aspirations of Catalan and Scotland, which is what you are doing. But you have to take all of the relevant details into account, and you are completely ignoring the significance of Scotland’s sovereignty and its Treaty-guaranteed constitution, as every unionist does.
What most people including you know about the UK constitution is based on decades and centuries of English-led propaganda, which extols England’s constitution and sovereignty as the sole basis of the Union’s constitution and sovereignty, and the denial of the very existence of Scotland’s sovereignty and constitution. But that propaganda is false, and provably so. This has been demonstrated on this site and others for years now.
The authenticity of Westminster’s authority over Scotland depends entirely on the integrity of its conformance to the formal agreements made between the two sovereign kingdoms in the Treaty they both ratified in 1707. That integrity vanished almost immediately, to Scotland’s great and well-documented on-going harm.
Thus Scotland’s independence aspirations are entirely justified, because the so-called constitution of the UK that you allege is entitled to refuse them is utterly bogus.
I suppose that all refers to England as well then..
From where I sit it doesn’t really look that way, no matter the legalese sophistry you employ here.
UDI would be via the Treaty, Aidan, or, rather, its breaching. The act of parliament would ratify the Treaty resiling. It is the Treaty that underpins the Union, nothing else. This is where all previous ventures of independence have failed: they afford domestic legislation far too great an influence. It is, and will remain, inferior to the primary Treaty legislation.
That no one has even tried to challenge on the Treaty breaching is indicative of a complete misunderstanding of our constitutional position. Westminster/Whitehall know all this which is why, every so often, a new Treaty is offered as a sop, but which would be domestic legislation within the UK and not international law as per the Treaty.
It is a con trick precisely because they, down there, understand very well that they are in no better position constitutionally than we are, in reality. They have played a game of blind man’s bluff with us and have always won in the past. Take off the blindfold and see that there is no donkey on which to pin the tail. Just lies and deceit because their constitutional lawyers are not feart.
So to summarise, “everyone everywhere for hundreds of years has been wrong about the constitutional structure of the U.K., but I have it right”. My view of the law is correct, the courts have it wrong.
I’ve gone through this before and it’s tiring having to explain it again. The Treaty of Union does not exist as a treaty in international law. It is a legal impossibility because the effect of the treaty was to merge Scotland and England into a single state, and a state cannot enter into an international treaty with itself, for the obvious reason that there would be no distinct counterparty to that treaty, so no means of enforcing it.
“The Treaty of Union does not exist as a treaty in international law”
Don’t be ridiculous. Go on, go and read all over Hansard the many, many times the treaty is mentioned.
“It is a legal impossibility because the effect of the treaty was to merge Scotland and England into a single state”
And in what way, exactly merging Scotland and England under an international treaty makes it impossible for any of the two entities to unilaterally revoke that treaty?
The UK was “merged” with the other European countries into a union, which legally, under international law acts as a state. Treaties are not negotiated by individual EU countries. They are negotiated by the European Union as an entity. According to you, therefore, it would have been “a legal impossibility” for the UK to exit the EU, and yet, here we are.
“a state cannot enter into an international treaty with itself”
And what state exactly got into an international treaty with itself?
The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England were (and still remain) completely separate entities. They were separate states and they will revert to separate states should the treaty be revoked.
What you need to understand is that the UK parliament of Westminster is not above Scotland or above England. It is a byproduct of the treaty of union, therefore subordinated to that treaty and subordinated to the two entities who ratified that treaty into Scottish and English constitutional law: the parliaments of Scotland and England. The parliaments of Scotland and England were and still are separate entities. They both were adjourned, but they can be restored at any time. For the Scottish parliament to be restored, the only thing that is needed is;
a. a majority of Scotland MPs agreeing to reconvene it, or
b. Scotland MPs being overruled by the people of Scotland and by designating Holyrood as Scotland’s full parliament after the Scotland Act is ditched.
“I’ve gone through this before”
And it seems you still learnt nothing and yet, you are still attempting to peddle here the same colonial nonsense.
Let’s go through and debunk a few of these things. Firstly and most obviously, Hansard is not a source of law. When George Galloway gets up and makes a speech in the House of Commons, that speech does not become the law of the land.
There is some debate as to whether the Treaty continues to have a legal effect in the U.K., but to the extent that it does or might, it would exist in domestic and not international law.
The Kingdom of Scotland and of England absolutely do not continue to exist as states, in no way do they exist either organisationally or functionally. England and Scotland continue to exist culturally, but not legally as states in international law. The idea that a 300+ year old parliament could be resurrected and that that would be recognised in any way by anyone is absurd, and again if you’re wrong they let’s see some evidence! Let’s see a source of authority describing how the respective parliaments might be convened and what effect that would have.
Finally, your analysis of the EU is again flat out wrong. The EU is not a state, and it does not claim to dissolve the statehood of the countries that join it. Countries within the EU remain independent states and indeed the Lisbon Treaty specifically describes through Article 50 how countries might leave it. It is true that the European Commission negotiates some treaties, but the authority to enter into these treaties comes from the member states. The EU and the U.K. are distinctly different unions, one is a state and one isn’t.
Re Hansard: she didn’t say it was. She said the treaty is mentioned, therefore it exists. It’s ALLLLIVE!
Alive, well & very much active or why the fuck is ‘The United Kingdom’ sitting at various international organisations representing two Kingdoms & not called Little Englandshire & it’s cousins occupying NI?
The treaty of Union is an internationally recognised treaty. Those treaties cannot be doctored or manipulated without the full consent of both parties & a referendum.
Scotland & England are separate states with sperate laws, royal institutions, education, universities, health, police & MPs.
Scotland, at no time in the course of the Union, ever relinquished her Sovereignty to become little Englands possession. It’s a condition of the Union even existing. Claim of Right.
Oh, for goodness sake.
“Hansard is not a source of law”
Who said it was? Are you being deliberately disingenuous? Hansard not only records debates from the House of Commons. It also records debates from the House of Lords, many of whom engage in debates from a position of great knowledge, some of them being constitutional lawyers themselves.
“There is some debate as to whether the Treaty continues to have a legal effect in the U.K”
The legal effect of the treaty of Union is not “debated” by the constitutional committees, the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It is only debated by people with little knowledge and by those who are desperate to avoid the issue because of the implications of the dissolution of the treaty for the crown of for current UK treaties and international agreements. I invite you to go to the Scotland Act 1998, section 37 and read:
“The Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 have effect subject to this Act”
What do you think the above quote actually means? Do you think it was put there just as decoration, or was it put there because the Treaty of Union is still extant?
“39. Any legislation should deal with the Treaty and Acts of Union that created Great Britain in 1707. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us: “The union was constituted by a treaty followed by two Acts. If it is now to be dissolved, it would presumably need that at the very least.”
The quote above was taken from “CHAPTER 3: Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum – published by the UK Parliament Constitution Committee in 2014. Again, do you seriously think that if the treaty and the Acts which incorporated the treaty into domestic law were no longer extant, that committee above would be wasting their time talking about that?
“The Kingdom of Scotland and of England absolutely do not continue to exist as states”
They are not states today. They put their statehoood on hold in 1707 subjected to the Treaty of Union. The treaty of union have fundamental conditions, therefore it stands to the obvious that if those conditions are broken, which they were, the original signatories of the treaty have every right to revoke the treaty returning the Kingdoms of Scotland and England to their original status as independent states.
“England and Scotland continue to exist culturally”
Geographically, politically, legally, historically, economically, demographically, etc. They are not states NOW but can revert to their status as state if any of them revokes the treaty of union, which they are perfectly entitled to do under international law.
“The idea that a 300+ year old parliament could be resurrected”
You are being ridiculous again. The treaty does not need to be “resurrected”. The treaty is extant and very much alive. Would you dare tell the Spanish or those in Gibraltar that the 300 year old Treaty of Utrecht is to old to be “resurrected”? I dare you!!
“let’s see some evidence!”
I have already shown it to you with the quotes above from nothing less than the Scotland Act 1998, still extant today, and the publication from the House of Commons Constitutional Committee from 2014. I have also signposted you to Hansard, littered with mentions of the Treaty of Union.
“Finally, your analysis of the EU is again flat out wrong”
No, it isn’t. The quote below is taken directly from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
“Article 5: ‘Treaties constituting international organizations and treaties adopted within an international organization’ – The present Convention applies to any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization and to any treaty adopted within an international organization without prejudice to any relevant rules of the organization”
“The EU is not a state, and it does not claim to dissolve the statehood of the countries that join it”
You are being deliberately disingenuous again. The UK had a treaty of union with the EU, not with each individual EU country. The UK unilaterally revoked that treaty. If what you said in your previous comment was true (that dissolving a treaty of union was a legal impossibility), then brexit could have never happened because the UK would have never been able to unilaterally revoke that treaty. I have demonstrated to you that, by accident or design, your reasoning was completely wrong.
“Countries within the EU remain independent states”
Independent states or not, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland are above the treaty of union and therefore above Westminster, meaning they can unilaterally revoke that treaty at any time of their choosing.
“the Lisbon Treaty specifically describes through Article 50 how countries might leave it”
And so does the Treaty of Union 1707: a violation of any of the fundamental conditions of the treaty opens the door to declare the treaty void in null under international law.
“It is true that the European Commission negotiates some treaties, but the authority to enter into these treaties comes from the member states”.
And where exactly do you think the authority for the UK gov to negotiate international treaties come from? King Charles? The authority for the UK to enter Great Britain into international treaties come from Scotland and England.
It was you who implied that because the Treaty was mentioned in Hansard, that gave it current legal effect. I don’t necessarily come down one way or the other on whether the treaty could still in theory be applied in any matter of law. It is a very old document and it’s far more likely in any given case that more modern statutes and legal principles would be applied, but I equally can’t exclude the possibility that it could have some significant relevance at some point. The Scotland Act reflects this caution, by making clear that parliament intended that where there is any conflict in law between the provisions of the Scotland Act, and the Acts of Union (which are not the same as the treaty), it would be the Scotland act that prevails.
The constitutional committee (I assume you mean Lord Hope considering the proposed changes to the House of Lords) explicitly states that there is a significant and unresolved debate about whether the Treaty of Union has any effect. That was the entire purpose of the constitutional committee considering the subject in the first place.
What we do know for certain is that the Treaty of Union does not exist as a treaty in international law between two sovereign states, and the idea of “statehood on hold” in this context is a factual and legal impossibility. You only have to consider the immediate implications to see that. None of the 1707 institutions exist, and the pre-1707 legal system is obviously not fit for purpose today. Should a newly independent Scotland be bound by the terms of the treaties it had pre-1707? It is obviously an insane idea on the face of it, and it’s a consequence of you reimagining the UK’s constitutional structure to suit your particular campaigning slogans. No sensible or objective legal analysis could arrive at such bizarre and obviously unworkable conclusions. And whilst you’re very happy to cherry pick out (and ‘interpret’ beyond all recognition) important documents like the Scotland Act or the Vienna Convention on treaties, none of these documents provide an explicit positive statement in support of your view. Even in the last ten years, there has been extensive litigation on the U.K. constitution both generally and specifically in respect to Scotland. Yet at no point in any of this has anyone ever described the U.K. as being formed of a live international treaty that Scottish MP’s can vote to dissolve, in fact this hasn’t even been mentioned or alluded to. The brightest and most experienced constitutional experts have considered important and consequential questions where this would be absolutely fundamental to the outcome, and yet apparently they’ve all collectively forgotten about this critical foundational principle in U.K. law? I think this is a classic case of “the experts are right when they agree with me, the rest of the time they colonisers/ideologues/vested interest etc.”
I don’t know what you’re trying to show with “the U.K. had a treaty of union with the EU”. That doesn’t mean anything. The U.K. joined the EU, but by joining the EU it did not give up its statehood. Therefore, the U.K. could withdraw from the EU, and did so in accordance with an explicit provision of the TFEU. Scotland and England both gave up their statehoods to join the United Kingdom, a single state. There is no equivalent withdrawal method from the United Kingdom.
300 years..
What different does that make?
The Soviet Union split somewhat sooner than that and nobody contested it, not least as Yeltsin played along over riding fallacious nonsense such as you purport to support the bigger partner in the mistaken assumption that somehow it legally gives them greater rights than the other partners?
I hope you don’t make a living in law..
Aidan, suit yourself. I do not say that “I am right”. I say that the documents say that it is the correct constitutional position. T%hat you so easily swallow the lies and deceit are your problem, not mine. I am not a career constitutional lawyer or I would be willing to argue our case at the UN, because I have spent years researching it all, with from a constitutional position and from a political position. I was researching this long before SALVO/Liberation, but they have unearthed stuff that I could not.
You go on believing that it was all wrong. You, and other Scots who think like you, are the reason that we will be going nowhere fast. I am far too long in the tooth for personal aggrandisement. I really can’t be bothered with intransigent refusal to see sense. Have it your way.
Mia and I are in agreement that the Treaty exists in reality and underpins the Union today. Take it away and what are you left with? A top-heavy English parliament telling Scots that they must do this or that or the other. If you can’t or won’t see reality, I can’t make you. Even if we voted to leave tomorrow and declared our independence, the Treaty will still underpin the subsequent negotiations – which is why we have to get our heads round it.
They already have their heads round the parts they want to keep us under the thumb, except that they have deliberately misinterpreted them in their own favour, and that is why the courts here cannot give us any relief. We have to go to the international court after any vote for independence.
I haven’t made any personal attacks, but please do show me these documents. I’m crying out for some evidence and yet none is provided.
You are crying out for some evidence, you say. Well, where is the evidence that backs your side of the argument?
It is a common feature in these threads that those of a colonial mind constantly and relentlessly demand evidence from those seeking independence but they are never forthcoming providing any themselves. You do not seem to be any different.
So go on, where is the evidence to back your side of the argument?
We are crying out for some evidence of these claims that the Treaty of Union 1707 is no longer extant and also some (ANY?) evidence of those great advantages that Scotland is supposed to receive from being in this union, all those advantages that come from Scotland having its resources systematically robbed for the benefit of England and the 1% and those supposed advantages of the Scottish people’s political inclination being systematically and relentlessly subjugated to the political views of England and subjected to a government of complete clowns.
Take your time.
You provide the compelling and positive evidence to support your novel interpretation and I’ll be happy to provide sources of authoritative law that demonstrate what I am saying
I have already provided you with evidence in one of my comments above regarding the Treaty of Union being extant. The Scotland Act 1998 makes reference to the Acts of Union which include that international treaty into domestic law. If, as you claim, the Treaty was not extant, those Acts of Union would be completely obsolete and would have been superseded. They have not because they are still extant. If they are still extant it means the treaty they ratify remains extant.
I have also provided you with a quote from the UK Parliament Constitutional Committee of 2014 where it indicates what was needed to formalise Scotland’s independence. Clearly in that quote, it was stated that the revocation of the treaty and the acts was required. If in 2014 it was still required revocation of the treaty for it to be terminated, it clearly means the treaty is still extant.
And here is another piece of evidence for you. This is perhaps the most definitive one:
“I understand that the Law requires that I should, at My Accession to the Crown, take and subscribe the Oath relating to the Security of the Church of Scotland. I am ready to do so at this first opportunity.
I, Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories, King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled “An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government” and by the Acts passed in the Parliament of both Kingdoms for Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland.
So help me God.” (September 2022)
Do you recognise the quote above?
You should. Those are the words of the current monarch of Great Britain, Charles III when delivering his oath relating to the Church of Scotland.
Now take a look at the following quote, extracted from Article XXV of the Union with England Act 1707:
“…And Lastly that after the Decease of Her Present Majesty (whom God long preserve) the Soveraign succeeding to her in the Royal Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain shall in all time comeing at his or her accession to the Crown Swear and Subscribe That they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the True Protestant Religion with the Government Worship Discipline Right and Priviledges of this Church as above established by the Laws of this Kingdom in prosecution of the Claim of Right And it is hereby Statute and Ordained That this Act of Parliament with the Establishment therein contained shall be held and observed in all time coming as a fundamentall and essentiall Condition of any Treaty or Union to be Concluded betwixt the Two Kingdoms without any Alteration thereof or Derogation thereto in any sort for ever As also that this Act of Parliament and Settlement therein contained shall be Insert and Repeated in any Act of Parliament that shall pass for agreeing and concluding the foresaid Treaty or Union betwixt the Two Kingdoms And that the same shall be therein expressly Declared to be a fundamentall and essentiall Condition of the said Treaty or Union in all time coming”
Now, the above quote was extracted from the website: legislation.gov.uk just now. The heading of the page says:
“Changes to legislation:There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Union with England Act 1707″
Meaning it is extant as it is.
The first sentence of the Act of Union with England 1707 in that legislation.gov. uk page clearly says:
“Act Ratifying and Approving the Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of SCOTLAND and ENGLAND”
Now, if the Act of Union with England 1707, displayed in the uk government legislation website is extant, it stands to the obvious that the treaty that Act is ratifying and embedding into domestic law remains extant too.
The monarch of Great Britain has very, very expensive advisors who would have never ever dare to put him through the humiliation of having to swear the above oath unless it WAS MANDATORY and UNAVOIDABLE for him in order to take the crown.
And who mandated that oath? The Parliament of Scotland mandated that oath, as a fundamental condition in all times for the treaty to remain valid. That mandate remains embedded both, in Scotland’s constitution and Great Britain’s constitution.
Why would Great Britain’s monarch ever bother to swear that oath to ensure the Treaty of Union remains extant?
The answer to the above is in article II of the Treaty of Union, reflected of course in both Acts of Union too:
“That the Succession to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of the Dominions thereunto belonging after Her Most Sacred Majesty and in default of Issue of Her Majesty be, remain and continue to the Most Excellent Princess Sophia Electoress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover and the Heirs of Her body being Protestants upon whom the Crown of England is settled by an Act of Parliament made in England in the twelth year of the Reign of His late Majesty King William the Third entituled An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown…”
There you go. It is precisely that Treaty of Union you claim is no longer extant what is giving the current monarch the right to call himself Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. But in order to become Monarch of the United kingdom of Great Britain, he had to swear that oath.
It is that Treaty what is ensuring that the kingdoms of Scotland and England continue to have the same monarch. So, here is an important question for you:
If the treaty of union is no longer extant, as you claim, what/who on earth is giving the legitimacy to Charles the III and to his mother before him, to style themselves and act as “Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain”? Do you seriously think the man is squatting in the palaces and the UK parliament?
Right then. I have provided you with plenty evidence to demonstrate the Treaty is extant. Now it is your turn. Where is your evidence?
By the way, are you going to be the one who tells Mr Windsor that, because you are of the opinion that the treaty is no longer extant, and therefore the Domestic legislation (aka the Acts) that continue to embed that treaty into Great Britain’s constitution are, in your opinion, obsolete, he, in your opinion, made a complete fool of himself by swearing that oath which, almost verbatim, reproduces the wording of a section of article XXV of the Treaty of union with England and which is categorically stipulated by the treaty as being a fundamental condition, in all times, for the treaty to remain extant?
Also, are you going to be the one who tells Mr Windsor that, because according to you, the Treaty is no longer extant, he does not have the legitimacy to hold the title of “Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain” or sit in Parliament or sign any treaties on behalf of the UK?
And here is another one:
If, according to you the treaty is no longer extant, therefore the UK of Great Britain does no longer have a legitimate a monarch, is it really a “United Kingdom” anymore?
I cannot wait to see your evidence that the treaty is no longer extant and also your plan to break the news to Mr Windsor that, according to you, he should have never sworn that oath above because, put it simply, according to you, he has no right to call himself monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain because the treaty that has been underpinning for over 300 years both that united kingdom of Great Britain and the right of his family to the crown is, in your opinion, no longer extant and therefore worthless.
Don’t waste your time on he/she/it, Mia.
There’s more plants in here than the Beechgrove Garden.
Game, set and match Geri!
We should find out who (if qualified) Aidan works for and bear this back and forth badanage in mind when selecting legal representation when engaged through life’s up and downs..
I don’t even know where to start with this essay of misunderstanding and irrelevance. Perhaps the overarching point is that nothing you have pointed to provides a positive statement in favour of your assertion that the U.K. is formed of two sovereign states bound by a treaty in intentional law. At best you’ve proven that the Treaty of Union existed (which I have never sought to deny), it clearly existed. Aside from that, the oath of the monarch is symbolic, it isn’t an authoritative statement of law!
So let’s look at something that actually is legal authority. We can look at;
References by the Lord Advocate to the Supreme Court – a unianinous judgement by the highest court that the Scottish government does not have the power to hold a referendum on independence, also considers the right to self determination.
REFERENCE by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill – again a Supreme Court case determining the limitations on the Scottish Parliament to legislate in ways that might have a legal impact outside of Scotland.
We can look at Miller number 1 and 2 which look at the prerogative power and the UK’s constitutional structure with respect to entering into treaties.
We can look also at the hunting ban case in 2006,
R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others and others (Appellants)) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General, which describes parliaments lawmaking ability and the limits of parliamentary sovereignty.
These are important, detailed and authoritative cases which describe the UK’s constitutional structure directly in respect to Scotland. In none of those cases is the idea of the U.K. being held together by an international treaty even mentioned, let alone affirmed. In fact, this idea is incompatible with what the Supreme Court has decided in those cases above. It is a straight up choice between the view of the Supreme Court over a long period of time and with different judges and leadership, and the view that you are putting forward. As I have said before, the judgement of the Supreme Court is law by definition. If there is any conflict between anything said in Hansard or in an oath, and the judgement of the Supreme Court, is is the court that prevails.
I know I won’t change your mind on this because it’s virtually impossible to reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into. But I think you probably know deep down that you’re wrong on this one, you should know that your invented legal theory is a complete dead end for the independence movement and makes its achievement through lawful democratic means less likely.
How thick are you?
Everyone in the room knows that Holyrood is an English apparition. An English staging post, fitted tight with an English written straight jacket known as the Scotland Act…
Now pay attention, cause this bits important, they have absolutely fuck all powers OUTSIDE of it.
If Scots want a referendum, a plebiscite, a party at Bute House, there is fck all the English, the supreme court, Dowdy street or Harry the cat can do to stop it!
Scots are SOVEREIGN. Holyrood IS NOT.
Scotland is free to leave. Even Thatcher said so.
Claim of Right 1689. The non negotiable terms of the Union even being enacted. Without it the Union is void.
So do fuck right off at trying to play armchair constitutional lawyer…
Even the Supreme court, an ENGLISH court, was forced to admit a vote for independence would have serious repocussions for little Englandshire & the ballot box is a legal authority.
& Do fuck right off spouting them as any authority – they claimed the Tories lying to Lizzie & her parliament wasn’t unlawful.
The Scottish high court thought differently as Cherry wiped the floor with BoJo.
Proof we have separate laws & not yer one nation fantasist pish that’s a new Yoon invention plucked out of thin air…
You are clearly a deeply knowledgeable and insightful individual, with much to say that we can all learn from. Thank you for taking the time to post this message, I can confidentially say we are all the better off for it.
“misunderstanding and irrelevance”
Misunderstanding on your part, not mine.
With regards to irrelevance, are you daring to suggest that the oath by the monarch of Great Britain to even have a chance at getting the crown is irrelevant?
That irrelevance can only be in your own mind, certainly not in the minds of the monarch himself, the advisors that encouraged him to do so and of course the privy council that witnessed him giving the oath.
You said “Perhaps the overarching point is that nothing you have pointed to provides a positive statement in favour of your assertion that the U.K. is formed of two sovereign states bound by a treaty in intentional law”
The overarching point is that EVERYTHING I have presented as evidence actually provides positive statement in favour of the fact that the United Kingdom of Great Britain is formed by two sovereign states bound by a treaty in international law. For the simple fact that only states or political unions acting on behalf of states can actually enter into international treaties. Both Scotland and England were independent states when they entered that treaty.
“At best you’ve proven that the Treaty of Union existed (which I have never sought to deny), it clearly existed”
I have provided evidence that not only the Treaty of Union existed, it actually STILL exists and it is the very foundation over which the entire edifice of the UK of Great Britain, including the crown of the kingdom of Great Britain sits.
I appreciate that for those of a colonial mind, it is very difficult to accept that their beloved UK is sitting on a foundation of quicksand and that Scotland can pull the plug on that foundation at any time of its choosing.
Where is your evidence to demonstrate that the treaty does no longer exist? You have provided none.
“The oath of the monarch is symbolic”
This assertion is completely ridiculous and you know it. You are trying to fly a kite here.
The oath of the monarch is not symbolic at all. It is an stipulation in the treaty of union, it is a must. Do you seriously expect all of us to believe for even a second the stupidity that the current monarch would be willing to make a complete fool of himself upholding the Church of Scotland and rejecting the Catholic religion in the third decade of the 21st century if he did not absolutely have to? Please do not insult our intelligence.
“it isn’t an authoritative statement of law!”
Can you actually read at all? Let me repeat the first words of the monarch again:
““I UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAW REQUIRES THAT I SHOULD (my capitals), at My Accession to the Crown, take and subscribe the Oath relating to the Security of the Church of Scotland. I am ready to do so at this first opportunity….”
Let me repeat his words one more time:
“I understand that THE LAW REQUIRES that I should…”
Let me repeat one more time so there is no confusion:
“I understand that “THE LAW REQUIRES” that I should…”
Got it now?
Regarding the Lord Advocate and the Supreme Court:
That English court otherwise known as “UK supreme court” is a construct created by Blair whose legality under the Treaty of Union is debatable to say the least. It directly contravenes article XIX where it says:
“; and that no Causes in Scotland be cognizable by the Courts of Chancery, Queen’sBench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-Hall; and that the said Courts, or any other of the like Nature, after the Union, shall have no Power to cognize, review, or alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland, to stop the Execution of the same.”
I do not recognise the legitimacy of that English court and English judges applying English law or English law convention to rule on matters that apply exclusively to Scotland or that violate the Scottish principle of popular sovereignty or Claim of Right.
That English court, otherwise known as “UK Supreme Court” that operates under English law and the English law convention of “parliamentary sovereignty” is a “any other of the like Nature’ Westminster-Hall court” alleged to in the Treaty. It allegedly spins off from the right the people of Scotland had to expose their grievances to the Scottish lords.
With regards to the figure of “Lord Advocate”, again, what is the legality of that figure under the Treaty of Union if what they are effectively doing is actively violating the Claim of Right by stealing control over the Scotland’s legislative power from the people of Scotland and transferring it to the English crown in the form of an English crown with English judges which use English law and English law convention to trash perfectly legitimate democratic mandates and proceed to impose absolute rule on Scotland?
What is the credibility of that figure of Lord Advocate? Wasn’t a former Lord Advocate who actually admitted responsibility for deliberately bringing forward a malicious prosecution?What about the intervention of the former Lord Advocate in the Keatings case to steal control of the legislative power from the people of Scotland and handing it to the English crown? What about the current lord advocate when she actually stole the control of legislative power from the people of Scotland and handed it to the English crown through an English court when she abused her unelected position in the cabinet to stop the referendum bill entering Holyrood?
What about the behaviour of the current Lord Advocate and the COPFS she is supposed to lead stalling the Branchform case?
What about the behaviour of the former and current Lord Advocate regarding gagging witnesses and the parliamentary inquiry about the unlawful complaints procedure brought forward by the uK civil servants in the Scottish government to protect crooks and perjurers?
Do you seriously expect me to look up and take as gospel what incredibly corrupt, unethical and profoundly undemocratic individuals like those say or do?
Wasn’t also England’s advocate General, at the time of Brexit, the one who dared suggest it was “perfectly legitimate” for the UK parliament to breaching international law?
And you expect me to take their words as gospel? Are you having a laugh?
If you want me to really pay attention to what somebody in the legal profession says or writes, then you are going to have to find someone who actually has principles, integrity and ethics and is not acting like a crown useful idiot who abuses their positions of power to maliciously prosecute innocent people, to fabricate jigsaw identification excuses, to actively discriminate under the laughable excuse that reporters working for a tanking old press newspaper have more standing than reporters writing a blog, to protect perjurers and crooks from prosecution, to aid on political conspiracies and collude to protect the crooks behind it, to violate the Claim of Right by transferring control over executive and legislative powers to the English crown, etc, etc.
By the way, both, the English court, otherwise known as “UK” Supreme court, and the “Lord Advocate” are byproducts of Westminster which will cease to exist should the treaty get revoked. What this actually means is that none of them are impartial when it comes to anything relating to Scotland’s independence, and in particular with regards to Scotland exercising its legitimate right under international law to unilaterally revoke the treaty of Union. Westminster, and Westminster’s spin offs like that English court, the lord Advocate or the Scotland Act cease to have effect once the Treaty is revoked, therefore they can never be considered as impartial. They have a vested interest in the treaty to continue.
“the Scottish government does not have the power to hold a referendum on independence”
I do not recognise the ruling of an English court operating under English law or the English law convention of parliamentary sovereignty when it comes to matters regarding the people of Scotland or the parliament or government of Scotland.
It is my opinion that that English court went ultravires and so has Westminster.
Since May 2016, I do no longer recognise the legitimacy of Westminster, never mind its spin off byproducts, to act on behalf of, never mind impose anything on Scotland. Why? Because on May 2016 the sovereign people of Scotland issued a perfectly legitimate democratic mandate for a referendum on independence. Actually, since then, the people of Scotland has issued several of those mandates.
What that mandate means, in practice, is that the people of Scotland are no longer sure that they want to continue handing Westminster the power to continue acting on behalf of Scotland. That mandate means the people of Scotland DEMANDS the opportunity to answer that question.
If the UK was a democracy, if Scotland was not treated as a colony and if those so called “Scotland’s representatives” in the form of MPs and MSPs did actually have a backbone and actually represented Scotland rather than the crown, that Treaty would have been put on hold until that referendum took place. There is a very good reason why Cameron actually agreed to the referendum so quickly.
Because the authority of the people of Scotland transcends that of Westminster or its spins offs, as it is, the legitimacy of Westminster to continue acting as “UK parliament” remains in limbo.
Denying that democratic mandate on the basis that there is a labour MP majority representing Scotland when that MP majority is sitting on the endorsement of 20% of the electorate, does not prolong Westminster’s legitimacy to rule on behalf of Scotland. The only thing it is doing is to continue to increase the size of the question mark that the people of Scotland has put over Westminster’s legitimacy since May 2016.
The political fraud Sturgeon used that English crown and the English crown’s representative in the form of Lord Advocate as an excuse because the two-faced liar did not want to have a referendum but did not have the guts to actually stand up and tell us to our faces that it was SHE who did not want to hold that referendum and had nothing but contempt for our democratic mandate.
The S30 nonsense and the begging bowl are nothing but convenient excuses for dishonest politicians. The reality is that the political fraud Sturgeon colluded with England MPs, with English judges and crown figures to impose absolute rule on Scotland by denying us a referendum for which we gave a mandate for. In other words, they have, yet again, breached the treaty by breaching the Claim of Right and the fundamental principle of self-determination under international law.
It is not for English judges operating under the English law convention of parliamentary sovereignty, which does not have counterpart in Scotland, to decide what Scotland’s government or parliament have or not the power to do. The parliament of Scotland is not their property. What the parliament of Scotland can or cannot do is for the people of Scotland to decide.
Currently, and for as long as the spineless amoebas sitting in Holyrood continue to conveniently hide like cowards behind the Scotland Act, then, absolutely, the cowards within the colonial administrative unit, otherwise known as “Scottish Government” will claim time and time again that they do not have the power to call a referendum.
But make no mistake. They do not need to ask permission to either the monarch or England MPs. They only had to ask permission to the people of Scotland, which they did, in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021. That permission was given, so if that referendum has not taken place yet, it is only because Scotland’s MSPs and MPs never wanted to hold that referendum in the first place. In other words, they have been consistently betraying the people of Scotland since 2016.
” limitations on the Scottish Parliament to legislate in ways that might have a legal impact outside of Scotland”
Scotland’s parliament has no limits to legislate and no English judge or English court can actually impose limits in what Scotland’s parliament can or cannot legislate. It may remind them of what they can legislate WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS of the Treaty of Union. But if Scotland is to revoke the treaty of union, there is nothing those figures can do to stop Scotland’s parliament legislating in whatever it wants within the boundaries of Scotland.
But the Scottish Parliament is currently adjourned and has been so since 1707. Holyrood, for as long as MSPs continue to insist in abiding by the Scotland Act so they can keep their hands tied at the back, is not Scotland’s Parliament. It is a colonial administrative unit of Westminster.
In any case, that ruling is no evidence of the non existence of the Treaty of Union as you claim. It simply relates the constraints Holyrood, which IS NOT Scotland’s parliament but rather an administrative unit from Westminster, can or cannot do within the constrains of the Treaty of Union.
And it is within the constraints of the Treaty of Union because the minute Holyrood ditches the Scotland Act and becomes a full blown parliament, article III, which is a fundamental condition of the treaty, is overruled.
“limits of parliamentary sovereignty”
I do not recognise parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is purely an English law convention that does not apply to Scotland. Scotland’s parliament in 1707 did not have parliamentary sovereignty therefore it could not have transferred what it did not have to Westminster.
That “parliamentary sovereignty” is purely English law convention encroaching on to Scotland’s law. I am of the opinion that using that “parliamentary sovereignty” when it comes to Scotland is ultravires.
“In none of those cases is the idea of the U.K. being held together by an international treaty even mentioned”
In what universe other than in your mind not mentioning something constitutes evidence that that something does not exist?
“the judgement of the Supreme Court is law by definition”
By whose definition?
I don’t care what the judgement of that English court is. I do not recognise the legitimacy of that court under the Treaty of Union, I do not recognise the legitimacy of that domestic court to rule on matters regarding an international treaty, and I do not recognise its use (abuse?) of the English convention of parliamentary sovereignty to effectively usurp control over Scotland’s legislative body and transfer it to the English crown. That is, in practical terms, imposing absolute rule on Scotland, which is in itself a violation of the Claim of Right and indirectly the Treaty of Union.
“the judgement of the Supreme Court, is is the court that prevails”
Where does it prevail?
That English court, otherwise known as “UK Supreme Court” is a spin off from Westminster, and therefore a domestic court that has no jurisdiction over an international treaty. In addition, that court and the parliament of Westminster from which that court spins off are not impartial at all to the revoking of that treaty. Revoking that treaty would signify the end of Westminster as the UK of Great Britain parliament and with that, the end of its spin off court “UK of Great Britain” supreme court.
“I know I won’t change your mind”
No, you won’t, because I have reasoned myself into this current position thanks to all what I have read and learnt over the last five years. Thanks to all that, I have seen the true colours of the “UK” constitution and that the concept of “parliamentary sovereignty” is in reality nothing more than a castle on the air. I I have also learnt how that English Court, otherwise known as “UK Supreme Court”, was foisted on us to undermine the actual Supreme Court of Scotland. Thanks to all what I have read, I can see that UK governments, crown and UK parliaments are consistently and continuously violating the treaty that serves as the main constitutional foundation for the UK of Great Britain. Thanks to all what I have read, I can see that the only tool that Supreme Court seems to use is the English convention of “parliamentary sovereignty”, which only serves to reassure me that this court is a spin off from Westminster and makes me question what on earth is the point of that court if the only thing it ever does is to use English convention to uphold anything that Westminster passes.
“But I think you probably know deep down that you’re wrong on this one”
Not at all. I am absolutely convinced I am right and I actually think it is you who knows deep down you are wrong. I mean, the kite you tried to fly claiming that the oath the monarch signed no long ago was not legally binding or claiming that a court not mentioning something is evidence of that something not existing takes verbal acrobatics to another level.
“You should know that your invented legal theory is a complete dead end for the independence movement”
We will just have to wait and see, don’t we?
“its achievement through lawful democratic means”
And this is what totally confirms to me that you are just flying a kite here. When Scotland is, as it is now, treated as a colony where an unelected representative of the English crown is sitting in the middle of the Scottish gov cabinet usurping control over the legislative power and transferring it to that English crown, democracy does not exist and will never exist.
What we have in Scotland is absolute rule.
When England MPs, who hold no sovereignty from Scotland whatsoever or English judges applying English law and English convention in English courts purport to have control over what the people of Scotland can or cannot do with regards to a bilateral international treaty for which Scotland is not the property of England but rather its equal partner, we know democracy in the UK does not exist. What we have is a colonial arrangement.
When, for the last 8 years, we have been denied a referendum which was demanded, legitimately, democratically and repeatedly, even when the denial of that referendum is a direct violation of the fundamental right of self-determination and a violation of the Claim of Right, we know this is not a democracy.
When those who claim to represent us collude with the English crown and England MPs to deny us our democratic mandate, we know this is not a democracy.
When the only way Westminster can claim it has legitimacy to act on behalf of Scotland is by denying us our perfectly legitimate democratic mandate, we know this is not a democracy.
The idea that under the present colonial arrangement democracy can ever be used or seen to be used to exit this union is a complete fallacy and is taking us for complete fools.
And you still have not provided a single shred of actual evidence that shows written in black and white that the Treaty of Union 1707 is no longer extant. You have not provided it because you cannot. The treaty is extant.
Why have you written all of that?
In summary, you don’t recognise the political or legal system in the U.K., because you believe it’s all English colonial authority. However you do believe the one source of truth is apparently the oath of the monarch, because there’s no way that could be changed or influenced right? (The monarch also has crown immunity so the phrase “the law requires me to …” is obviously symbolic).
You reasoning is also circular. You claim that the Supreme Court is not legitimate because its judgements violate the treaty of union, and that provides evidence of the existence of the ToU as an international treaty. “Everything that contradicts what I think is wrong and to be disregarded and that proves that I’m right”. Do you expect anyone to be persuaded by that?
I can’t respond to all of that as I have other things to do today, but to summarise where we are. You haven’t provided a single piece of authoritative evidence which positively states the ToU exists as an international treaty between two sovereign states. You then disregard all the evidence I have provided by saying that you don’t recognise the legal system.
So it is inherently unconstitutional or contractually inept, corrupt and void then..
Aidan, the state that resulted from the Treaty of Union very obviously did not exist prior to the Treaty, so no, Aidan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain did not enter into an international treaty with itself. The very concept is patently ludicrous, thoroughly dishonest, and cannot seriously be entertained.
The Treaty still exists today because it created authorities that did not exist before, and it set conditions that obliges their observance for as long as the Union itself exists. Those authorities and conditions depend on the continued existence and power of the Treaty because it is the funnel through which the two still extant, still sovereign kingdoms pour their authorities into the Union’s parliament even now.
That is exactly why both kingdoms still have their own exclusive representations in the Union’s parliament. Both representations are in the Union parliament because the Treaty put them there and it can keep them there only for as long as the Treaty itself is extant.
It is and always was a bullshit argument. Self determination isn’t subject to the gracious permission of the Spanish or British state.
Your sentence if taken literally is correct, but what you may be implying is wrong. You’ll notice above when I refer to the right to self determination I explicitly do not condition that on the approval of the Spanish or British state. If a people’s cannot exercise their right to self determination in their “host” state, the right to form a new state is not conditional on the permission of the host state in international law.
However, the right to self determination means the rights of people to pursue economic, political and social advancement. That can mean formation of a new state in the context of colonial or oppressive governance, but in democratic countries generally that advancement is within the context of that state. International law specifically does not provide for a right to form a new state just because a group of people prefer it or think they would be better off.
None of that means Scottish independence can never happen, but we’ve got to be honest about where we are.
It’s a disingenuous argument, often advanced by anti-independence unionists, that although self determination “can” mean the formation of a new state it is a right which either isn’t valid for cases like Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec, or that the hoops that would have to be jumped through are so difficult as to make it effectively impossible.
The Spanish state is of course not interested in negotiations with Catalans or Basques in good faith. That is unlikely to be resolved unless Madrid is pressured in to changing its stance by outside actors and is why Madrid is particularly worried about the prospect of Scottish independence.
They made the right noises about having no issue if it came about by mutual agreement rather than UDI. It’s the reason they still won’t recognise Kosovo’s independence.
The situation in Scotland and Quebec is rather different. I agree and have previously pointed out to proponents of UDI that the right of self determination is neither automatic or unlimited, but in the final analysis (as the Canadian Supreme Court pointed out) UDI isn’t specifically prohibited in international law (such as it is!) either.
In the Scottish case, much may rest in future on the interpretation of whether the British nationalist state is acting and negotiating (and seen to be doing so) in good faith. If it isn’t and it is regarded by enough of the international community and enough of the Scottish people themselves to be acting unreasonably in refusing to engage or negotiate or e.g. grant a referendum with broad support and a mandate, or refuse to recognise a pro-independence majority in explicitly plebiscitary elections, then all bets are off.
It isn’t disingenuous at all, it’s an accurate statement of what the position is in international law with respect to any right of the peoples of e.g. Scotland/Catalonia/Quebec to break away from a larger state and form an independent state.
You obviously understand the history and the nature of self determination, and therefore you understand the context in which it arose and the objectives it sought and seeks to achieve. There’s a clear distinction between the rights of peoples who are subject to severe oppression/colonialism/occupation, and people who live in a free and democratic society but would prefer to live in a separated state. The right to self determination does not provide for the latter group, a right of secession. Article 46(1) of the UN declaration describes that, but all that does is codify what is in the jurisprudence beforehand.
I cannot therefore see what you mean by an obligation on the U.K./Spain to negotiate. People are free to seek secession through political means in their own countries, but there is no obligation on that countries government to provide for it. An obligation to negotiate obviously means an obligation to provide an outcome, and or else for what purpose would the required negotiation take place?
You’re right that a UDI is not absolutely prohibited, but neither is it provided for other than in the circumstances described.
You’re right that in international legal and international relations theory there is seen to be a distinction between self determination in cases of classical decolonisation, and as it applies to peoples in liberal democracies like Canada, Spain or the UK (although given recent events one might cavil at categorising Spain as a liberal democracy I suppose!).
You’re wrong however to state baldly that the right of self determination is not provided for the latter group: it’s pure assertion often trotted out by those with an axe to grind against secessionist movements, whether Spanish, British, Russian or others. you only have to look at the countries who opposed Kosovar independence and who continue to do so: they are virtually without exception states with concerns about secessionist movements of their own.
International law such as it is in relation to this issue is not authoritative or detailed enough, mostly because it has not (yet?) had to deal with an entity like Quebec, Catalonia or Scotland “winning” a popular vote.
The obligation to negotiate in good faith was inferred by the Canadian Supreme Court in its responses to the Clarity Act: again, it’s not an absolute, but the logic seems pretty compelling. In a situation where a majority of the Quebecois people voted in response to a clear question in favour of independence, then the failure of the Federal Government to negotiate would very likely be seen as a factor which justified UDI in the eyes of the international community.
That doesn’t mean it would happen, or that all or most states would recognise it, or that there wouldn’t be conflict. It would however be a significant stick to beat intransigent “unionist” powers in any democracy who were refusing to act in good faith.
The outcome is independence: it’s not for Canada, the UK or Spain to dictate with respect to the principle, although they can of course be expected to have an input on the detail of how the outcome is arrived at. What they don’t get is a veto, or the right to put up artificial or impossible hurdles on the road to independence, or to insist that even if a majority of Quebecois, Catalans or Scots vote for it, their wishes can be supervened by those of all Canadian, Spanish or British voters as a whole.
Unless I have misinterpreted your comment above then we might not actually disagree here. I say that the right of self determination does not provide for independence of Quebec/Catalonia/Scotland, and I think you’re saying that it does not do so yet because it isn’t a situation that international law has had to deal with, but that it could emerge as a right at some point in the future.
That is an interesting question to consider, and I suppose it’s not impossible in the future that secession could be recognised as a right outside of a colonial or occupation scenario. I think there would be great resistance to it from many countries around the world (and not just those with secessionist movements), and I think it would be likely to emerge initially as a very restrictive principle in cases where there is a borderline colonial/occupation argument. I think it’s extremely unlikely the right would require states to hold secession referendums regularly and accept a simple 50%+1 majority.
However, I think we can say today that the right to self determination does not provide the right to succession. I do not think that the implication from the Supreme Court of Canada can be supported in light of the explicit statement to the contrary in s.46(1) of the UN declaration.