Catch 2022
A few days have now passed since Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement of the supposed routemap to an independence referendum, and we’ve had time to analyse it properly.
You’re not going to like it much.
As yet, nobody knows why the Lord Advocate referred the matter directly to the Supreme Court before the passing of the referendum bill. There has been speculation, though, that this was a result of the Lord Advocate, whose assertion of belief that the bill was within Parliament’s powers – intra vires, in the jargon – would be required in order to present the bill to Parliament, refusing to do so.
We have no way of knowing whether that’s true or not, but it’s certainly a plausible explanation. Because as noted by the Telegraph yesterday, doing it this way creates a very major problem which would otherwise have been avoided by passing the bill first.
The problem is that just last year, the Scottish Government itself – while it was inexplicably opposing Martin Keatings’ private attempt to establish whether Holyrood could run an indyref without Westminster permission – successfully argued that the matter couldn’t possibly be settled until a bill was passed, because the bill could be amended during the Parliamentary process and therefore the court wouldn’t actually know what bill it was making a ruling on.
So immediately we’re locked in an unbreakable loop – the Supreme Court refuses to make a ruling because there’s no final bill to make a ruling on, but there can’t be a bill for the Supreme Court to rule on, because the Lord Advocate won’t grant permission for it until the Supreme Court has ruled on its legality.
Nice work, Scottish Government lawyers.
Now, we could stop the article there. But just for fun, let’s say the Telegraph is wrong. Let’s be super-optimistic and assume the Supreme Court DOES accept the reference and make a judgement. Joanna Cherry told us this week that if that happened, the issue would be heard in the autumn and we’d get the ruling before Christmas.
But even in that extremely rose-tinted version of the future, the idea of an indyref in 2023 is stone cold dead. To understand why we need to look at the process of passing a bill, as detailed on the Scottish Government website.
Let’s imagine we get really lucky and the Supreme Court rules in the Scottish Government’s favour (something almost nobody thinks will actually happen), just before Holyrood shuts down for the festive period.
To be as generous to Nicola Sturgeon as humanly possible, let’s make the assumption that because of the SNP/Green majority, everything then happens at the maximum speed, with no sort of interruptions or disruptions or delays. We’ll assume there’s no public consultation, that all committee steps take in effect no time at all (ie they’re all rushed through during the statutory minimum wait periods), and that each stage of the bill begins on the first available day after the previous one.
(Obviously all of these assumptions are complete nonsense, but we’re bending over backwards here so let’s just pretend.)
These are the MINIMUM time periods laid down by law for various stages, so let’s just quickly do some arithmetic:
Three weeks.
Plus one week.
Plus two weeks.
Plus two weeks.
Plus four weeks.
That’s a total of 12 weeks (three months), starting from the 8th of January next year when Holyrood reopens for business after the Christmas recess.
But there are 23 further recess days inside that timeframe (in February and April), which takes us almost into May – 10 months from now. So even with no hold-ups of any kind, next spring is the earliest a referendum bill can now possibly be passed. And in reality there are some really big flies in that ointment.
One of them lives in Buckingham Palace.
We’re not Parliamentary-procedure experts, but Crown consent (which comes between Stage 1 and Stage 2) seems a pretty significant hurdle on a straight reading of the law. One would imagine that the Queen would consider the potential break-up of her kingdom by the devolved administration of 8% of it as a matter which affected her “prerogative, private interests or hereditary revenues”, particularly as she’ll have been advised to that effect by her government in Westminster, and if she does then that’s the whole thing buggered and stabbed and dead in a ditch there and then.
But again, let’s assume an optimal scenario where the Crown elects not to interfere in politics. Even with the Queen and the Supreme Court now on board we still have to get past the UK government, because at the “Reconsideration Stage” we bump into this:
We can pretty safely assume that the (UK) Secretary of State will have objections on some or all of those grounds, and so a Section 35 order will be filed, preventing Royal Assent, and everyone’s off to court again.
(Because this is a separate matter to whether the bill is within devolved competence at all – the Secretary of State would still be empowered to block an otherwise-lawful bill on the grounds of “international obligations or defence or security interests”, most obviously involving the location of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.)
Joanna Cherry’s case against the UK government’s attempt to prorogue Parliament in 2019 was filed at the end of July, and thanks to an extremely expedited Supreme Court appeal timetable judgement was delivered two months later.
It seems highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would be willing to expedite an indyref case so quickly, since no matter what WE might think to the contrary, there’s no actual material emergency here as far as the court is concerned.
(Note that we’ve also assumed the UK government doesn’t amend the Scotland Act at any point in this process to explicitly outlaw any indyref legislation. In reality it is entirely possible, even probable, that it would do so, as it did with the Brexit power grab and children’s rights.)
So realistically that would be at least a few more months from (at best) May. Which, even in our wildly, delusionally optimistic best-case scenario takes us easily into the 2023 summer recess around the start of July, which will run up to next September.
And remember, we have to have an actual campaign period of several months after all this, not to mention all the administrative preparation necessary to actually run the referendum, which means that even without a Section 35 challenge we’ll have completely run out of 2023.
That takes us into spring, because you can’t sensibly have a referendum in January or February, and – if there hadn’t been one already – we’d be looking at an imminent UK general election by then (while there doesn’t HAVE to be one until December 2024, the government will want to pick a favourable time before that). So the indyref would be kaput and it’d have to be a plebiscite election or nothing.
(You can’t have the campaign during a general election campaign, for reasons we hopefully don’t have to make this article several hundred words longer by detailing.)
So: it is manifestly obvious to anyone remotely sane that even if everything goes as favourably as possible there’s absolutely no chance of delivering a second indyref by next October, or indeed even in 2024. The First Minister is not serious.
This “routemap” is aimed only at the hyper-gullible and blindly faithful (sadly still plentiful in the Yes movement), and those entities who make a cynical profit out of trying to sustain the fantasy. It’s a plan which – by the Scottish Government’s own actions – is both designed and guaranteed to fail.
(If you assume that its intention is to bring about an indyref at all.)
Back down the mountain again, folks. Put your flags and your marching boots away. There’s nothing to see here.
When you set it all out even the blindest of blind can see that the timescale for October 2023 doesn’t work.
So what’s Sturgeon playing at.
Maybe its just as Rev Stu comments a ploy to keep the gullible happy or is it to engender circumstances that will deliver a 2024 Westminster landslide for the SNP.
Now that would be good if it delivered a mandate that would be used. But you know what, Sturgeon doesn’t use mandates.
Meanwhile on an entirely separate matter here’s the link to a piece about how the MSM and the Times pulled a story about BlowJo getting a you know what in the office from Carrie.
Funny old world how stories like this can be pulled. I mean they bring into full view the majesty of the man.
And his Johnson’s job in government at the time. Could it have been minister for foreign affairs.
Ah well, seems the story did the rounds globally with one wag saying at least he wasn’t caught with zelensky.
link to private-eye.co.uk
Do it via a General Election. Not a complete solution in itself but if we win it will create a significant political crisis with unpredictable possibilities.
It is all a charade. The moment you open the doors of Holyrood and catch the scent of the Scotland Act, you have entered a world of artificial reality. Personally, I’m glad it’s a charade, but there is still great danger in how it’s ultimately exposed as a charade.
We Independentists should all be working on the basis of a Plebiscite General Election returning a minimum of 30 Pro-Independence MP’s on a manifesto pledge to end the Treaty of Union.
The Plebiscite Election campaign should be a cross party YES led initiative, working hand in glove with a Constitutional People’s Assembly which is yet to set up, both putting the Claim of Right, in other words Scottish Sovereignty, at the beating heart of the Campaign.
Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011, General Elections are scheduled for the first Thursday of May, in the fifth year after the previous election, so the next UK general election is provisionally set for Thursday, 2nd May 2024.
That’s less than two years away, at the latest but it could be upon us much sooner than that.
To hell with the SNP’s parlour games. I have ZERO trust, and even less confidence in Sturgeon’s SNP. They are playing the game precisely the way Westminster wants it played, and their protestations are as phoney as their strategy.
30 Scottish MP’s with a mandate and a backbone is all Scotland needs from a Plebiscite Election to bring down the Union. That should be our Plan A.
Forget playing games with the SNP, that whole merry-go-round is designed to usurp our resources and divert our enthusiasm. We should be briefing other Nations in Europe and further afield that Scotland’s Independence Community is intending to end the Treaty of Union, and have our friends abroad primed and knowing what to expect, and be working on the fullest and finer details of Scotland’s transition into a self governing Sovereign Nation.
“We Independentists should all be working on the basis of a Plebiscite General Election returning a minimum of 30 Pro-Independence MP’s”
The mad idea that we could effectively declare independence based on a majority of seats rather than votes has to go in the bin right now. It’s ludicrous. You could get 30 MPs on about 29% of the vote, and only a complete lunatic thinks that’s (a) a mandate or (b) anything the rest of the world would contemplate recognising in a million years.
Excellent work and analysis as per Stu .
Like many ( not enough ) I imagine , I’ve been feeling a little like the family curmudgeon who resolutely refuses to * join in the party fun * , nursing a shandy while all around are getting legless on cheap booze and false bonhomie , trying – kinda desperately- to have a good time .
I wish I could get in the * spirit * . Just can’t .
At least we abstainers will be spared the depressed hangover blues .
Meagre compensation I agree
First past the post is the westmonster way. They chose the system. I agree with Breeks. It also shows we mean business – YES candidates are certainly the way to go (as all other routes have been blocked or unreasonably delayed).
To gain independence all we have to do is be acknowledged as independent by one other country. Then the rest will follow suit. Luckily, Imperial England is hated throughout the world.
I would add a big sweetener – The first country to acknowledge an independent Scotland will have their students educated at our universities for free.
All we have to do now is rid ourselves of Sturgeon and her cabal. And in promising an indyref next year – she has hastened her well-deserved demise.
Scots would likely lose another national referendum on independence no matter when or if it is held due to: a) the imposition of a highly irregular local government franchise, and, b) rapid uncontrolled demographic (i.e. voter/identity) change, c) many Scots still holding only a rudimentary understanding of what independence means or why it is necessary, and d) ongoing external interference in Scottish affairs, overt and covert.
The right approach is, as it always has been, for a majority of Scotland’s MP’s who are elected primarily to represent Scottish sovereign interests, to vote to end the Treaty of Union alliance and for Scotland to then negotiate that withdrawal.
Scotland’s MPs should do this now, avoiding any further unnecessary delay, failing which they should be and hopefully will be removed/replaced by real nationalists committed to withdrawing Scotland from the UK alliance at the next general election.
@ Breeks at 8.54
Although this makes little if any difference to your argument, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed on 24 March 2022:
link to tinyurl.com
Well laid out Rev, and it appears that the indyref is a non starter, I certainly don’t trust Sturgeon, but I was trying to be a bit more optimistic.
So tell me Rev, why do you think Alex Salmond and Craig Murray are right behind it? surely they too must be aware of the very high hurdles and impossible timescale.
Would be good to model the relative probability of different plebiscite-election results at both Holyrood and Westminster, and how these “strategies” might play out:
– less than 50% of the seats and less than 50% votes (lose both the election and the plebiscite)
– more than 50% of seats but less than 50% of votes (win the election but lose the plebiscite)
– more than 50% of votes and more than 50% of seats (win the plebiscite)
Alf Baird@9.23am.
I think you are right Alf, we’d more than likely lose another indyref with all the unionist machinations and House Jocks working against the progression of Scotland, not to mention a hostile media.
Mind you the current Scottish government under Sturgeon has done most of the damage to our cause in recent years.
Breeks, the first thing Johnson did after the GE in 2019 was abolish the Fixed Term Parliament Act, this fact seems to have passed many people by. We’re back to where we were before, when governments who wanted re-elected, did NOT hang on for 5 years, they went to the polls after 4 years…
Which is imho the ‘natural’ length of a political term anyway, 4 years, and not the 5 year terms both Holyrood and our Stoneybridge Town Councils have taken upon themselves in the wake of the 5-Year Fixed Terms which Westminster has now abandoned.
Without a word of discussion, our MSPs and Councillors all took themselves an extra year of generous salary, an extra year of avoiding the electorate… it’s time we took that year back.
Breeks
The Fixed Term Parliament Act has been repealed.
“The right approach is, as it always has been, for a majority of Scotland’s MP’s who are elected primarily to represent Scottish sovereign interests, to vote to end the Treaty of Union alliance and for Scotland to then negotiate that withdrawal.”
SOME SCOTTISH MPS: Our existence demonstrates that slightly over a quarter of Scots want independence. We therefore demand you negotiate the end of the Union with us!
UK GOVERNMENT: Nah.
SOME SCOTTISH MPS: Well, then we’re going to, um…
[silence]
[chirping crickets]
[tumbleweed]
The charade has nothing to do with independence, its merely a way of Sturgeon extending her time riding first class on the gravy train while implementing the Stonewall agenda
She knows how easy it is to fool the gullible and her hard of thinking supporters She has barely concealed contempt for them and the clapping seals around her in Holyrood
Routemaps suggest Israel/Palestine or Satnav taking a monster truck along winding country lanes with low bridges, may as well be minefield.
Plebiscites and refs are minefields, a straightforward you vote for us, you vote for independence, period, the old SNP model, ought to suffice for Westminster elections where the simple majority of seats is law. Holyrood being set up by Westminster is technically its subordinate. It is not the Scots parliament restored as some romantically fancy, certainly not in the eyes of those in effective control of the united British state project, who will not readily surrender to a mere subordinate.
BritState needs a mega monster Scottish opponent for the creation a new state is a monster project,
WOW! Take me to your leader citizens.
You could get 30 MPs on about 29% of the vote, and only a complete lunatic thinks that’s (a) a mandate or (b) anything the rest of the world would contemplate recognising in a million years.
Scotland has 59 Scottish seat in Westminster.
30 Seats is an outright majority for Scottish MP’s in precisely the same way as 326 seats is an outright majority for UK MP’s, irrespective of the votes. That’s why Tories rule over us unchecked on 43% of the vote. You don’t see a Westminster Government running back to check whether the voters are still on side in between elections do you?
It’s the Westminster system counting seats the way Westminster counts seats.
Why Should Scotland “invent” artificial barriers for itself, or entertain Westminster Government inventing barriers explicitly to make life awkward and beyond reach for Scotland? That’s what the SNP are doing, yet you accuse me of lunacy?
If that’s the threshold Westminster recognises, then let Westminster worry about it’s archaic systems and protocols. Until it does, Scotland can choose end the Treaty of Union, and 30 Scottish Seats is an outright Scottish Majority. Get it done.
An outright Tory Majority brought Brexit down upon all our heads, specifically ignoring and subjugating Scotland’s Claim of Right, Constitutional sovereignty when it should have Brexit unlawful. It further demolished the fallacy that the Treaty of Union is Consensual… Yet you would still let it stand unchallenged?
Quid pro quo.
Let a Scottish Westminster Majority, do to the Treaty of Union what a UK Westminster Majority did to Brexit. If that’s basket case lunacy, then take it up with Westminster.
I think the lunacy is knuckling down to accept and endorse Scotland’s unconstitutional subjugation, and further endorse the colonial trope that Scotland’s rights are lesser rights than everybody else’s.
Why the prisoner would work harder than the jailer to foil their own escape is what I would call lunacy.
Well yes to what you’ve outlined in the article, however imho the crucial bit is the bit you left out. Her plan to make a vote for the SNP a vote for independence. Or to put it another way, a chance to get 5 more years for each SNP MP on the Westminster gravy train and loads of short money for the party.
How many who wouldn’t have voted for the SNP at the next Westminster election given their appalling governance under Sturgeon and lack of progress on independence, will now feel they have to in order to show support for indy?
I think its only because of people like Stu which has forced the SNP to do anything at all. Otherwise they were going to look absurd,
So, the SNP will not be able to run the 2024 GE on a plebiscite vote as they will simply not have a definitive answer from the ‘Supreme Court’ by then and will have run out of time to do so ‘legally’.
Of course, this question of legality rests on the new laws drummed up by Westminister to move the goalposts. They alone get to say what is legal or not. Power devolved is power retained.
It was Alex salmond who realised that Tony Blair’s wizard wheeze to create a ‘Supreme Court’ (the same man who awarded England most of Scotland gas fields ‘legally’ in the North Sea with the stroke of a pen, was a direct assault on Scots sovereignty.
And we all know ex-lawyer Sturgeon likes ‘legality’ (sarcasm alert).
But Stu, could the SNP and Greens not call a plebiscite Holyrood Election, on the single subject of Independence, after the 2024 GE? Thast takes us into 2025 or 2026. Pray God the Murrels are gone by then.
I am just trying to find something positive to hold onto.
Add to that:
* Sturgeon has not asked the Electoral Commission to “vet” any question or protocol.
link to inews.co.uk
* The once independent, Electoral Commission is now wholly controlled by the UK Government (Gove saw to that).
”The mad idea that we could effectively declare independence based on a majority of seats rather than votes has to go in the bin right now.”
If that’s the case Alba, The Greens et al should not stand in any seats in that general election because you can bet your bouncy bum the yoons will work together: they won’t stand against each other but campaign for Murray, Mundell and others to be returned with massive majorities to ‘beat the SNP’. They will lump the pro union votes together as one but split the pro indy ones into SNP only.
“So tell me Rev, why do you think Alex Salmond and Craig Murray are right behind it? surely they too must be aware of the very high hurdles and impossible timescale.
I’ve spoken to both of them in the last few days and yes, they are aware of those things. Let’s leave it at that.
“The Fixed Term Parliament Act has been repealed.”
Yeah, OK. It matters not a bit.
There WILL be a UK General Election within the next two years.
As long as a referendum is agreed, it doesn’t matter if it comes in 2023, 2024 or 2025. If it’s not agreed then we campaign for independence in the 2024 general election and declare independence if we win a majority of seats and votes.
Brilliant analysis cutting through the figures to display the cold, hard, damning facts. Well done!
Excellent analysis which helps fully expose the other catch 22 (for the supreme court).
ie the date having been announced and there being nothing, by definition*, to prevent the bill entering stage 1 on 4 Sept, the supreme court must have until then, and arguably no later, to have its decision done and dusted lest it interferes with (ahem) parliamentary sovereignty – ie by conspiring to deprive itself of arguably the single most important get out option available to it (depending on whose side it is on :)) it risks rendering its judgement impotent (due to bias real or perceived) in any event!
*(or even in event FM or LA invokes woman’s prerogative)
“So, the SNP will not be able to run the 2024 GE on a plebiscite vote as they will simply not have a definitive answer from the ‘Supreme Court’ by then and will have run out of time to do so ‘legally’.
But Stu, could the SNP and Greens not call a plebiscite Holyrood Election, on the single subject of Independence, after the 2024 GE? Thast takes us into 2025 or 2026. Pray God the Murrels are gone by then.
The Supreme Court will have to have made a decision by next year sometime, even if that decision is “We refuse to adjudicate on this matter”. That would be plenty time to run the election as a plebiscite if it happens on the currently scheduled date.
Obviously there’s a problem if there’s an early GE between now and next spring, although I would be very surprised if there was. In that event the next scheduled opportunity for a plebiscite election would be the Holyrood one of 2026.
It is certainly theoretically possible that the SNP and Greens could engineer a Holyrood election before then by resigning as the government and blocking the formation of any alternative one. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether you think they would.
Will this site ever be a pro indy site again? Yeah I get it, pointing out the failings of the SNP is fun, but the date for an independence referendum has been set and we will be needing you to debunk the tidal wave of inevitable shite coming from unionist media.
How about it rev, how about being an indy protagonist again instead of an indy antagonist?
“there being nothing, by definition*, to prevent the bill entering stage 1 on 4 Sept”
But there is. No bill can be brought to Parliament without the assent of the Lord Advocate that it is intra vires, and it looks like that’s something the Lord Advocate is not currently willing to give.
@ Rev Stu 9.00 am
The mad idea that we could effectively declare independence based on a majority of seats rather than votes has to go in the bin right now. It’s ludicrous. You could get 30 MPs on about 29% of the vote, and only a complete lunatic thinks that’s (a) a mandate or (b) anything the rest of the world would contemplate recognising in a million years.
Well, quite. And yet it hasn’t stopped the usual suspects in here roundly abusing me and any others who doubt the wisdom of the barking “it’s seat not vote that count!” mantra as closet yoons or worse. Apparently the international community is so desperate to have an independent Scotland join the club that it will welcome us with open arms and ignore any requirement to demonstrate majority support, and recognition will be automatic if we just send a strongly worded letter and few crates of Irn Bru to that nice mr Gutteres.
I’d like to think some of the moonhowlers would have the good grace to own their stupidity, but I won’t be holding my breath.
“the date for an independence referendum has been set”
No it hasn’t. You can write a Christmas list asking for a Ferrari and a castle and you can send it to Santa, but that doesn’t mean there’s any chance of you getting it. The Scottish Government has picked a date it says it WANTS there to be a referendum on, in the certain knowledge that there’s no chance of it actually happening, for the reasons patiently and factually outlined above.
Rev. Stuart Campbell @ 9:48 am
My contention is it would be lawful, therefore we should end the union with a majority of Scotland’s MP’s, as it was entered into.
“My contention is it would be lawful”
You can contend that elephants are bananas if you like, it won’t make it so.
“the crucial bit is the bit you left out. Her plan to make a vote for the SNP a vote for independence. Or to put it another way, a chance to get 5 more years for each SNP MP on the Westminster gravy train and loads of short money for the party.”
Well, indeed. It was worrying that she talked about a “de facto referendum” rather than saying a plebiscite, because that leaves open the possibility that it WOULDN’T be a one-line manifesto but simply yet another chance to give the SNP yet another “mandate”. But that isn’t really relevant to this particular article, and it was depressing enough as it was.
Republicofscotland
One of the motivations for starting the referendum process now is to deflect attention from the fact that the wheels are coming off the Scottish Government bus. The list of failures is starting to get embarrassing and sooner or later the electorate are going to take notice.
It’s most definitely worth playing along because someone will be needed to pick up the pieces when the cries for the heads of the current administration become impossible to ignore.
@Rev
Yes, a majority of seats is utterly asinine. You may as well stage a revolution. How a country is (re)born sets the stage for a long time to come. Without a majority of Scots onboard every election would then be a plebiscite on rejoining the Union. It would be utterly dysfunctional and nothing would get done because of all the bickering and infighting – well, worse than usual.
If that’s the case Alba, The Greens et al should not stand in any seats in that general election because you can bet your bouncy bum the yoons will work together: they won’t stand against each other but campaign for Murray, Mundell and others to be returned with massive majorities to ‘beat the SNP’. They will lump the pro union votes together as one but split the pro indy ones into SNP only.
Of course if the SNP were remotely serious about their plebiscitary election wheeze, they’d provoke early elections for Holyrood in the event that the SC finds against them, or refuses to rule on the matter. It’s much easier to argue that you’ll regard the results of a Holyrood election as plebiscitary than the results of a Westminster GE.
As for whether we need, or can reasonably expect, “joint” candidates on either side, why do we need them? It is of course possible that some yoons will be motivated to vote tactically, as may some nationalists, but what would be the point? It’s the total number of votes that matters not the total number of seats .
I’m not sure I could bring myself to campaign for many of the odious individuals in the SNP and Greens who would without doubt be “Yes Scotland” candidates in a plebiscitary Westminster GE. I’d still vote for them if they were the only pro-indy candidate, but since the the total number of pro-indy voters that counts it is irrelevant which party they are from.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 10:15 am
“My contention is it would be lawful”
You can contend that elephants are bananas if you like, it won’t make it so.
You mean it would make it unlawful? Or just not “gold standard enough” lawful?
“My contention is it would be lawful”
You can contend that elephants are bananas if you like, it won’t make it so.
All the LOLZ.
But….but….but….Rev, why won’t you see it….Scotland is a colony…. everyone knows this. If we’d just speak Scots and learn the works of Fanon and Menni by heart independence will *just happen*.
Careful now, Ruby and her posse will be along soon poiting out you’re a closet yoon, or calling you “English Campbell”.
And of course…you DO live in Bath. 🙂
Over 50% of the vote in GE 2024 is our best bet
It would seem to me that the FM knows that 1 the Supreme court will rule against the SG 2 a section 30 order is never going to be granted, so what does the FM do, well she keeps her promise to her fan base and gives a date in the first half of this parliament knowing that a referendum will never happen and that she going to have to use the next Westminster or Holyrood as a Plebiscite by doing this she looks to have kept her word. Nicola Sturgeon knows its all to late but she can’t turn around and say to her fan base I’ve messed because of Covid, when all of this should have happned last year. But if BJ gives give a Referendum then she looks like she won.
Lad says:
2 July, 2022 at 10:30 am
Over 50% of the vote in GE 2024 is our best bet
Yeah, Unionists everywhere are nodding their agreement.
In the current political context this is just plain bleak.
Your dissection of this corpse at least saves me getting any hopes up.
The Louis MacNeice poem ‘prayer before birth’ dated 1944 comes to mind and is surprisingly prescient. Not much changes. I am afraid we are in the political process of the ‘killing’ in the last line. Sorry its a tad long, but it’s all there.
To paraphrase, in lieu of ‘I’ read ‘Scotland’.
I am not yet born; O hear me.
Let not the bloodsucking bat or the rat or the stoat or the
club-footed ghoul come near me.
I am not yet born, console me.
I fear that the human race may with tall walls wall me,
with strong drugs dope me, with wise lies lure me,
on black racks rack me, in blood-baths roll me.
I am not yet born; provide me
With water to dandle me, grass to grow for me, trees to talk
to me, sky to sing to me, birds and a white light
in the back of my mind to guide me.
I am not yet born; forgive me
For the sins that in me the world shall commit, my words
when they speak to me, my thoughts when they think me,
my treason engendered by ("Tractor" - Ed)s beyond me,
my life when they murder by means of my
hands, my death when they live me.
I am not yet born; rehearse me
In the parts I must play and the cues I must take when
old men lecture me, bureaucrats hector me, mountains
frown at me, lovers laugh at me, the white
waves call me to folly and the desert calls
me to doom and the beggar refuses
my gift and my children curse me.
I am not yet born; O hear me,
Let not the man who is beast or who thinks he is God
come near me.
I am not yet born; O fill me
With strength against those who would freeze my
humanity, would dragoon me into a lethal automaton,
would make me a cog in a machine, a thing with
one face, a thing, and against all those
who would dissipate my entirety, would
blow me like thistledown hither and
thither or hither and thither
like water held in the
hands would spill me.
Let them not make me a stone and let them not spill me.
Otherwise kill me.
What will happen in the long term will we ‘go to the barricades’ or just give up?
Stuart Campbell @10.11
Quite right too, leastwise not without first checking whether the supreme court is willing to declare itself impotent, or (far better yet) outrageously biased, for all the world to see.
May I add my own serious reservation to Stu Cambell’s excellent analysis?
hat ensues? What follows? What comes next? How are things connected? How does one thing lead to another? What is the logical sequence of credible actions? How do all the components mesh? These are some of questions that should be asked any time something is proposed, which purports to be a plan or whenever something is presented as a process leading to a desired outcome. Unless such questions can be answered satisfactorily, there is no process. Unless such questions are asked, there can be no plan.
A process is a series of connected actions which lead to a defined endpoint. A plan is a proposal for implementing those actions. There can be no plan unless it relates to a credible process. A process without a plan for initiating and managing it is pointless. If someone presents you with a plan but is unwilling or unable to answer questions about the process, you should at least suspect that you’re dealing with a charlatan.
This nicely describes the situation after Nicola Sturgeon’s statement outlining what she wants us to believe is a plan for restoring Scotland’s independence. Although she would never use such language. She made the statement and with only a handful of exceptions, the Yes movement reacted with frenzied enthusiasm. Only a relatively tiny number of Yes activists thought to ask any of those questions. The vast majority asked no questions at all as they erupted in an ecstasy of admiration for this brilliant plan. They gave no thought whatever to the process to which the plan was supposed to relate. They gave no thought to whether there even was a process, far less whether it was credible.
Asking questions does not elicit information or explanation. Asking questions elicits only abuse. To ask if there is a process and if that process is credible is, according to the mob, to be a ‘Yoon’ and therefore conveniently unworthy of a meaningful response. It is maintained that Sturgeon has come up with a work of genius which has left the forces of Unionism and British Nationalism in a state of total discombobulation. Strangely, however, not one of those hailing this work of genius wants to discuss it. Nobody wants to answer questions about it. Nobody wants to explain how it actually works in real life. Nobody wants to allay concerns about possible flaws in this Machiavellian masterpiece.
No of those greeting Sturgeon’s brilliant plan is prepared to proudly set out the process to which it relates. Is this not strange? Would we not expect that they would be eager to demonstrate just how clever Sturgeon had been in devising this ploy? But no! We are supposed to just accept that she has been remarkably clever and to request evidence of this cleverness is to exhibit a lack of faith. To suggest a possible flaw in the process is to be unforgivably disloyal. To attempt scrutiny of the plan is an act of betrayal.
I don’t do blind faith. I owe no loyalty to Nicola Sturgeon or her party. If I am betraying anything it is not Scotland’s cause but the truth about those charged with advancing that cause. If that truth is discomfiting to members of what used to be the Yes movement then before they start trying to shout me down perhaps they should ask themselves why it upsets them so much. Shoot the messenger if you wish. I’m bulletproof. But you can’t shoot the message. The points I make remain even if the messenger is silenced. They remain until they are adequately refuted. Given the desperate reluctance on the part of Sturgeon/SNP loyalists to discuss their leader’s cunning plan, there is no way these points can be refuted.
I will describe what I consider to be the two greatest flaws in Sturgeon’s cunning plan. One is a serious flaw. The other a fatal flaw.
Sturgeon’s decision to go to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) is being hailed as a masterstroke. As I understand that term, this would imply that it is the best possible move. It is not. First, it must be understood that Sturgeon is not going to the UKSC asking that they confirm the competence of the Scottish Parliament to authorise a proper constitutional referendum. She is not seeking confirmation of our right of self-determination by having the UKSC rule that the Scottish Parliament has the authority to facilitate the full and proper exercise of that right. That is what we are supposed to believe the court action is about. It’s what a remarkable number of gullible people believe she is doing. In fact, she is merely asking the UKSC to rule that we can have a referendum that is “consultative and non-self-executing” and therefore by definition not the full and proper exercise of our right of self-determination.
Those who haven’t bothered to ask any of those questions are presenting the decision to go to court now as a deft political move that has wrong-footed the anti-independence forces. But think about it for a moment and you’ll realise that this was always an option and therefore something which the British establishment must have anticipated. They will have gamed this situation.
Was going to court now the best option? Again, asking such questions leads us to some less than pleasing conclusions. If the plan was to have the UKSC confirm our right of self-determination it might have been a different matter. As that is not what is happening, as I have just explained. But even then it is not the best move. The best move would have been to force the British government (or a proxy) to go to court to defend its denial of our right of self-determination. As things stand, the best outcome Sturgeon can hope for is the UKSC’s blessing to hold a referendum which has no constitutional effect. The better option would have been to proceed as if our right of self-determination is assumed and challenge the British to argue in court that Scotland is not a nation; the people are not sovereign, and they have no right of self-determination. Or only that fraction or facsimile of said right which the British state sees fit to allow us. That is what would really have discombobulated the British political elite. But it’s not what Sturgeon is doing.
The fatal flaw in Sturgeon’s plan has already been mentioned. The fact that the proposed referendum, even if impeccably ‘legal’ having been granted the imprimatur of the UKSC, can have absolutely no constitutional effect. When you ask what ensues from a Yes vote in the proposed referendum the only honest answer is – nothing! The referendum decides nothing. It is a consultation, not the exercise of our right of self-determination. It can produce a result. It can potentially produce a significant majority for Yes. But it cannot be decisive. It cannot produce a decision. It cannot trigger further action. It cannot set in motion any further process which leads to the restoration of Scotland’s independence.
This is not just my opinion. There may be a way to sensibly argue that the point about the court action is a matter of opinion. Somebody might be prepared to try and argue that going to court to ask permission to have a pointless referendum is better than having the British state forced to show its true anti-democratic colours before the highest court in the British state. There can be different perspectives, even if one of them is ridiculous. But the fact that the proposed referendum cannot produce a decision on what happens next is confirmed by Nicola Sturgeon herself. When she says that the referendum is “consultative and non-self-executing” she is saying that it cannot do anything. Nothing ensues from it. It is a referendum with no constitutional effect because the best or only chance of winning in court is by asking for something essentially meaningless and posing no threat to the Union.
We are being offered a referendum which doesn’t count as a formal exercise of our right of self-determination in terms of triggering the restoration of Scotland’s independence but which does count as a proper independence referendum in terms of public perception. Especially after that perception has been manipulated by the British propaganda machine.
Even if we win, we lose! If we win we don’t get independence. Win or lose we’ll have had our second referendum and it will be well-nigh impossible to win support for another one in the next couple of decades at least.
All for the want of asking a few questions.
Posted by me @ 10.12 am:
I’d like to think some of the moonhowlers would have the good grace to own their stupidity, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Posted by Breeks @ 10.40 am
Yeah, Unionists everywhere are nodding their agreement.
The moonhowlers are slipping: it took a full 28 minutes for the “you’re a closet unionist” slur to emerge.
“Quand on parle du loup on en voit la queue” as our French friends say.
Why are we not forcing the Unionists to tell us that a majority of seats isn’t acceptable to them?
Why are we not making the Unionists tell us that a majority of seats was once enough but isn’t now?
There’s a difference between playing Devil’s Advocate and keeping the Unionists out of the hot seat.
Ellis,
Just because Stuart agrees with you doesn’t make you right.
It just means Stuart agrees with you.
As a woman I hope this is correct. I don’t want to be in a position where my concern for the fate of women’s rights in Scotland might force me to vote no in an independence referendum. We need time to oust Sturgeon & her gang, restore & enshrine in law the rights of women *before we vote on independence because as things stand at the moment many women will not vote yes.
Breastplate
Just because a small group of fringe nutters in here agrees with you doesn’t make you right.
It just means fools seldom differ.
The difference is that on this matter, as on the nativist franchise issue and “Scotland as colony” schtick, the views expressed by Stu and me represent the mainstream views of the overwhelming majority.
Of course, that doesn’t ipso facto make them correct, but for the purposes of the issues under discussion, it does give anyone with a sense of perspective a pretty decent steer on which outcomes are more likely.
I know you’re all still butt hurt to find yourself on the wrong side of the argument, but such is life, eh?
Andy Ellis says:
2 July, 2022 at 10:29 am
Careful now, Ruby and her posse will be along soon poiting out you’re a closet yoon, or calling you “English Campbell”.
And of course…you DO live in Bath. ?
WTF?
What will you be calling him ‘Tourettes Stuey’?
If you are really looking for people to stop abusing you I would suggest you stop behaving like an absolute cunt.
When Sturgeon “won” the last Scottish Election, 64 seats of 129, she won 47.7% of the vote.
When the SNP won 48 out of 59 seats in Westminster in 2019, they won 45% of the vote.
It is only Alex Salmond’s (he set it up) emphatic and unprecedented 56 out of 59 MP’s which only just touched 50% share of the vote.
But hey yeah! Let’s put a 50% tariff on the Independence vote. What a BRILLIANT idea!
You know I’m almost sure the Unionists can be persuaded to go for that.
Reading comments like Dan Watt’s would make you weep.
Most observers with their heads on straight will tell you that the SNP have had to be dragged kicking and screaming even to this point.
How was that done? By folk pointing out how half-arsed to non-existent attempts to bring about an indyref have been.
For folk Dan it’s all about whether we’ve then reached the point where folk will stop pointing out inconvenient things and let him enjoy his delusions.
Dan, if you’re really for independence, wake up and realise you’re being done a service. It’ll come round a lot quicker if con artists deliberately chasing dead end “routes” to it are flagged up quicker rather than letting them fuck about for years so you can go around grinning to yourself that all seems to be in hand when it isn’t.
“You mean it would make it unlawful? Or just not “gold standard enough” lawful?”
Lawful isn’t even the issue here. It clearly isn’t lawful. The issue here is that claiming quarter of the vote as a mandate for a declaration of independence is so monumentally, obviously idiotic that I honestly can’t believe any grownups are arguing the point. It’s an idea more self-evidently fucking ridiculous than “transwomen are women”.
By publishing a date, Nikla has given us a campaign period to work through. She’s spent 8 years emphatically not doing so, because she knows how powerful a date set can be.
We should use that.
By publishing the plebicite GE election plan B, she has made that a legitimate route. She’s spent 8 years emphatically not doing so, because she knows how powerful that route is.
We should use that.
By doing both at the same time, she has enabled SNP and Alba campaigners to work together again.
We should use that.
By muddying the waters (with Swinney’s help) and producing the mixed message of majority of seats v majority of votes (and incidentally no one, least of all her, has the power to change what FPTP does or does not deliver, and it’s a dangerous precident to gift to the British Establishment if we attempt to do it for them), she has set up the likely hood of a win, but not a victory situation, whereby we get the majority of seats but not over 50% of the votes. While at the same time creating an environment of ‘don’t split the vote/keep the SNP in gravy’.
And by not ensuring the legal / Holyrood route to a S30 was fit for purpose, there is a danger of this summer of campaigning being tied up in argument regarding it, instead of chapping the doors and ensuring we win.
It was always going to go to the GE Plebicite method. Westminster will call that at a moments notice, depending on how well we are doing.
When it was by Referendum we were always going to have to get over 50% of the vote. So no change in aim there. Lets get on with it.
That being the case (and leaving aside for one second the trustworthyness of current SNP MP’s/Leadership) is there any reason why we can’t get over 50% of the vote and over 50% of the seats? We already have over 50% of the seats in SNP form…
Heating bills go up again in October. Like project fear in a union jack.
No doubt Niklas next aim will be to double down on anti Alba and also roll back on the GE Plebicite Method, with promises of needing to sort out the S30 ‘legal’ route first. If she does withdraw the Pleb GE policy, then the argument re not splitting the vote by voting for Alba is also thrown out.
I’m not seeing any SNP campaigners particularly worried about it being a Plebicite GE method, for your info. Which is likely to be more of an issue for Nikla.
Anyway, lets get on and win… a majority of votes and a majority of seats. No one can argue with that.
“But hey yeah! Let’s put a 50% tariff on the Independence vote. What a BRILLIANT idea!
We got 45% in 2014. Presumably you think we should have just declared that as a victory and just moved straight to UDI?
If not, why are you demanding we do that on a much LOWER vote?
Ellis,
At some point in time you will understand that historically, the majority have been consistently wrong.
Scientifically, philosophically, theologically,sociologically, medically, to name a few, consistently wrong.
That you believe me to be in the minority does not phase me one bit, I’ve never sought solace in groupthink.
Claiming to be in the majority or the mainstream does not necessarily mean you are any more correct than me.
“is there any reason why we can’t get over 50% of the vote and over 50% of the seats?”
It would be almost impossible to get over 50% of the votes without getting 50% of the seats. Technically arithmetically doable, but not in the real world.
MARKER
From this point in the thread, any more personal attacks will see the comments deleted and the attacker placed on the pre-moderation list. No exceptions.
Alison says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:00 am
As a woman I hope this is correct. I don’t want to be in a position where my concern for the fate of women’s rights in Scotland might force me to vote no in an independence referendum. We need time to oust Sturgeon & her gang, restore & enshrine in law the rights of women *before we vote on independence because as things stand at the moment many women will not vote yes.
Well said Alison.
It’s impossible to take someone seriously who believes a man can become a woman just because he says he is.
“Why are we not forcing the Unionists to tell us that a majority of seats isn’t acceptable to them?
Why are we not making the Unionists tell us that a majority of seats was once enough but isn’t now?”
Sigh. They HAVE told us that – a million of them jumped on Swinney’s comments before he retracted them – and they’ve NEVER accepted that a majority of seats was enough.
(Please don’t post that made-up “quote” from Margaret Thatcher that people are fond of putting on Twitter unless you can provide me with a verified direct source for it. I spent a long time looking for it and found nothing.)
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:16 am
MARKER
From this point in the thread, any more personal attacks will see the comments deleted and the attacker placed on the pre-moderation list. No exceptions.
Would you be able to define what you mean by personal attacks?
@Breeks
But hey yeah! Let’s put a 50% tariff on the Independence vote. What a BRILLIANT idea!
You know I’m almost sure the Unionists can be persuaded to go for that.
The 2015 GE result was 49.97 % of the vote, delivering 56 of 59 MPs. Close, but no cigar. Either you can’t count, or you think folk are stupid.
49.42% of the Quebecois voted for independence in 1995 on a turnout of 93.5%. They didn’t argue it was a mandate for independence.
As Stu point out, in the arithmetically unlikely event we won 50% of the votes, the logic of what passes for your argument is that we’d have to accept we lost.
Get a grip.
Alison @ 11am,
That sounds counterintuitive, if the trajectory that Scotland is on at the moment is everything that you fear then surely you would want to change that trajectory.
A sure fire way of changing that trajectory is Scottish independence.
“First, it must be understood that Sturgeon is not going to the UKSC asking that they confirm the competence of the Scottish Parliament to authorise a proper constitutional referendum. She is not seeking confirmation of our right of self-determination by having the UKSC rule that the Scottish Parliament has the authority to facilitate the full and proper exercise of that right. That is what we are supposed to believe the court action is about. It’s what a remarkable number of gullible people believe she is doing. In fact, she is merely asking the UKSC to rule that we can have a referendum that is “consultative and non-self-executing” and therefore by definition not the full and proper exercise of our right of self-determination.”
This is legally a rock-solid point, but since ALL referendums in the UK are non-binding it’s a distinction without a difference. A legal “consultative” referendum would in all practical senses have the same weight as the 2014 one.
“Would you be able to define what you mean by personal attacks?”
It means personal attacks. Comments based on who someone is rather than what they said. So talking about “Ruby and her posse” would qualify, and so would “behaving like an absolute cunt”.
So are we all f…ed then? Is that what you`re all saying? We’d all better forget about independence and get back in the box?
Yes Stu,
Perhaps they have but not nearly enough and double that during any campaign period.
How many times have we had to listen to “once in a generation” guff even though it’s been explained to the Unionists, how many more times are we going to hear it?
It doesn’t matter one jot whether it’s true or not.
“We’d all better forget about independence and get back in the box?”
No, I’m saying the 2023 referendum is an impossibility, and we need to get used to the idea that a 2024 plebiscite election is our only viable option and ensure that the SNP commit to running it as a one-issue plebiscite and don’t turn it into just another “give us a mandate” election.
@’
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:13 am
“is there any reason why we can’t get over 50% of the vote and over 50% of the seats?”
It would be almost impossible to get over 50% of the votes without getting 50% of the seats. Technically arithmetically doable, but not in the real world.’
Sorry for being a bit dense here, but from a campaigning point of view, we go out and persuade people of the case for Indy, and the need to vote for individuals and party members who represent that policy. We’ve been doing that since 2012.
We already have enough voters who vote for a majority of MP’s standing on an Indy ticket (leaving aside their commitment to that cause for one minute).
We’ve been banging on about getting a second Indy Ref – which was always going to need over 50% of the vote, and was the area where we needed the campaign to start so we could get momentum going, and get the support up.
I appreciate there are a lot of pitfalls, and potential self sabotage by the SNP leadership between here and the ballot box, but in terms of making the case I would suggest we have less distance to travel than folk would suggest.
If, it’s a big if, the Supreme Court approves a Bill on the proviso that it is legal in that form one might expect that unless a rogue Green or SNP MSP votes in an amendment put forward either by themselves or the opposition parties it will be a box ticking exercise to pass it unamended.
It then goes to the challenge stage at which point it’s entirely possible Westminster will pull the same shite they did with the EU bill and change the law to make it illegal. Assuming they don’t just do so before it’s passed.
Not forgetting that it’s yet to be tested whether withdrawal of an S30 or its defacto nullification if either government changes would render any referendum act based on a transfer of powers void.
We’re heading towards a plan B where independence is played by Westminster rules. A plebiscite election. Party with largest number of MPs in Scotland wins. On the back of a referendum that was denied or even on the back of one that was won but Westminster refused to recognise. Those both might benefit from being recent events so timing matters.
@’ Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:31 am
“We’d all better forget about independence and get back in the box?”
No, I’m saying the 2023 referendum is an impossibility, and we need to get used to the idea that a 2024 plebiscite election is our only viable option and ensure that the SNP commit to running it as a one-issue plebiscite and don’t turn it into just another “give us a mandate” election.’
Great, thanks for the clarification, I never picked up on this aspect so much in the main article. With you all the way on this point. One proviso being, if we start doing well in the polls, Westminster will call a snap GE, we should be prepared for that.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:28 am
“Would you be able to define what you mean by personal attacks?”
It means personal attacks. Comments based on who someone is rather than what they said. So talking about “Ruby and her posse” would qualify, and so would “behaving like an absolute cunt”.
Sounds good! Would Moonhowlers, Fringe nutters, Tourettes Ruby etc etc also be included?
@Rev Stu 11.19 am
(Please don’t post that made-up “quote” from Margaret Thatcher that people are fond of putting on Twitter unless you can provide me with a verified direct source for it. I spent a long time looking for it and found nothing.)
I think when the issue of things Thatcher said was discussed before, the quote below was publicised too. It seems the best rejoinder to unionist disinformation on what the Leaderene actually said WRT to independence. It a quote from page 624 of the Downing Street Years:
“As a nation, they [Scotland] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (nor indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.”
It is a con, a charade. Why else would she choose the legal route that offers the least hope? Holyrood is the creature of Westminster and she has done sweet FA to change that. Because she can then say that the GE, the primary source of democracy, is the way forward. Good and well, you might think. Nah! A plebiscitary election that features only the SNP, with no broad alliance of all the independence movement, will deliver the SNP another electoral victory, with still no independence – but, hey, there will be another mandate. To be quietly dropped when the victory is under the SNP’s belt. What a coup, and the gullible loyalist, idol-worshippers will fall for it yet again.
As you ably describe, Rev, the legal route is a non-starter, and always was. This is precisely the same format as in the GRA reform consultations: all mouth, no substance. Women were conned into thinking she meant to listen to them. Like hell, she did. She even entertained men speaking of behalf of women on women’s issues and grievances which they could not even comprehend. A set-up. Just as this is. Johnson may be a blustering, accident-prone PM with a target on his back, but oor Nikla is from a different stable entirely. She is a Vichy Scot, a Vichy woman, a Vichy politician. She has betrayed us over and over again and she is set to do it yet another time. She must despise all females, in order to male sexual fetishes and she must despise real, genuine independence supporters. It might just be time now to ask: why is she so hell-bent on pushing through dangerous GRA reform (self-ID) at the expense of independence? Not as a side issue, but at the expense of independence? On paper, they are a tiny minority. Maybe we need to look more closely at the small print.
Daisy: do you honestly believe that she will not turn it into a version of SNP 1&2? She has set us up for this, and she needs our votes to ensure SNP victory. That is why she is in favour of the amendment now. She sees the possibilities. Or someone close to her does. Labour utterly betrayed working people and those out of work; the SNP is betraying women and independence supporters in equal measure, who are often the same people. We really need to find out why.
The thing about 50% of the vote is that the electorate for a GE and a referendum is different. That turnouts would vary. That it’s moving towards a 1979 scenario where you’re at the mercy of a possibility unreliable voters roll and open to it being deliberately abused.
If it was me then I’d register at multiple addresses as is perfectly legal. I may even register others while I was at it. Not as legal perhaps. As long as I only vote once and under my own name no laws would be broken. Think of it as stuffing the electoral roll rather than the ballot box.
That leaves the problem of exit polls. Already a tricky subject due to postal voting. The thing there is that if there are any then a successful boycott would render them pointless. In effect instead of voting multiple times and risking getting caught I could not vote and have that counted multiple times. Exit polls would then be dismissed as a result of the boycott.
So threats to boycott a referendum will in due course lead to an attempt to get pro independence supporters to grab the tar baby that is a minimum level of support of a figure that can be manipulated by those against.
Think I’m suffering from a Mandela Effect as far as the Thatcher quote goes. I remember hearing it as a reply to a question about how Scotland could gain independence. Thing is it seems to lack the qualifier of the majority of seats being in Scotland which is important as if it’s in Westminster then it’s not the slam dunk it’s cracked up to be. Instead it might simply mean you don’t.
Rev. Stuart Campbell @ 10:15 am
“You can contend that elephants are bananas if you like, it won’t make it so.”
The question is, do a majority of Scotland’s MP’s hold ultimate political sovereignty in and over the sovereign people and nation of Scotland? If so, then they are entitled to act accordingly and withdraw Scotland from international agreements no longer in the nation’s interest.
If Scotland’s MPs were not considered to hold ultimate political sovereignty over Scotland, this means that England’s MPs hold sovereignty over Scotland, and that constitutionally Scotland must be regarded as a colony, much as it is treated socially, politically and economically etc.
There’s one sure way to test whether a people and their representatives hold sovereignty, which is much talked about but never acted upon in our case. And ultimately that is what national independence/decolonisation is about.
Forgot to add. It seems that Hansard, or something like it, was recently edited to alter the debate on the Claim of Right motion that was passed by Westminster. It’s since been unedited to the original. So not finding the origin of that Thatcher quote might not be unexpected.
Peter Bell’s comment is worth persisting with. All that is being done is to set the stage for the next phase. Nothing that will happen in the next 18 months will deliver independence.
There’s a lot of change coming this winter and none of it is good. How the economic crisis plays out will largely determine whether the British State and the SNP can maintain control of the situation. Another fatal flaw in the SNP plan is that expectations are getting wildly out of alignment with reality. Throw in a long, hard winter of shortages of food, energy and hope and things might just be radically different from today.
“I appreciate there are a lot of pitfalls, and potential self sabotage by the SNP leadership between here and the ballot box, but in terms of making the case I would suggest we have less distance to travel than folk would suggest.”
I have no idea what you’re apparently disagreeing with me about.
Stu
It would be almost impossible to get over 50% of the votes without getting 50% of the seats. Technically arithmetically doable, but not in the real world.
Agreed, it’s unlikely but possible, especially the way the WM constituencies have been gerrymandered. You could see a situation where there are massive YES majorities in some, and very close NO votes in others, where YES just fails to get a majority of seats despite > 50% votes. The terms of the Plebiscite MUST explicitly be > 50% votes OR > 50% seats – no coming back with “Ah but you only won 50% of….”. We can’t leave any more room for her weasel words.
I wonder how far people can be pushed before violence breaks out?
Do you think Boris ever gives this a thought?
Would all those who are opposed to Boris granting a section 30 prefer to see violence break out in Scotland.
It could well be heading that way unless people in Scotland just give up and get back in their box.
Same applies to self-id. Will women just give up and get back in their box?
I’m surprised that people have fallen hook, line and sinker for the “vote SNP for independence” mantra once again after eight years of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Even many of those who should know better are arguing over what constitutes a plebiscitary election – votes vs. seats etc. – and urging us to unite behind the SNP once more when it should be patently obvious by now that the SNP have no intention of delivering independence. They are using independence to misdirect and push through their own divisive and damaging policies which are never openly declared. It is a form of mesmerism, with the hypnotic dangling of a carrot rather than a watch. I don’t know what it will take to break the spell; perhaps it will only be broken when people wake up to find themselves in rags and shackles. The SNP are simply not capable of leading Scotland to independence; they have demonstrated no understanding of the real issues involved. If someone has done nothing in eight years to prepare for an eventuality, do you think that eventuality will ever come about by their own hands or be a success if it does? Fail to prepare, prepare to fail. And it’s disingenuous to think we just need to get independence and then we can vote Sturgeon out and undo all the damage she has done. What evidence is there that Sturgeon has an objective understanding of independence, is prepared to put her country before herself, and work collectively with others for the good of the nation? She is an autocrat who has never engaged with the other pro-independence parties in the past (except for her trans allies) so why would she do so in the future? Scotland under a rainbow dictator as a compliant cog of globalist tyranny is not the Scotland our ancestors fought for or a future that our children will ever thank us for.
Were the SNP actually serious about using an election as a plebiscite then they would use the Holyrood elections.
It ticks every box in terms of legitimacy – from proportional (sort of) representation to transferrable votes. There would be virtually no argument which could be put forward which would invalidate a result which gave >50% of the vote and >50% of the seats.
As soon as I saw they were ruling that out, alarm bells started ringing.
The FPTP nature of the Westminster elections is an alien concept to most countries in the world so you’re immediately on the back foot in terms of convincing other countries to recognise it as a mandate for independence.
The “referral” to the SC is farcical. Even before the Martin Keatings case it would be farcical – you cannot ask a court to rule on legislation before its been written, never mind enacted.
Oh and re the “Thatcher reference” – IF she said that then the only reason she did was because there was 0% chance of it happening at any foreseeable point in the future. The fact that it took 26 YEARS after she left Downing Street says it all.
Sturgeon has played you all for fools. Again.
Once upon a time before Holyrood was a twinkle in the eye of Blair there was a thing called The Scottish Grand Committee consisting of all Scotland’s MPs that had responsibility for representing Scotland in cases where it was inappropriate for Westminster as a whole to do so.
This is appropriate as the Treaty of Union, both Acts of Union, and lack of a new election, can all be read as our MPs being one of the contracting parties to the treaty. Westminster is described as a permanent joint session of the previous parliaments.
The difference would be that whereas the Scottish parliament that entered into the union did so against the will of the electorate they would be ending it with it.
Rev Stu, I hear what you say about a single-issue plebiscite election in 2024, but can you imagine the unionist response – “Sturgeon’s obsession with independence revealed for all to see”, “We’ve been warning the electorate for years”, “what about the cost of living”, “poor performance with regard to education” etc etc – you get my drift. The media will have a field day.
Saffron Robe,
Why would you think it disingenuous to believe the political landscape will change in an independent Scotland?
For as long as I have been alive Scottish society has endured all sorts of shite imposed on us that was supported by less than 50% of oor population. Cannae say I’ve noticed the legal profession or the international community running to aid us and save us from such undemocratic oppression.
The game will continue to be a bogey if these charlatans that get themselves “elected” into positions of power on a certain ticket can then simply pick and choose the particular policies they want to implement, even when less than 50% of the population support such policies.
She/ her / Burner of mandates talks about being a democrat but that simply isn’t true. When people show you who they are, believe them the first time…
She’s trashed the democratic structures of her own Party, and the parliament she leads has the power to hold referenda on certain matters, so why doesn’t she display her democrat credentials and actually consult Scots on our views on all this genderwoowoo stuff seeing as it has such far reaching ramifications for Scottish society.
I tend to agree with what Peter Bell stated in his 10.49am post. There needs to be substance and an actual process laid out, or how can pro-indy activists genuinely and honestly campaign without just being snake oil salespersons.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:11 am
If not, why are you demanding we do that on a much LOWER vote?
Because I want to kill the Union in any conceivable way possible, using a combination of Westminster’s rules and Scotland’s Claim of Right to bring the Union to it’s knees and end it. Our Scottish democracy is completely compromised and corrupt, and utterly ruthless in suppressing nationalist arguments, and in the way it skews reality and distorts our collective perspective. That situation is not going to improve while Westminster is in charge.
The finer points of democracy, (those not already “adequately” delivered by Westminster’s democratic first past the post protocols), can be addressed later, once we’ve hopefully fixed large problems with our democracy. We can then reconcile our “cleansed” democracy in a Scottish ratification plebiscite held after the Union is ended, where it is a Scottish Parliament, or interim caretaker government who is in charge of the questions on the ballot and the voting franchise, and where there is a realistic possibility of competition to the jaded BBC / BritNat media.
Before we trust Scottish democracy, let us first have a democratic discussion and debate that is unfettered by external manipulation, UK propaganda and disinformation.
To use an EU parallel, I would regard a 30+ majority of Scottish MP’s electing to end the Treaty of Union as being a broadly similar situation to the Brexit result, – A simple binary event where it’s the consequences which are immense. After the UK entered a transitional stage of negotiation to sort out the details of it’s exit, (or even change it’s mind).
I know, there is no written protocol to auger in a similar Transitional exit period for exiting the UK like there was for exiting Europe, but mutual expediency would see one drawn up.
Scotland was invited to enter holding pen status with the EU, and a similar “fluid” status could / would exist for both Scotland and England, after the dissolution of the Treaty.
After voting to end the Treaty of Union, (or better still, declaring it breached), Scotland would have the Constitutional Right and Legal Personality to freely interact with foreign nations, while negotiating exit terms for the demise of the UK, and do so in anticipation of a ratification plebiscite to approve the terms of dissolution at some later date.
Even if it all went tits up, and Unionism somehow resurrected it’s popularity and a clear majority of Scots wanted to remain part of the UK, the old Treaty of Union would be dead and could not simply be resurrected.
It would have to be replaced with a new Treaty, negotiated from scratch, and Scotland would be certified as mentally infirm if it contemplated another Treaty of Union as grossly unfair to Scotland as the first.
30 Scottish MP’s properly elected to Westminster is adequate constitutional mechanism to kill off the Treaty of Union, and begin dismantling the UK while we make haste to re-assemble a fully functional Scottish Government and National infrastructure which again, just like Brexit, allows Scotland to dis-align itself from UK Government.
With the Treaty dead, Scotland negotiates with England as our equal, and that simply will not happen while the Union survives.
It is in this transitional “holding pen” status, when able to negotiate with foreign nations, that I believe Scotland could position itself a buffer state between the EU and Brexited England, where English / EU trade could be filtered through Scotland to circumvent the NI Protocol and facilitate a lasting solution to the Brexit problem, which benefits Scotland, and Scotland should use this to accelerate International Recognition.
The English will know Scotland is serious about leaving, and will recognise pragmatic advantages to a Scottish Independence which can help England’s economy and trade with Europe and avoid an EU Trade War and pariah status for deliberately breaking International Agreements.
30+ MP’s is lunacy? I absolutely disagree. It is completely rational and level headed, and I firmly believe it will work.
“When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose”
“Propaganda, All is Phoney”
Scottish Nonce Party!
If I was Boris, I would call this bluff and agree to a section 30 immediately (with strings attached). The knives are out for him anyway – this is probably the only way to regain some support. The troops would rally round if the union is threatened. The SG has barely time to prepare. Imagine he faces down the sweaties and saves Britannia – I would have thought this is right up his street. Nah Boris, flying off and hiding in Ukraine and other places around the world won’t save you – but something bold like taking on the sweaties head on just might extend yer PM jolly for a while.
On another topic, I can’t help feeling that EVENTS are going to play a big part in how this all unfolds. We have the NI protocol about to be ditched (and all the uproar that follows) , the UK economy going down the tubes and a savage recession about to hit us hard, really hard. It could go one way or the other. Whichever way ot goes, it will have a massive impact IMO.
“If I was Boris, I would call this bluff and agree to a section 30 immediately (with strings attached). The knives are out for him anyway – this is probably the only way to regain some support.”
From who?
Saffron Robe says:
2 July, 2022 at 12:12 pm
I’m surprised that people have fallen hook, line and sinker for the “vote SNP for independence” mantra once again after eight years of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
I’m surprised that you are surprised!
Remember this is an area of the world where the vast majority of the electorate voted in Labour troughers for over half a century to wallow in taxpayer’s largesse, their families turning localities into their little feudal fiefdoms where council seats were passed down like heirlooms.
Meanwhile the ordinary people’s lot seemed to get a little bit worse every day, one step forward followed by two steps back, yet they still doffed their caps to these bare faced trecherous scoundrels – who had betrayed neighbours and friends with platitutes in order to be that wee bit better off than them – in much the same way the people did to their boss and his family who lived in “the big hoose”.
When the people finally came to their senses far too late – or rather their children’s children who hadn’t gone through the indoctrination almost at the teat to “the Labour Movement” and “knowing your place” – there was always the danger of Scots falling lazily back into the familiar servitude – and well certain elements in the SNP knew it, and sought to take advantage of it. Such as Sturgeon plonking her parents in safe council seats.
Which is one of the reasons we are now in the current pickle of “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
@Alf Baird 12.05 pm
The question is, do a majority of Scotland’s MP’s hold ultimate political sovereignty in and over the sovereign people and nation of Scotland?
That’s an easy one surely? However hard it might be to hear, no they don’t, unless and until it is clearly demonstrated that the majority of MPs represent >50% of the voters and that majority was elected on a specifically plebiscitary mandate.
Just as the Scottish MPs in the union parliament can’t dictate terms to the whole Westminster parliament on devolution for Scotland (or Yorkshire MPs for devolution there) per Thatcher’s quote referenced above, Scottish MPs at Westminster are not going to succeed in having a declaration of independence recognised if they were not elected specifically on that prospectus.
It is earnestly to be hoped that whatever the outcome of the upcoming Supreme Court case, all pro independence parties can unite around one concept, if around nothing else: if the SC finds that the holding of a referendum is outwith the competence of Holyrood, or refuses to rule on the basis that it is a political rather than legal question, all parties must immediately announce that henceforward all general elections, whether at Westminster or Holyrood, are de facto plebiscitary.
“Sleekit” Nonce Party!
@’
Lorna Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:50 am
Daisy: do you honestly believe that she will not turn it into a version of SNP 1&2? She has set us up for this, and she needs our votes to ensure SNP victory. That is why she is in favour of the amendment now. She sees the possibilities. Or someone close to her does. Labour utterly betrayed working people and those out of work; the SNP is betraying women and independence supporters in equal measure, who are often the same people. We really need to find out why.’
Hello Lorna.
Firstly I fully believe Nikla has set this up to be a GE Pleb, and that the motive behind it is to engender a ‘win, but not a victory’ and so keep the SNP in power, but with a ‘watered down’ mandate of sorts.
But, as keeps being said, she is not a good tactician. That plan has weaknesses.
The points I was trying to make are as follows:
We always needed to get over 50% of the votes for an Indy Ref. So there’s no change in that target, and we are starting from around 47% this time out.
We already have a majority of MP’s elected on an Indy ticket (leaving aside their commitment for one moment). So again, not an insurmountable mountain to climb.
By firing the starting gun, setting a date, and by letting the Plebicite GE cat out of the bag and making it legitimate, she is (whether she wanted to or not) enabling the Yes Campaign to move into action.
And that includes a lot of decent SNP supporters, who have (from what I can see, reached the end of their ‘hold the party line’ tether). They were told they could not campaign until there was a date. We now have a date.
They were told a GE Pleb was out the window, now its full frontal. They were told….etc, etc. Well the games on, and now we are working together again, they can listen to what others have to say, but most importantly they can either campaign for Indy, or sit on their arses. And I don’t see them prepared to sit this one out, no matter what Nikla says.
Alba were very strong in repeating her words – ‘no ifs, no buts’, and there was a strong suspicion it ‘forced’ Nikla’s hand. Pretty sure we’re going to keep ‘taking what is said at face value’ and ‘forcing’ the SNP to keep the right track.
With regards the Betrayal of Women. Stu highlighted that this faith based GR cult madness would be a spanner in the works of the Indy SNP movement and he was right. Neither that, nor Niklas great GE Peb plan are likely to have been her idea. Both mechanisms have been used before. The GR Cult in Government in Malta, and the ‘So close but no cigar/keep the faith’ policy with Labour in the UK.
We have a year or 2 now, to establish Pro Indy candidates in each area as a back up to the SNP. And nothing is more likely to keep them on the straight an narrow than that possibility… A plan B if you like. And if that sounds unrealistic, then look back at 2015 GE, and the crest fallen faces of the Labour MP’s booted out, by a bunch of people off the street.
And if Nikla tries to back out of the GE Pleb method, and pursue a neverendum S30 ‘legal’ route, there is no reason why other parties should play that game, and she weakens the SNP carrot to power by doing so. (It would in reality be a gift for Alba).
I am not being rosy tinted optimistic here. But I am feeling more confident that I have for a long, long time. And that is in the face of all of the above pitfalls.
We have a winter of extortionate heating bills coming. Project Fear wrapped up in a Union Jack.
And lastly, ‘we really need to find out why’. With respect, I don’t think we do. It will either be utter incompetence, or it will be corruption. If we spend time trying to prove either to our SNP Indy campaigners, they will not listen. Instead we have to move beyond that and get Indy done. That will enable them to join us.
No ifs, no buts is now my rallying cry by the way;) That and how is the £600,000 Indy fund being allocated, now the dates been set?
Lets get this done.
@ Breeks
I’m minded of this previous discussion on how others may view and deal with Scotland’s ongoing predicament.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
“Declaration of independence from a state arising from a member state’s secession or dissolution following a democratic process.“
Saffron Robe says:
2 July, 2022 at 12:12 pm
I couldn’t agree more.
Nothing will change while people keep voting in Sturgeon/Murrel/Swinney, them and the pro-devo closet-unionists within the SNP are the obstacles – they always have been.
“It is completely rational and level headed, and I firmly believe it will work”.
I’ll maybe qualify that bit… Provided Nicola Sturgeon is NOT put in charge of it.
Aye well so we’re aw fkd then the people who believe that independence is the best way forward might as well go and sit in the garden have a drink and a fag and say oh well that’s it’s what’s the friggn point , the English establishment wins without raising a finger.
Yep that’s something to look forward to eh like starting a match and saying we are going to get beat why waste time .
Happy Day’s
@Breeks 12.30 pm
30 Scottish MP’s properly elected to Westminster is adequate constitutional mechanism to kill off the Treaty of Union, and begin dismantling the UK while we make haste to re-assemble a fully functional Scottish Government and National infrastructure which again, just like Brexit, allows Scotland to dis-align itself from UK Government.
With the Treaty dead, Scotland negotiates with England as our equal, and that simply will not happen while the Union survives.
Says who? You? Any actual back up for that from experts in the field? A majority of MPs elected in an ordinary GE does not signify a mandate to kill off the Treaties of Union or begin dismantling the UK, because they have no mandate to do so and could not point to clear majority support for doing so. If – and its a big if – they had been elected on a such a mandate and had the unambiguous support of >50% of voters, it would be a different story.
Given current circumstances, the most credible route to independence in the short to medium term is via plebiscitary elections. Holyrood elections would probably be preferable given the better franchise and proportional voting system, but it’s hard to see the devolutionists in the SNP provoking early elections by standing down when the SC finds against the SG. GE2024 is still likely to result in quicker progress towards indy than the other “cunning plans for indy” being advanced.
Whether a Yes result is achieved via referendum or plebiscitary elections, there will still be negotiations to be had, and a transitional period. That’d be no different to most other independence movements: it’s just negotiating the details after independence has been achieved.
The AV referendum was, technically, non consultative.
It was actually part of an Act of Parliament that had a clause that would change the form of elections if the referendum had passed and a sunset clause that caused it to self destruct after a given date.
Not sure if the act that led to the 2014 referendum had such a clause or not. If not then there was absolutely no point to the S30 other than establishing that it couldn’t be held without Westminster permission.
Robert Graham,
Just in case you didn’t know, Stu has warned people to cut out the personal attacks.
So is she a dim wit or has she been compromised and if compromised since when
Stu.
I seem to recall Sturgeon using the phrase ‘de facto referendum’ for the next general election Has that already poisoned it’s validity?
” Shug says:
2 July, 2022 at 1:07 pm
So is she a dim wit or has she been compromised and if compromised since when”
Her & “hubby” have made several million quid so far by controlling the SNP, why would she want to change anything?
Saffron Robe @ 12:12 pm
“What evidence is there that Sturgeon has an objective understanding of independence”
Not much it seems, though this should help:
link to cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com
“The mad idea that we could effectively declare independence based on a majority of seats rather than votes has to go in the bin right now. It’s ludicrous. You could get 30 MPs on about 29% of the vote, and only a complete lunatic thinks that’s (a) a mandate or (b) anything the rest of the world would contemplate recognising in a million years.”
I agree.
I just don’t know what you do though in a plausible situation where the SNP stand only on independence, win 57 of 59 seats (say), but only on 48% of the vote.
Do they just say “well, we’ll try again for the last 2-and-a-bit % in 5 years, in the meantime, um….”. Do we start grubbing around to see if the small number of votes for other pro-indy parties counts to the 50% threshold?
I think at some point proportion of seats being nearly entirely 100% needs to weigh heavily in any “plebiscite” regardless of vote proportion.
Sturgeon’s voice had hardly died away before the opposition began the fear shtick. UK defence under threat being the big one; an independent Scotland falling prey to wickedness from the east letting the badies in by the «back door».
History repeats, back then it was the French who posed a threat, to England. England, of course, being never a threat to anybody.
Unitary states do not respond well to secession, see USA, Nigeria and China, Spain & India where it is unconstitutional even with a favourable majority. The UK can safely be added with its remarkably versatile «constitution» and its rule of law.
Sturgeon wants a velvet divorce. Does anybody imagine the Brit establishment, Johnson, Starmer, The Guardian would be so complaisant?
The Brit lion may be an old mangy beast but it has never been known to do roll over tricks.
Is there a tyranno. rex among Scots politicos, a velociraptor even?
Said the same thing regarding the timeline at the last *we’ll have indyref2 within the term of this parliament* as the countdown was ticking fast to its expiry – to many boos, hisses & flounces on twitter by Nicolas attack dogs.
It had already been stated the electrol commission alone takes, at a minimum, 3 months to test the question, organise for a ref, for it to be returned, debated, passed etc & that didn’t even include WM fecking around having cunning & daring plans afoot.
So time was up! Game over.
Ok, we promise to have indyref2 within the term of the NEXT parliament IF we win! Vote fuckwits 1 & 2 folks! We mean it this time!
The law taking much longer than you thought – who knew?
– the “no, after you” deadlock is something I did not notice. Well spotted.
That there are no exits from a maze built by your enemy, imagine that.
At some point, whatever the byzantine meanderings, a Scottish leader has to “call it and take it to the UN”. Then we see what happens (- you can call it what you like – decolonisation, treaty revocation, even UDI, a democratic mandate …)
You can do anything you want it life – you just need to make it stick, either by individual power, or the alliances you can count on.
This takes us into realpolitik, which was always the game you should have been playing, from the beginning (- you would not make such a move without preparing the ground first, e.g. if the americans are okay with it, you’re done as every other country in the world -hates- England and its people.)
“The question is, do a majority of Scotland’s MP’s hold ultimate political sovereignty in and over the sovereign people and nation of Scotland?”
No. The Claim Of Right states that THE PEOPLE are sovereign, not any Parliament. And the majority of the people would have voted against a declaration of independence.
“I seem to recall Sturgeon using the phrase ‘de facto referendum’ for the next general election Has that already poisoned it’s validity?”
It’s a deliberately vague phrase whose meaning has yet to be clarified.
“but can you imagine the unionist response – “Sturgeon’s obsession with independence revealed for all to see”, “We’ve been warning the electorate for years”, “what about the cost of living”, “poor performance with regard to education” etc etc – you get my drift. The media will have a field day.”
They’re going to do that no matter what.
The UK Supreme Court has shown its willingness to expedite cases relating to constitutional issues when there are critical target dates. With that precedent, and in similar time constraints, to take its time over the independence referendum cases would look politically driven. The same would apply to the monarchy. Both institutions have their own interests.
The monarchy is not that popular in Scotland at the moment. Alienating Scots further would risk tipping Scotland into republican territory at a time when the monarchy is facing a succession and various former colonies are signalling an intention to become republics.
The UK Supreme Court would also lose credibility and respect if it seemed to be behaving politically in a manner hostile to Scotland.
“It had already been stated the electrol commission alone takes, at a minimum, 3 months to test the question”
I didn’t include that in the calculation because the Electoral Commission has already agreed to do it (back in 2020, in fact) without any preconditions, so it could be done while the bill was progressing through Parliament.
“The UK Supreme Court has shown its willingness to expedite cases relating to constitutional issues when there are critical target dates.”
Which isn’t the case here. If the SNP were in a hurry they could have referred the matter to the SC any time after June 2016. And certainly at a bare minimum 14 months ago, the day after they won the Holyrood election. Saying “We need you to rush this through because we’ve been sat around with our thumbs up our arses for six years” isn’t going to hold much water with the Supreme Court.
“The monarchy is not that popular in Scotland at the moment.”
It’s considerably more popular than the SNP (something like 60-45), which is a bad starting place for the SNP in a fight.
“I just don’t know what you do though in a plausible situation where the SNP stand only on independence, win 57 of 59 seats (say), but only on 48% of the vote.”
I’m afraid it’s simple: in that instance (assuming for the sake of argument that other indy parties had stood down and it was only the SNP) we’ve lost fair and square and that’s that.
“Robert Graham,
Just in case you didn’t know, Stu has warned people to cut out the personal attacks.”
Indeed he has, which is why Robert’s comment has been deleted and Robert is now on pre-moderation.
Her latest Indy ref announcement has rather convenient timing for a few reasons
1) It keeps the die hard Sturgeonites clapping like seals as they have done with all her previous Indy ref announcements.
2) It comes a few weeks after it was being reported in the media that Police Scotland wanted to interview people under caution regarding missing ring fenced Indy ref funds with COPFS running interference on behalf of the SNP hierarchy.
3)With the vast majority of people regardless of their position on Indy not supporting the SNPs gender ideology legislation and their attempts to make real women second class citizens in favour of cross dressing men rather than attention be on that and people talking about gender recognition legislation the attention has been diverted to Indy so it goes largely unnoticed by the general public.
Under Sturgeon the SNP have followed the same pattern again and again and as always it’s usually wings that call them out on that BS.
1)Wings is one of the few on the Indy side stating the obvious that there isn’t time for Indy Ref 2 to happen in 2023 and Sturgeon is flogging that same dead carrot again.
2)Wings was the first to report on the missing ring fenced funds from SNP accounts whilst main stream media and those members of the SNP loyal to Sturgeon actively chose to ignore it.
3)Wings has been the only one with the balls to report on the sort of deviants pushing their gender ideology BS that have the ear of Sturgeon and her inner circle.
Putting all that to one side and it’s hard to ignore what is so blatantly obvious under Sturgeon Indy Ref 2 is being referred to as an illegal referendum, de facto referendum and pretendyref. Under Salmond there was no doubt as to the legality of the 2014 Indy Ref it was watertight had yes won it would have been legally binding with no get out for Westminster.
That’s the difference between Salmond and Sturgeon when it came to Indy Ref Salmond did most of the negotiations behind closed doors and got the job done in regards to getting a legally binding referendum because it was all about Independence, with Sturgeon the negotiations have all be done via the press and social media because rather than it be about independence it’s all been about her getting her mug in the papers and on TV.
I cannot imagine Good Queen Betty signing on the dotted line.
She’s not stupid.
I am a soft no-voter and would vote for independence under certain conditions, but undecided voters would be put off the independence cause if they read some of the ridiculous comments on here. Some of the views here will only appeal to the fringe lunatics of the independence movement. These individuals are the independence equivalent of unionists who wish to abolish devolution and see anything ‘Scottish’ as a threat.
‘WE CAN DECLARE SCOTLAND INDEPENDENT ON A MAJORITY OF SEATS’
No, you bloody well can’t. This is 2022 and our view of democracy has (thankfully) matured – there is no way you could declare Scotland independent against the express wishes of the majority of voters.
In a Parliamentary democracy, its the number of seats that count, not vote share. However, this wouldn’t be a normal election – this would be a plebiscite, de-facto referendum on a single issue. If you want to declare Scotland independent, then you MUST have the majority of the people of Scotland on your side. The UK Government would never accept a majority of seats as being an mandate for independence and neither would the international community. There are far too many amateur charlatans who have attached themselves to the independence movement and have declared themselves ‘experts’.
Whether it’s the SSRG (they actually think Scotland is a colony lol) or a driving instructor from Partick pretending to be a constitutional lawyer.
‘SCOTLAND IS A COLONY’
No it isn’t. Scotland together with England colonised the world and created the largest and more powerful empire in human history. To refer to Scotland as a colony, is degrading to those who have suffered at the hands of genuine colonialism. Many of Glasgow’s street signs will tell you a lot about Scotland’s role in the British Empire. To say Scots weren’t involved in the slave trade is an ignorant and offensive disregard of historical atrocities.
There won’t be an independence referendum next year and I highly doubt YES will manage 50% + 1 of the vote share at the next election. If you want independence, then the SNP must convince the majority of voters (they haven’t) and run a competent administration (they don’t) – although, I agree they do have a mandate for a referendum.
I don’t think we’ll ever get indyref2
Sturgeon, under the terms of the Scotland Act/devolution is a glorified county councillor with a talking shop parliament to appease the natives.
Sturgeon proved time & time again she was happy with that set up. Even after Mundel & Mayhem both forewarned her that the Devo settlement was predicated on membership of the EU & would be revised after Brexshit because there was no EU.
Fake outrage all around when this actually fkn happened with the kickstart of the powergrab. Sturgeon – Oh dear, never mind. We tried. BtW, I’m reading this latest best selling book! It’s a page turner! La, laa, lah, de, dum.
Another sitter missed.
Only way we’ll ever get indyref2 is by ripping up the Scotland Act & to stop fkn about within the confines of Holyrood. It doesn’t take a genius to know, under the terms of Devo, the Supreme court will win it’s case & block leading the way for the HoL & Kezias way of a new Act altogether forbidding any Nation within the UK from ever, ever having silly notions of seceding. Period.
I’m mad at myself for believing Sturgeon would ever deliver. WM shat a brick during the 1st one. They won’t be as daft again.
Their cash cow nearly walked away. They’ll not do that again.
solarflare says:
2 July, 2022 at 1:32 pm
I think at some point proportion of seats being nearly entirely 100% needs to weigh heavily in any “plebiscite” regardless of vote proportion.
No it can’t because Parliamentary seats, like council seats, are determined on the number of people who could be bothered to get off their backside to vote, and – most important of all – because party manifestos are not legally binding contracts between the electorate and candidates – otherwise the jails would be packed.
“Why are we going down a route that means 16 and 17 year olds can’t vote? Madness!” – An anonymous poster on Scot Goes Pop.
Sounds like an election would be a de facto self-imposed handicap. Has the SNP an opinion?
If it goes to a 2024 plebiscite election, since it’s a UK election, who would be surprised if the UK electoral law was changed so that in the case that any part of the UK held the election as a plebiscite, the pass rate would be –
a.Make the 50%+1 rule apply to the registered electorate and not
just those that voted (shades of 1979 Labour referendum
amendment), or
b Make the pass rate 66% of voters, or
c.Make the pass rate 66% of the registered electorate,
Or the UK could just ignore the legal niceties and utilise any necessary means to get the desired result.
Why would they do this sort of thing? Because the UK knows what an independent Scotland means to them.
‘Most of the (UK) current account deficit stems from a record imbalance of imports and exports’ – Financial Times.
link to archive.ph
Scotland is the only ‘region’ in the UK where exports are greater than imports (and was even more so in previous years) –
link to assets.publishing.service.gov.uk.
Unwokey blokey.
Yes, Salmonds *Gold standard* on how to pre-empt liars.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but how I wish he’d held on until Smiths pish & the vow had been presented. He’d have no doubt laughed his arse off & told them to feck off & think again.
Thankfully I didn’t bother hunting out the flag and the boots. I never believed she was serious.
I am sorry, but I am lost right at the beginning:
“As yet, nobody knows why the Lord Advocate referred the matter directly to the Supreme Court before the passing of the referendum bill. There has been speculation, though, that this was a result of the Lord Advocate, whose assertion of belief that the bill was within Parliament’s powers – intra vires, in the jargon – **would be required in order to present the bill to Parliament,** refusing to do so.”
What would be required?
The way i read that sentence is that
“this was a result of the Lord Advocate… refusing to do so.”
but I get lost with all the subordinate clauses in the middle.
Well done to the Welsh independence marchers in Wrexham today.
The police reported 6000-8000 there.
Mark Boyle says:
2 July, 2022 at 2:27 pm
” and – most important of all – because party manifestos are not legally binding contracts between the electorate and candidates – other”
If you lie on a job application you can be charged with fraud – what a pity this can’t be applied to the CV that prospective MPs present in the form of their party manifesto at elections. Maybe we wouldn’t get so many liars elected if their lies were considered fraud.
Only the Scottish Parliament can restore Scotland’s independence.
The Scottish Parliament can only restore Scotland’s independence if it has the necessary powers.
The Scottish Parliament can only acquire the necessary powers by taking them.
This is where we are.
#ScottishUDI
Ian,
There is no doubt that the UK will use every means at its disposal that they can get away with and any other means that they won’t get caught using to keep the Union intact.
.
Dear Stu.,
A). Thank you for thIS enjoyable, thoughtful and forensically researched article.
B). Thank you for joining in with the debate more frequently than your norm. It is like watching a chess grand-master play 12 games at once.
C). Thank you for the MARKER. For the love of sanity, decency and old fashioned good manners, Stuart, it is like a breath of fresh air in the damp, mouldy dungeon of BTL to have the ad hominem abuse cleaned up.
By profession, I have heard all language and abuse imaginable. But it still fills me with disgust at someone in a public forum freely and regularly calling people a crunt.
I reckon the recent new postings and articles are more to do with Nicola’s Pretenderendum than a Wings Over Scotland site relaunch. But it is really nice that you are back. Even if in a guest appearance style akin to television’s Have I Got News For you presenter.V
In two days time it is 4th July… Independence Day in America. How nice it would be if we could figure out a way to turn Sturgeons duplicity and dissembling into a CHECK MATE move from this site. One that mapped out an ironclad way to turn her self-serving cynical narcissistic waffle in a Judo style move where she was boxed in and had to either RESIGN or DELIVER TRUE INDEPENDENCE.
@Daisy, 12.42
Good comment
It will either be utter incompetence, or it will be corruption
It’s both unfortunately.
I don’t get much into the political technicalities because I don’t see the point at this stage.
What I do see happening is the Scots pro-indy folk missing a trick.
I’ll explain:
Currently there is a growing movement against the actions taken, and the deliberate misinformation spread, by governments and corporations in the last 3 years about a particular subject.
The evidence continues to mount and the politicians, media, corporations, groups of ‘experts’ and others are finding themselves in increasingly hot water as the evidence continues to mount.
The Scottish government is one of the perpetrators of these criminal actions.
Why not stop having carrots dangled in front of you by people who so far have never let you eat a carrot (to continue the bad metaphor) and use this to start going after the entire political, media and corporate establishment?
We could well be looking at a chance to clear house but instead we are picking out the words and tone of a woman who has done nothing except lie, twist, and even attempt to destroy the lives of innocent people to see if she might be telling the truth this time around.
Just to say I wont be expounding on the above topic or arguing about it but it needed to be mentioned as it is currently sitting right in front of our faces as the preeminent elephant in the room.
We have never had the opportunity to simply clear the board in the political, media and corporate world the way we have now.
Not to get into any detail (of which I have done in the past anyway) but unless this is done your referendum, or treaty of union, your UDI or whatever is not going to be allowed to work anyway and all the talk and marches and voting is simply the releasing of steam.
I know, I know…INSIDE the box thinking only, please.
“Why not stop having carrots dangled in front of you by people who so far have never let you eat a carrot (to continue the bad metaphor) and use this to start going after the entire political, media and corporate establishment?”
Please define what this actually means.
One other point, isn’t EVERY SINGLE ELECTION a de facto referendum on independence?
The SNP means it that way, even though the play coy during the campaign, while the other parties repeat it ad infinitum. Where is the novelty in what Sturgeon said? In the end, they can hardly ask for you vote based on their record in power.
Ian, re the plebiscite.
I could be wrong but I’m sure that’s already factored in against their world beating system.
The ‘rules’ are already in place because they’re unwritten. The UK works it’s rules on ‘trust us, we’re the good guys & sound as a pound on international best practices. Okay, it’s really as dodgy as feck but we like it being as ambiguous like that so we can change the rules at any stage.
The returning officers also have a say at their discretion.
We’re conducting a plebiscite please.
Ok. Give us 2 ballot boxes. That should cover it. Lol!
@Ian 3.03 pm
a.Make the 50%+1 rule apply to the registered electorate and not
just those that voted (shades of 1979 Labour referendum
amendment), or
b Make the pass rate 66% of voters, or
c.Make the pass rate 66% of the registered electorate,..
It’s doubtful such ex post facto gerrymandering would cut much ice. If it comes to the point of arguing the toss or legal cases about whether a clear plebiscitary majority is sufficient or not, it’s likely to be seen as more of a political issue to be resolved than as a legal point.
I imagine it’s likely the UK Supreme court will be looking at the various Acts and decisions relating to the Quebec Referendum in 1995 (the original Reference to the Canadian Supreme Court (CSS), the resulting Clarity Act and the Quebec National Assembly’s Mirror Act in response).
Whilst not necessarily directly relevant to the Scottish case, the broad findings of the CSS have been widely seen as influential in legal, constitutional and political science circles. In particular, the CSS recognised that the Canadian Government had a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith where the Quebecois people had expressed a clear desire to become independent.
A British nationalist government which is seen by the international community to close down the “legal” routes to an agreed referendum on the 2014 precedent (or indeed to impose unreasonable conditions not present in 2014), and thereafter to seek to subvert or make functionally impossible plebiscitary general elections for the same purpose, would be taking a huge risk.
The CSS warned in its response to the first of the 3 questions referred to it in 1996 that:
The negotiation process would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities, namely, the majority of the population of Quebec, and that of Canada as a whole. A political majority at either level that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community.
In effect, the CSS has accepted that if the Canadian government did not act in good faith it would strengthen the likelihood that the international community WOULD recognise UDI if all other reasonable avenues had been unreasonably closed off by the metropolitan power, in this instance Canada. The same could be deemed to apply to the UK in the event they refused to “grant” a S30 order for a legal indyref2, then subsequently tried to impose unreasonable conditions or simply refused to engage with or recognise a clear majority gained in response to a clear mandate.
Note: the clear majority in response to a clear mandate and a clear question are vital pre-requisites. The CSS basically makes the legal obligation (on BOTH parties) to negotiate in good faith contingent to there being a clear majority to a clear question. It said the size of the majority was a political not a legal matter.
Now that personal abuse has been outlawed I feel more at ease asking the following:
Has Nicola Sturgeon actually asked for a section 30?
PETER A. BELL.
One «route» is indeed to seize the power. Such an act would require rather more backbone than politicians have sofar displayed. It would be labelled a coup and considered illegitimate, contrary to law (whose?) and much else by London and the international community their self-righteousness on display.
There is no single route, there are routes, the question is which is the quickest.
Enough time has been wasted gazing into space in the hope of something turning up.
What «Scotland» is going through, dithering on the verge, politicians with selfish interests etc. Is redolent of many decolonizing situations where the loss of will at the top forces alternatives to the fore.
Sadly, being led into the wilderness goes with the liberation brief. My family origins are in the MidEast where we know all about political «wilderness».
@Peter Bell 3.17 pm
Only the Scottish Parliament can restore Scotland’s independence.
The Scottish Parliament can only restore Scotland’s independence if it has the necessary powers.
The Scottish Parliament can only acquire the necessary powers by taking them.
This is where we are.
#ScottishUDI
So what happens in the following scenario:
– the SC finds against the SG in late 2022;
– no referendum happens in 2023;
– Westminster GE2024 becomes a plebiscitary election and the combined vote for pro-independence parties is (for the sake of argument) 52%.
Surely in that circumstance, the SG in Holyrood and the pro-indy MPs in Westminster (who would presumably remove themselves and return to Scotland) would immediately constitute a provisional National Assembly of some sort to begin the process of negotiating the settlement of our de facto independence and to elect a new Scottish parliament.
Whether that new parliament reserves the right to negotiate the detailed settlement itself, or convenes a special body to do so in parallel is presumably up for discussion?
The above is not UDI. It’s also both much more likely to actually happen, and to be widely accepted both domestically and internationally than UDI.
Ruby.
Yes.
& So has Angus B MacNeil.
‘now is not the time’
Ruby
“Although the Court action is in progress, I continue to stand ready to negotiate the terms of a section 30 order with you, as we did with the UK Government in 2012, to respect the mandate given by the people of Scotland”. link to gov.scot
Hardly a demand for a Section 30. More a feeble ‘get back to me if/when you feel like it’
So, let me get this right. A majority of seats (by even one), regardless of the share of the vote at westminster can make you prime minister and let you form a government. Change all laws, leave the European union (referendums are ALL only advisory, remember), close down the Scottish and Welsh parliament, and end devolution, declare war, scrap the NHS, and so on. You can do ALL of that by just winning a majority of just one seat in the UK elections, regardless of share of the vote.
BUT, according to some folk, if a majority of Scottish MP’s are elected on a specific mandate for independence, under the same Westminster rules, they cannot carry out their mandate, UNLESS they (and they alone) have a majority SHARE of the vote as well.
I cannot fathom the logic here. If independence is illegitimate unless their is a majority share of the vote, how can it also BE legitimate for a government to be formed on a minority share of the vote (as usually happens)???
It strikes me, that arguing this way, is quite simply creating an artificial special rule, just for Scotland and just for independence. WHY?
The rules of Westminster are simple. It is NUMBER of SEATS, and not share of the vote, that determines the outcome. That is how it works. So, why are some pro indy folk trying to argue that it simpyly MUST be made harder for independence???
Logically, I just cannot follow the reasoning at all. It makes no sense. The rule for Westminster, is number of seats, the rule for referendums is share of vote. If a referendum is denied, then it must be via general election and NUMBER OF SEATS, in exactly the same way that the new government and prime minister is determined.
Now that personal abuse has been outlawed I feel more at ease asking the following.
I understand she wants to turn the GE into a referendum but has explained how th
Thank you for giving notice about the personal attacks. Now we can read people’s opinions without the verbal hair-pulling spats. It was like being back on a noisy school bus when you couldn’t wait to get off. Many of us chose to get off before our stop to escape. If you complain, you’re a ‘snowflake’ apparently. (It’s a long, long time since I was at school so I’m not up on current adolescent insults.)
It’s a relief to have the teacher back on board, at least for now.
To add to that re the sec30.
Mayhem instructed Yoon serf Mundel to reply to Nicola request.
BoJo instructed Yoon Jacksie to double down again at a further request.
Proving the *office of First Minister of Scotland* means diddly squat to these people. Only the WM lackey, SoS for Scotland is the official recognised authority & they’re doff capping yoons.
Sturgeon has zero authority in Scotland. She’s a fancy councillor with a hefty paypacket to STFU & do as she’s told.
WeeChid says:
2 July, 2022 at 3:14 pm
If you lie on a job application you can be charged with fraud – what a pity this can’t be applied to the CV that prospective MPs present in the form of their party manifesto at elections. Maybe we wouldn’t get so many liars elected if their lies were considered fraud.
Alas, the good old days where the Karen Carricks of this world got their due cumuppance are long gone in practice.
In reality most employers see such matters as potentially publicly embarrassing to themselves and so prefer the instant dismissal and no more said about it – largely because so few bother checking employees claimed qualifications … the Carrick case only came about largely because Glasgow and Edinburgh Unis publicly came out and said she was two for bawfing over her claimed degrees from each.
Rev Stu at 142pm,
You are correct that in Scotland, under the claim of right, sovereignty rests with the people, but the parliament is elected by and for the people. That is how their sovereignty is enacted. Otherwwise ,every law would need to be personally signed off by every single Scot.
The Scots parliament is the machinery in a democracy which enacts the wishes of the people. It is the machine of democratic sovereignty, enacting the wishes of the sovereign people. Indeed, it is pretty what parliaments all around the world are for.
Robert Louis says:
2 July, 2022 at 4:53 pm
So, let me get this right. A majority of seats (by even one), regardless of the share of the vote at westminster can make you prime minister and let you form a government. Change all laws, leave the European union (referendums are ALL only advisory, remember), close down the Scottish and Welsh parliament, and end devolution, declare war, scrap the NHS, and so on. You can do ALL of that by just winning a majority of just one seat in the UK elections, regardless of share of the vote.
BUT, according to some folk, if a majority of Scottish MP’s are elected on a specific mandate for independence, under the same Westminster rules, they cannot carry out their mandate, UNLESS they (and they alone) have a majority SHARE of the vote as well.
There’s no “according to some folk” about it – it’s hard, irrefutable fact.
@Robert Louis 4.53 pm
A plebiscitary election at a Westminster General Election won’t be electing MPs to sit for another 5 years in Westminster, it will be for the purpose of demonstrating a pro-independence majority of Scots voters which automatically results in independence.
It doesn’t matter how you try to justify it with reference to the FPTP system at Westminster, and a majority of seats being the rule in that place, the international community, the UK establishment and many Scottish unionists will never accept a mandate based on winning a majority of Westminster seats, but a minority of the vote. It simply won’t happen.
Of course, the way for the SNP to obviate the potential issue – however unlikely a repeat of the 2015 scenario might be – is to ensure that a plebiscitary Holyrood election happens before a Westminster GE.
If the SNP and Green MSPs brought the current Holyrood administration down, particularly if they issue a threat to do so if indyref2 is denied, then the Presiding Officer is obliged to call fresh elections within a few weeks if no majority can be found for a new FM.
Of course the likelihood of the SNP and Green parties having the political cojones to do so are close to zero.
Robert Louis..
I do believe this was highlighted by an SNP MP in WM, why was BoJo in a job, with even less of a vote share but the reply was given the usual scoff, fnar, fnar, baying zoo animal noises from the Tory Yoon benches & not actually answered.
Tut I hadn’t finished.
Now that personal abuse has been outlawed I feel more at ease asking the following.
I understand she wants to turn the GE into a referendum but hasn’t explained how that would work so we have folk arguing if it’s votes or seats.
What is this other thing that she wants to do? The thing that is going to the Supreme Court.
Is she hoping that Holyrood can issue a section 30?
I do understand what a section 30 is, I understand what a general election is and I understand what a referendum is.
Outwith that I don’t have much experience of politics & zero experience of the law.
Do you think I would be correct in thinking there are a lot of people like me who will be asking what on earth is going on and would perhaps appreciate a simple explanation.
ie Nicola Sturgeon promised a IndyRef2 if we voted for her. We voted for her but now she can’t produce the goods. Conclusion We have been conned.
Mark Boyle at 504pm.
Stating something is a ‘fact’, isn’t really much of an argument or justification. Way back before the Scots Parliament was reconvened, it was common knowledge, that for Scottish independence, Scots merely had to elect a majority of pro indy MP’s to Wesmtinster. In many ways, I could state that as being a ‘fact’, because I and many others remember well, that that was the case.
Of course back then, Wesmtinster never took the threat seriously, the SNP were regarded as a joke, and so gaining that majority of seats in Scotland was seen as an insurmountable hurdle.
That is how it was for most of my life, and many others remember that as being the case. Now, as that majority is achievable we have folk arguing, ‘oh, no, that simply wouldn’t do’ etc.. etc.. Creating barriers that do not exist.
Folk state that Wesmtinster would never accept a majority of seats for independence, but honestly, they will never accept a majority in a referendum either. Had we won in 2014, do you seriously expect that Westminster was going to just say, ‘oh, alrighty then, fair do’s Mr Salmond, her’s your independence’?? No they would have fought it tooth and nail, in any possible way.
The independence movement does itself no good by raising barriers of its own design, when their is no need to do so.
We get the result, then argue the case from there. Let’s not put obstacles in the way of our own freedom.
LOL Andy.
Who, in the UK establishment, would care if the SNP & Greens brought Holyrood down? It’d save them to job!
As for finding a new FM. That’s easy. I’m sure the yoons could band together to have some power sharing coalition just as they did with Bitter Together & various council elections.
Holyrood either close or yoons the new FMs.
Win. Win.
Not for indy supporters tho.
Peter@3.17pm.
I’ve come the conclusion Peter, that you are correct and that the only way out of this union is by UDI. Independence has to be taken for it will not be willingly given.
Why would Westminster give up the Scottish land mass and all benefits that go with it, they never will.
I guess saying get on with UDI will get a greater Backlash than the above.
However I don’t see a better alternative before 3024.
“I guess saying get on with UDI will get a greater Backlash than the above.”
For the zillionth time, UDI has zero chance of success without some kind of democratic event proving it to be the will of the majority of the population.
Now that we have all this time on our hands before there will be any ‘referelection’ would the best plan be to spend time convincing folk of the merits of independence/a 2nd IndyRef?
Probably best to concentrate on the men (the ejaculators or whatever the male equivalent is of womb havers) at the moment as women are probably not in the mood. Women definitely not in the mood to vote for the SNP whether it’s a general election or a pretenderendum.
Ottomanboi asks @ 1.33 pm: “Is there a tyranno. rex among Scots politicos, a velociraptor even?”
Yes, there is, but he was indicted on false charges which were thrown out in court and yet his accusers were allowed to smear him repeatedly after he walked free. NS’s graceless comments with her wee angry face after the verdict were utterly disgraceful.
@Robert Louis 4.53: excellent points.
” Westminster GE2024 becomes a plebiscitary election and the combined vote for pro-independence parties is (for the sake of argument) 52%.”
The gaping hole in point (52%) virtually unattainable, that only reinforces the need for UDI.
Instead of people having a go at Stu.for him exposing the truth in this article, they should admire his bravery for yet again being in the vanguard of seeking the real way to independence.
He’s spoken to Alex. He knows the score. He is not in a position to do what Stu. has done. When Sturgeon’s cunning plan unfolds in the way Stu. says, they won’t be able to point the finger and say ‘it’s all Alex’s fault’.
I imagine that Alex is quietly admiring Sturgeon for her ability to sucker so many people again. So he has to be seen to be giving it a try. But I believe he’s in it for the longer game. ‘If you give someone enough rope…’
So give Stu. the credit he deserves for taking the hit on exposing this pretence for what it is. You know where his heart lies. And you know where Sturgeons doesn’t.
Robert Louis – exactly!
A point I’ve been trying to make on another topic. All these imaginary hoops & hurdles Scotland is to jump through. Supposedly put forward by *indy supporters*
Scotland is a special case doncha know! Who knew! Not only is our oil shite but we can’t be trusted to hold an Election either & it’d better be authorised & validated & come with guarantees & certificates to say so! Let’s ask our big neighbour what they’d accept first
Oh. Big neighbour says they’d accept nothing.
Oh well, best we all not bother then eh?
Geri at 538pm,
Yip. That is it in a nutshell.
@ Robert Louis 5.18 pm
Way back before the Scots Parliament was reconvened, it was common knowledge, that for Scottish independence, Scots merely had to elect a majority of pro indy MP’s to Wesmtinster.
That was then, this is now. The expectation in pre devolution days was that the only way Scots would have to effect independence was via Westminster MPs, because unionists were dead set against EVER setting up a devolutionary “competing” parliament.
They said – not without justification – that such a parliament would be a slippery slope leading inevitably to a conflict of interests and powers with Westminster, and almost inevitably lead to independence as Scots saw “their” parliament being over-ruled by the “English” parliament in which they could never hope to prevail.
The model British unionist saw was akin to the Irish Parliamentary Party 100 years ago, or subsequently Sinn Fein, representing an overwhelming majority of BOTH seats and votes.
The establishment of a devolutionary parliament perhaps muddied the waters, but even before its re-establishment, the abortive 1979 devolution referendum, the EU referendum, then the referendum on the Scottish parliament and its powers established the expectation that constitutional change would be via referendums, not plebiscitary elections.
The only reason we are having a debate about whether seats or votes count in a plebiscitary election is that the British nationalist establishment are acting in bad faith, and refusing to honour the 2014 precedent (and the expectations built up over the previous decades) and grant a S30 sanctioned vote.
The independence movement does itself no good by raising barriers of its own design, when their (sic) is no need to do so.
We’re not raising barriers, we’re abiding by what is both common sense and good practice. The international community will demand proof of a clear majority, voting in response to a clear question / mandate. Nothing less will do. UDI based on a majority of seats but a minority of the vote simply won’t work. No amount of hand wringing and appealing to historical precedent, and the fact Boris got elected on less will do.
Brexit had majority support in 2016. The No’s had majority support in 2014. WE kept FPTP because the AV referendum failed to get a majority for change in 2011. That’s democracy.
Had we won in 2014, do you seriously expect that Westminster was going to just say, ‘oh, alrighty then, fair do’s Mr Salmond, her’s your independence’??
Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what would have happened and I think most would agree with me. The reason so many folks abroad – particularly Catalans – are incredulous that Scots voted No in 2014, is that we were effectively handed the opportunity on a plate in comparison with most other peoples fighting for their self determination.
Despite being almost uniquely qualified to be a successful independent nation, we lacked the political courage as a people to vote Yes, mostly it seemed because we were feart we’d be worse off.
The gaping hole in point (52%) virtually unattainable, that only reinforces the need for UDI.
Why is 52 % for pro-independence parties unattainable? In HR 2021 the SNP and Greens got 48.99 % of the constituency vote and 48.44% of the list vote. Alba got 1.66% on the constituency vote taking pro indy votes to 50.1%.
In the 2019 Westminster GE, the SNP got 45% of Scottish votes and the Greens got 1%. Turnout was only 68.1%.
A movement that doesn’t think it can win a few % points after a campaign isn’t worth bothering with.
Ruby. No.
1. If anyone in Scotland is struggling with the question after all this time then there’s no hope for them..2. Hey, fancy voting YES in indyref2??
When is it?
Well..Ummm-..it could be in the autumn of 2023 if we meet the following conditions..
We win our SC challenge
WM play ball
Lizzie dies
We have world recognition
The EU will accept us too
COVID is cured
NATO agrees
We clone unicorns
We reach 50+1 or 60+1 or 100
We don’t pose a threat to national security, i.e. trident or if..
*Door slams shut*
bye!
@Geri 5.38 pm
Supposedly put forward by *indy supporters*
Careful now!
Inferring that folk who disagree with you are not “real” indy supporters is liable to get you put on the naughty step.
Andy Ellis @ 5:44 pm
Couldn’t agree more. We have to raise the bar so Westminster has little to argue with in terms of the result. It has to be unequivocal or the question will never be settled. The majority of the population must support independence in terms of votes – otherwise it’s not worth a damn.
@Geri 5.38 pm
A point I’ve been trying to make on another topic. All these imaginary hoops & hurdles Scotland is to jump through. Supposedly put forward by *indy supporters*
They’re not imaginary, they’re the minimum standards the international community will expect. International recognition depends on demonstrating a clear majority in support of a clear mandate, whether its gained in a referendum or plebiscitary elections.
Fudged declarations of victory based on gaining a majority of seat but a minority of votes won’t cut it. UDI won’t cut it unless we can demonstrate that all other available routes have been tried and the other party is acting unreasonably, or in bad faith.
Denying a referendum for which there is a clear mandate – on multiple occasions – as the britants have already done, will be seen as bad faith. If they try to knobble plebiscitary elections by imposing unreasonable conditions, or retrospective legislation, or simply refusing to negotiate, that will also exhibit bad faith and strengthen the position of the independence movement in the eyes of the people we need to grant us recognition.
There may be a time and a place for UDI or the threat of it down the line, but the time and place isn’t now, it will be when the yoons fail to negotiate and we are at the stage of saying to the international community:
“Look, we tried, but they are unreasonable and obdurate. We have a clear majority in response to a clear question and mandate, so we’re now declaring independence”.
Folk can try and say we at that point now as often and as loudly as they like, but it doesn’t render it any more true.
I’ve not read all the comments but does all that no just mean it’ll be decided by an election?
Geri says:
2 July, 2022 at 5:58 pm
Ruby. No.
1. If anyone in Scotland is struggling with the question after all this time then there’s no hope for them..2. Hey, fancy voting YES in indyref2??
When is it?
Well..Ummm-..it could be in the autumn of 2023 if we meet the following conditions..
We win our SC challenge
WM play ball
Lizzie dies
We have world recognition
The EU will accept us too
COVID is cured
NATO agrees
We clone unicorns
We reach 50+1 or 60+1 or 100
We don’t pose a threat to national security, i.e. trident or if..
*Door slams shut*
bye!
There are people in Scotland struggling with the question. They want it changed. They want the answer to be remain or leave.
You could make all these reason you have outlined part of the campaign to convince no voters that they should seriously give some thought to joining independence supporters. If nothing else they could put themselves down as yes voters in the next poll.
If polls show 70% support for independence it would give Boris less reason to say No to Sturgeon if she every gets around to asking for a section 30.
What I’m wondering about is if we could have a group called ‘Womb Havers for Independence’ and also if we could have a new independence supporting political party call ‘Womb Havers for Independence’. I think they would get a lot of votes.
No idea if we will still have ‘Women for Independence’ and how popular they will be not just because of the Natalie McGarry incident but also because of the question ‘what is a woman’
Don’t let that door slam shut. Use your charm to keep it open
Rev..
What if between the SNP and Alba we get over 50% of the vote but because of FPTP the unionists equal or surpass us with seats
Liz G says:
2 July, 2022 at 6:31 pm
Rev..
What if between the SNP and Alba we get over 50% of the vote but because of FPTP the unionists equal or surpass us with seats
That would be an interesting scenario if it were a Holyrood election.
Ellis,
We’re back to Schrödinger’s Scotland.
Are the MPs that are sent to Westminster Scotland’s representatives or not?
The English don’t seem to have this conundrum.
A Declaration of Independence after we send a majority of our representatives to Westminster would be the start of a process that would get the international community looking Scotland’s way.
As I’ve said before, which I think you agreed with, there will be a difference of opinion in that community. (I understand that some routes will be shown more favour than others)
If we have been denied an independence referendum, an election designed for party voting isn’t ideal substitute. The international community presumably will look unfavourably on that denial of democratic expression and may find a Declaration of Independence understandable or at least more understanding of it.
How could we help more of the international community get on board with the idea of Scotland making its own decisions.
Would a confirmatory referendum be more or less likely to get that to happen?
I agree that there are different routes to independence which come with their own set of challenges and that’s why we should weigh the pros and cons of each.
Ellis,
I was writing my last comment before your last one appeared.
“If they try to knobble plebiscitary elections by imposing unreasonable conditions, or retrospective legislation, or simply refusing to negotiate, that will also exhibit bad faith”
After we are denied a referendum for all of the international community to see, I would be more inclined not to give them the chance to knobble any further referendums.
I would think it a great idea to keep the deniers of democracy well away from having a hand in our next referendum.
@ ‘ Liz G says:
2 July, 2022 at 6:31 pm
Rev..
What if between the SNP and Alba we get over 50% of the vote but because of FPTP the unionists equal or surpass us with seats’
In this case the unionists would uphold the current powers confered on the FPTP voting system and we would have a ‘win, but not a victory’… and the SNP would argue that they sort of have a mandate, but not a strong enough one for them to do stuff with it.
If we win a majority of seats, but not over 50% of the vote, same applies, with the added potential ‘goal post moving’ of an insistance on minimal voter turn out.
This is why this mixed message from Swinney and Nikla is genius (for the SNP Gravy train). It almost forces Indy supporters to vote SNP and not for any other Indy party at the GE, to do otherwise is to risk splitting the Indy vote and risk getting fewer than 50% of the seats.
Funny how history repeats… back in the ’90’s labour supporters were given the choice, bin their founding principles for an ‘electable’ leader, or keep their principles and be rejected at the ballot box.
Here we are again, this time with NuSNP.
The weakness in their plan, is they have named a date, and validated a Plebiscite Indy GE. Which means campaigning is good to go. It also gives us a reasonable amount of time.
I say lets repeat 2015 when the Scottish electorate voted in over 50 new MP’s who they got to know during the Indy campaign. And, as we would have done for a new Indy Ref, lets get support for Indy over 50%.
I don’t think the SNP could secure 50% of the vote even in a plebiscite election IMO. Theres a substantial number of indy supporters that just won’t support SNP. Either a single purpose combined Indy party or more than one party campaigning as single issue parties might just pull it off. Say the SNP greens Alba et al all ran on the single indy issue? Is this feasible?
If every indy party ran on the single issue then 51% would do it. However if just one indy party (eg. Greens) ran with their usual set of issues the Yoons would challenge it. It has to be all or nothing.
Luigi says:
2 July, 2022 at 7:02 pm
If every indy party ran on the single issue then 51% would do it. However if just one indy party (eg. Greens) ran with their usual set of issues the Yoons would challenge it. It has to be all or nothing
What a mess
Robert Louis says:
2 July, 2022 at 5:18 pm
Mark Boyle at 504pm.
Stating something is a ‘fact’, isn’t really much of an argument or justification.
It is when you are trying to transpose the results of one election – ie. for elected members to the House Of Commons – into also being the results for a referendum on independence.
It’s the sort of nonsense the tabloid press does all the time with opinion polls, skewing the results to suit yourself, and the problem is it cuts little ice in a court of law.
Way back before the Scots Parliament was reconvened, it was common knowledge, that for Scottish independence, Scots merely had to elect a majority of pro indy MP’s to Wesmtinster. In many ways, I could state that as being a ‘fact’, because I and many others remember well, that that was the case.
Proof please about this being “common knowledge” rather than a straw man.
Folk state that Wesmtinster would never accept a majority of seats for independence, but honestly, they will never accept a majority in a referendum either. Had we won in 2014, do you seriously expect that Westminster was going to just say, ‘oh, alrighty then, fair do’s Mr Salmond, her’s your independence’?? No they would have fought it tooth and nail, in any possible way.
And your point is?
The independence movement does itself no good by raising barriers of its own design, when their is no need to do so.
But you’ve done just that in the last paragraph! “Man, they won’t accept a majority of seats for independence or a majority in a referendum” – in which case what’s the point in pontificating about the topic at all?
Daisy, Luigi,
I agree, whatever plan we go with whether we think it the best or not, we all have to work together.
I think Alba should announce that EVERY election ( and I mean Westminster election) will be a plebsite for Indy.
So if the SNP fails Again we’ve a place to go….because we can’t give up and we won’t give in.
Scotland should always have an option on keeping the Treaty of Union or not
If every indy party ran on the single issue then 51% would do it. However if just one indy party (eg. Greens) ran with their usual set of issues the Yoons would challenge it. It has to be all or nothing.
People are over thinking this. In the scenario where indyref2 doesn’t happen because the SC had said Holyrood lacks the legislative competence to hold it, and Boris says no, then ALL pro-independence parties have to be put under pressure by the movement as a whole to sign up to a pledge that for GE2024 and HR2026 (and indeed for ALL future GE’s) a vote for them is automatically taken as a vote for independence.
If those pro-independence parties win 50% +1 of the votes, it will be taken as a de facto declaration of independence, mandating the start of negotiations with Westminster on the details of the separation. Westminster MPs should be recalled to Edinburgh and a Constituent Assembly or Convention convened to organise the first elections to an independent parliament and to deal with the negotiations with rump-UK and drawing up a constitution.
Any party that refuses to endorse plebiscitary elections is not a true independence party.
One more time.
Once you open the conversation about needing over 50% of the vote there’s a danger of it leading to needing over 50% of the electoral register which is far easier to fill with, perfectly legal, duplicates before you even go down the route of actual fakes.
That’s why the unionists are threatening a boycott of a referendum. They see the opportunity any minimum percentage gives to cheat. After all it worked in ’79.
“A movement that doesn’t think it can win a few % points after a campaign isn’t worth bothering with.”
Its not just that, tactical voting aside by the unionists, there’s also the councils some would do their best to undermine any attempt to leave this union.
Then there’s the Civil Service of which recently many of them came out and said they actively worked against the indy vote in 2014 as did Sir Nicholas McPherson who also admitted it, then there’s the entire weight of the unionist media machine, that will once again use fear, lies and deceit whilst giving the yes side minimal airtime, or use the three against one tactic, of gish galloping which we saw in 2014, and still do regularly on Question Time.
As Craig Murray said there simply does not exist, the conditions within the UK for a fair and honest indyref. You cannot get your message across in a low tone when the other side have a gigantic bullhorn (the media) and the Civil Service both working against you, one to shout you down the other to undermine you.
No UDI is the way for me.
No idea why posters are bothering to come up with solutions to Sturgeon’s dilemma.
She was
‘re-elected on a clear promise to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence. ‘
She made the promise she needs to sort it out.
She made the promise when she believed Boris wouldn’t respect the mandate & would refuse a section 30.
Strange that she hasn’t written to Boris to request a section 30.
Interesting take over on Scot Goes Pop re the above conundrum.
He argues, sensibly, that for the Pleb GE Indy to win, Alba would have to work hand in hand with SNP, and not stand candidates in almost all constituencies, lest we split the vote and lose seats.
I can see his point, however, in Alex Salmond’s recent interview with the Radio Times, Alex specifically kept that option on the table.
And as long as it is on the table, and if credible Alba candidates emerge, that aspect is the most likely to ensure the SNP keep to the straight and narrow (or recover the straight and narrow, depending on your view point).
It also provides a back up, in case, hypothetically speaking of course, the SNP incumbents get emroiled in scandal at the last minute, I don’t know, say unlawfully misappropriating public moneys, taking class A drugs, Perjury and of course not to mention (and hopefully not in reality) engaging in underage sex.
We are in a situation where we are being herded into having all our votes in the one basket. Just like NewLabour in the’90’s.
Let’s box cleverer than that.
What it might also achieve, by establishing Alba candidates, is an additional back up, in the soon thereafter Holyrood Election.
If the plebiscite is a FPTP election scenario then it’ll have to be the SNP getting over 50% of the vote and seats to avoid any arguments about legitimacy.
Nobody is going to be counting votes for minor parties/independent candidates as part of the plebiscite unless they’re in the running to win seats/actually win seats. I know that’s crap but that’s the way it’ll be. Could be easily sorted by using Holyrood elections as the plebiscite as there’s some proportionality.
Alba will have to sit it out – and that’s what I think you’ll see them agree very soon. That’s the mood music I’m hearing anyway, nobody there wants to be setup to take the blame.
The Greens won’t sit it out, nor will they win any seats. That’s a problem, especially as there’s no way they’ll be able to reasonably claim to stand on a single question (look at the name of the party).
50% of the vote in a GE for a single party is a hell of an ask, but that’s what the SNP have chosen.
Daisy Walker says:
2 July, 2022 at 8:05 pm
Interesting take over on Scot Goes Pop re the above conundrum.
He argues, sensibly, that for the Pleb GE Indy to win, Alba would have to work hand in hand with SNP, and not stand candidates in almost all constituencies, lest we split the vote and lose seats.
Would that not be just if it were seats that counted and not votes?
7 years of Sturgeon and we are still fudging around – all she has to do, with her proven democratic majorities, is serve notice on Westminster and then fight it out in the International Courts. We all know Westminster is going to try and bypass Holyrood at every twist and turn and the FM isn’t going to get anything out of them. We should just do what they are doing and bypass Westminster – declare UDI and fight it out in the International Law courts – utilising and citing Europe and Ireland’s experiences of dealing with WM/Whitehall as our reason for going International instead of domestic. We have, at least, a good 900 years of Scottish Jurisprudence behind us which should stand us in good stead with the International Law community. Otherwise we get fobbed off with a wishy-washy ScotRef2 referendum (that is nothing like the 2014 one) and which will enable WM/Whitehall to rig it so that we lose (again). I reckon if she declared UDI and fought it out in the courts she would be amazed by the levels of public and international support she will get. (remember the 2015 GE?) Otherwise, she’s toast and we are all held back again.
Daisy Walker says:
2 July, 2022 at 8:05 pm
It also provides a back up, in case, hypothetically speaking of course, the SNP incumbents get emroiled in scandal at the last minute, I don’t know, say unlawfully misappropriating public moneys, taking class A drugs, Perjury and of course not to mention (and hopefully not in reality) engaging in underage sex.
If the last couple of years have been anything to go by, the SNP have been managing to get up to those shenannigans (or trying their damnest to be …) long before Sturgeon’s phony Indyref2 call!
Breastplate says:
“Saffron Robe,
“Why would you think it disingenuous to believe the political landscape will change in an independent Scotland?”
I don’t think it’s disingenuous to believe that the political landscape will change in an independent Scotland, Breastplate. I think it’s disingenuous to believe that the political landscape will change in an independent Scotland under Sturgeon.
I said in a previous comment that plebiscitary elections in the right hands are a valid route to independence; under Sturgeon it is a moot argument and has to be seen as such.
Someone cannot do something that they are not capable of doing. Somebody who has never been taught maths cannot work out complex mathematical equations. The SNP under Sturgeon can no more bring about independence than a transwoman is capable of giving birth.
The only thing that matters in Westminster is the parliamentary arithmetic.
UK governments form on this, Policy and legislation forms on this.
So how is it a majority of Scottish MPs can’t form their won government. How is it the world recognises Westminster with whatever arithmetic it as but will not recognise Scotland and it’s parliamentary arithmetic.
Hi Rev Stu,
How does this article account for the fact that the last Referendums (Scotland) Bill got passed in 8 months? We have 15 months before October 2023. Plenty of time.
link to parliament.scot
“How does this article account for the fact that the last Referendums (Scotland) Bill got passed in 8 months? We have 15 months before October 2023. Plenty of time.”
Sigh. Please read the article. We’d have 15 months if we started tomorrow. As painstakingly detailed above, we have no chance now of even STARTING with the bill until next January. That takes us almost to September 2023 before the bill could be passed, let alone any campaign begun.
Andy 5.57pm
Trouble with a GE is you automatically rule out 16/17 year olds & EU citizens who are unable to vote.
Narrowing down the odds considerably.
“if she declared UDI and fought it out in the courts she would be amazed by the levels of public and international support she will get.”
If she declared UDI without a clear legitimate majority in a democratic vote of some kind the amount of international support she’d get would be precisely this much: none.
“Trouble with a GE is you automatically rule out 16/17 year olds & EU citizens who are unable to vote.
Narrowing down the odds considerably.”
Indeed, which is one of the reasons I advised doing it last year at the Holyrood election.
A majority of seats is no answer as elections are usually a choice between several parties with varying manifestos. Thus the vote can be split with the winner having less votes than the others combined,
A referendum is a binary choice. Yes or no.
Westminster could defend that decision all day long.
“So how is it a majority of Scottish MPs can’t form their won government”
Because quite rightly, nobody would regard it as democratically legitimate for a declaration of independence, which is a far more serious matter than a term of government in a multi-party state.
@Vestas 8.8 pm
If the plebiscite is a FPTP election scenario then it’ll have to be the SNP getting over 50% of the vote and seats to avoid any arguments about legitimacy.
Why? Lot’s of folk are going to have a REALLY hard time voting SNP or Green. I don’t see any issue with legitimacy. If I could be confident the SNP would play fair and actually co-operate with other parties and the broader movement rather than try to dictate terms I could be convinced.
If aYes Alliance is formed which is genuinely co-operative and incorporates voices from all the pro-independence parties, and from outside, there’s a case for divvying up seats, and even if we have to holding our noses and voting for SNP candidates (though I’f draw the line at Pete Wishart…I’d happily see that piece of work lose).
However if the SNP take a high ground position they can take a hike.
Since I don’t think a plebiscitary election will happen as long as Sturgeon is at the wheel, I see no point in arguing any further about votes v seats. She’ll ditch the plebiscite commitment when it suits her, without so much as a blink.
I suspect this whole thing is about bolstering her approval ratings and the standing of the party, her party. People were starting to realise they bought a fugazi.
It’s never fun finding out you’ve been suckered. And what’s the hurry? We can find out and face it in a couple of years. Let’s just enjoy the moment.
It’s morning again in Scotland…
Sturgeon has not used the term ‘plebiscitary election’. She has referred to the election as a ‘de facto referendum’. If the Supreme Court says a referendum is not allowed, she won’t get away with this alternative approach. It’s an attempt to have another bite at the same cherry.
If it were somehow to be allowed, it would decide the argument for ‘seats or votes’ in the favour of votes.
But it’s all academic. It’s not going to happen. The only result of people getting behind her initiative is Sturgeon and the SNP back in power for several more years with even more control.
Suckered again if you fall for this.
” Willie says:
2 July, 2022 at 8:51 pm
How is it the world recognises Westminster with whatever arithmetic it as but will not recognise Scotland and it’s parliamentary arithmetic.”
Its not in their interests to do so and most countries view FPTP elections as an archaic curiosity, not a valid democratic process.
To get their attention & support you need a majority of the people voting for it, preferably via a PR election system which they understand.
If only we had one of those in place…oh, wait, we do.
Its a lot harder to “muddy the water” with PR than FPTP. The list system takes care of that.
I wonder if any of you have started to think through whats going to happen regarding independent candidates/parties springing up if a plebiscite GE happens?
The easiest way to start negotiations to end the union would be to have elections to Holyrood with the aim being a ‘Scotland Act super-majority of seats’ in favour of doing so.
No need for a majority of votes from the electorate – how legislatures are constituted matters. They
eitherexpress the will of, and act on behalf of, all of the peopleor they don’t.Isn’t it funny how Rev putting his foot down changes behaviour so radically? Blimey…it’s like the teacher coming back into the room after nipping out for a quick drag.
It’s a complicated business, being a Winger these days!
I remember a big stushie over whether or not we should be allowed to attach Youtube videos to our comments. They would show up as wee screens, not just links and it did make the page a bit ‘messy’ I suppose but it was also nice in a way, you never knew what would pop up next. (Some fuckin *great* music videos I’d never have seen otherwise.) There was some argy-bargy until Stu made the executive decision and direct links were hoofed.
And we also have to be mindful of the filters, right? We know some of the words that trigger auto-bans whereupon one’s comment vanishes, never to be seen again. Words like ‘tractor’ (you know the one I mean) at least appear in amended form but there’s a whole stack we don’t know about, especially those pertaining to an ongoing conflict. And we don’t know for sure if we’ll ever be able to discuss that whole thing because, according to Stu, the comments were ‘a bin fire’. How we’re meant to show that our ability to comment on the situation has improved if we’re, er, well, not allowed to comment on it at all is not something I can see an immediate solution to.
And finally, there’s this whole business about ‘personal attacks’. I’m going right out on a limb here, aye, but I’m assuming that Stu’s warning is to help cut out the acrimonious stuff between individual commenters. (Why this action is being taken right now as opposed to say, two years ago when we were like rats in a sack over lockdown/bug shitery is beyond my ken but it is what it is, so I’m just asking for a bit of clarification.) And this is where it all gets very tricky…
If anyone calls anyone else ‘a cunt’, they get pre-modded, and if they persist they get hoofed. Yeah? That seems straightforward enough. But if someone fires out insults which aren’t fingering someone specific, that’s permissible? If, for example, I say that all the ’77 trolls infesting each and every site devoted to discussion of Scottish independence can go and take a flying fuck to themselves, does that constitute a ‘personal attack’? If I slam an ex-Winger who now posts regularly on WGD, is that okay? What if I have a dig at an ex-Winger who has been banned here and can’t reply? etc etc…
Hmm… complicated shonuff, eh?
I’m not trying to stir anything here. ‘Personal attacks’ have always been an integral part of this site and a big reason why it attracted some characters and repelled others. However, if the number of correspondents using this place is to be trimmed even further then we really do need to know the ground rules. (Especially that ‘banned words’ list.)
Is this an unreasonable request?
😉
” We are where we are ”
In a labyrinth . Waiting For Theseus .
Whatever the contending arguments vis-a-vis routes , options , legalities etc …..
Nothing of any significance will happen until more Scottish people are roused from their 300+ years of slumber . More accurately , Union hypnosis.
This is NOT to exclude any non-Scottish residents , but the * appeal * must be directed primarily at Scots
There’s no reason to be squeamish about the pursuit of National Liberation .
What else is it ?
@Daisy Walker 8.05 pm
He argues, sensibly, that for the Pleb GE Indy to win, Alba would have to work hand in hand with SNP, and not stand candidates in almost all constituencies, lest we split the vote and lose seats.
I’m not sure a lot of Alba folks will agree with him. It depends on what the terms on offer from the SNP. I wouldn’t trust the SNP further than I could throw Ian Blackford.
If – as many of us believe – it’s the total number of votes that count, NOT the number of seats, then it doesn’t matter whether there’s a Yes Alliance or not. As Stu rightly points out, it would be much better to hold a plebiscitary election on the Holyrood franchise than the Westminster franchise anyway.
If the SNP and Greens were serious about the plebiscitary election route, they’d engineer early Holyrood elections.
Over to Nicola and Patrick…?
” Andy Ellis says:
2 July, 2022 at 9:06 pm
@Vestas 8.8 pm
If the plebiscite is a FPTP election scenario then it’ll have to be the SNP getting over 50% of the vote and seats to avoid any arguments about legitimacy.
Why? Lot’s of folk are going to have a REALLY hard time voting SNP or Green.”
I understand that.
However where do you stop counting?
Alba is a no-brainer obviously in terms of a VALID vote for indy but what about the many independent candidates who don’t even have a party, never mind a manifesto?
Think it through and remember there will be “independent” candidates coming out of the walls as its a lovely way to muddy the water in a FPTP constituency election.
The only mainstream party where people can’t subsequently claim they weren’t aware of the “single question stance” is the SNP.
I understand that isn’t what people want to hear.
Its not what I want to say either but it is what it is & its not like the SNP don’t already have most Westminster seats locked down anyway.
Mark Boyle.
Re, SNP majority of MPs to Westminster.
This was common & an SNP policy until Sturgeon took over. There’s an old QT on YouTube of Alex Salmond on Devolution YES vote – *of course it’s a stepping stone to indy*..
There’s also one in Holyrood by Christine Grahame re Sovereignty ‘Scots DON’T NEED a parliament to declare independence. We spill onto our streets & demand it!’ We didn’t need a parly in ’79 & we don’t need one now..
Then there’s the havverings of Thatcher who knew fine we’ll SNPs policies on independence.
There’s a few facts to get you started…
I might just be my imagination, but does anyone see another “vote SNP and nobody else” coming down the line? It’s very distant, it’s tiny but it does look (and smell) a bit familiar.
“Luigi says:
2 July, 2022 at 9:30 pm
I might just be my imagination, but does anyone see another “vote SNP and nobody else” coming down the line? It’s very distant, it’s tiny but it does look (and smell) a bit familiar.”
Aye but it matters less in terms of a Westminster election compared to Holyrood.
@ Luigi
Aye, you’d think after so many years of Scots consuming so many carrots their eyesight would be better…
@Vestas 9.24 pm
Think it through and remember there will be “independent” candidates coming out of the walls as its a lovely way to muddy the water in a FPTP constituency election.
I have thought it through. It’s hardly rocket science. All parties and pro-indy candidates should be asked by any putative Yes Alliance – or even just by voters if no such organisation is formed – to specifically sign up to votes for them being plebiscitary. The vast majority of pro-indy votes will be SNP, Green, Alba, ISP and SSP. Any independents will be welcome too.
Where’s the problem with that?
Bottom line. Nicolas Sturgeon and her close advisors know plain language. As soon as she introduced all the convolutions in her statement instead of just stating the referendum would he held and the result binding and acted upon, we knew it was just another misdirection.
Always try to feed a caged tiger!!!
So when Westminster postpones democracy or breaks international law nothing much happens, is this it, are we to aspire to achieve Westminster’s consent via its laws, and in the process be stumped at every turn on independence by its laws and red tape. Against this backdrop we are desperately trying to prove that we are a fairer and democratic society and that we’ll do nothing without the 51% threshold and this can’t even be achieved because of the obstacles put down before us by Westminster. We’ll never win playing fair against an unfair system controlled by Westminster.
Tell me this is independence a good step for Scotland, will it benefit Scots, even Scots who don’t believe in it, and those that are unsure of it because they’ve been saturated in unionist media lies and will continue to be saturated in it via its bullhorn media which can shout down any indy voice by giving it minimal airtime.
Now tell me there’s a viable and fair route to Scottish independence under these circumstances, if you believe Scottish independence will benefit Scots and no other route is viable without unionist dominance then what’s wrong with using UDI.
We can’t win an indyref its not a level playing field, as for the international community, lets no be so negative about UDI, other countries have used it to achieve independence.
I really don’t think you have thought it through – not for a FPTP constituency election; for a Holyrood one yeah you’re on the money 🙂
Anyway enough said, hopefully it makes people think a bit more….
@Vestas 9.47 pm
I really don’t think you have thought it through – not for a FPTP constituency election; for a Holyrood one yeah you’re on the money
What earthly difference does it make? At election time, the total number who voted for pro-indy parties is added together. If that number is equal to 50% +1 of the total number of Scottish voters, then it’s game over for the union.
I don’t see your issue.
@Republicofscotland,
I remember reading an article somewhere that looked at UDI.
Of 30 countries who tried this past 70 years, only 4 were successful in gaining International recognition primarily for political reasons. Not a certainty.
Geri says:
2 July, 2022 at 9:24 pm
Mark Boyle.
Re, SNP majority of MPs to Westminster.
This was common & an SNP policy until Sturgeon took over. There’s an old QT on YouTube of Alex Salmond on Devolution YES vote – *of course it’s a stepping stone to indy*..
A stepping stone to indy – that’s a big difference from it being an outright mandate for independence.
“This is common” sounds suspiciously like the Dothraki’s “It is known” in “Game Of Thrones” when wanting to avoid giving proof …
There’s also one in Holyrood by Christine Grahame re Sovereignty ‘Scots DON’T NEED a parliament to declare independence. We spill onto our streets & demand it!’ We didn’t need a parly in ’79 & we don’t need one now..
So what? Since when was Christine Grahame ever the leader of the SNP?
Then there’s the havverings of Thatcher who knew fine we’ll SNPs policies on independence.
Funny that we were speaking about that earlier and this “legendary quote” of hers still hasn’t turned up. Seem to remember David Torrance was asked about it too and never replied.
There’s a few facts to get you started…
You didn’t provide one – just more conjecture to go on top of the rest of the “man down the pub said” stuff that’s done the rounds on this topic today.
Once again, you cannot transpose the results of one type of election – ie. for elected members to the House Of Commons – into also being the results for a referendum on independence.
RepublicofScotland..
I’m not against it.
Every avenue has been exhausted & will continue to be blocked & exhausted until it’s put in a new act of onion. Permanently.
Time is of the essence.
Declare it & let the chips fall where they will.
Or this hamster wheel just goes on and on and on..
The burden of why we can’t have a ref is theirs to prove. Not ours, apparently we’re in a Union by consent, of equals, and a family. We wish to leave. It falls to them to prove that was all bullshit. We’re actually a colony under English rule who is exploiting & stealing our resources & STFU, Jocko!
Going the plebiscite route doesn’t solve anything. So, they grant a ref – they either rig it or just state it’s advisory & not accept the result. You’ve had your ref now, Jocko. That’s it to bed for 10 generations.
Either way we’re screwed.
I have questions..
Bob Mack.
Countries you say or do you mean breakaway regions, Scotland is a country the elder of the two in the union. If we play by Westminster’s rules, in my opinion we’ll never leave this union.
Bob, I posted this elsewhere. I’m pretty confident many countries would recognise the elder of the two countries in this rancid union, Westminster has many enemies, and many countries would be pleased to see the break up of the UK, but putting that aside, a clever and courageous FM would put the feelers out to EU and other countries leaders to gauge opinions, sure some allies of England’s would not recognise an indy Scotland so what that’s to be expected.
As for Westminster rolling up its tanks in George Square once more, a couple of things would happen, one occupation only increases the populations desire to rid themselves of the occupying force, two many countries (not allies of England) would I suppose report the oppressive occupation of one of the oldest countries in Europe as a invasion of a sovereign peoples country, and I’ also expect the UN to speak out against it.
Catalonia has never been a sovereign country if I recall correctly, its people may have at one point, as Scotland was forced into an illegal union with England, maybe the Catalan people were also with Spain, I can’t say for sure, but Scotland is a country in its own right, and is as I’ve said the elder of the two countries in this God awful union.
I’d also like to add that prior to declaring UDI a shrew FM would’ve agreed deals with other nations on access to say fishing ground and other assets on the pretext that those countries would recognise an indy Scotland after UDI.
Anyone ever heard of Karakalpakstan?
It has a population of almost 2 million and there’s some serious shit going on there right now.
Have a swatch via Twitter etc.
Just seems to me that no-one has taken into consideration what’s happening in Northern Ireland.
If Johnson keeps up this nonsense with the EU Protocol we may yet see Michelle O’Neill requesting a plebiscite under the GFA. Don’t think for a minute that that will not be on the minds of the Tories as we progress into later this year and into next.
@Andy Ellis
Do you mean those who voted or those who could have voted? There’s a significant difference.
Do you then accept partition as, unlike a referendum, the breakdown of votes will be known for each constituency?
Mark Boyle..
Old Nan will be along soon Lol!
Christine Grahame – she hasn’t. What relevance is that? Sturgeon is & has done ziltch WITH various mandate’s & 56 duds at her disposal.
Political parties win mandates on their manifesto. Manifesto contains independence.
Thatcher – it was in her book. Page & quotes freely available on a Google search. Scots feel agreived about the English parly & all that crap. All they have to do is vote a majority of Scottish MPs to their shithole.
Re election results. I agree for the reasons I’ve already stated above. It slices a chunk of voters off who’d be ineligible to vote.
In our desperate attempts to prove just how democratic we are by not even contemplating leaving this union without Westminster’s consent or the 51% threshold, we’ve forgotten that under Westminster’s thin veneer its anything but democratic, Brexit, Scotland got dragged out of Europe all that went with it even though we voted to stay.
Scots haven’t voted Tories into power since the 1950’s yet here we are at the whim of a Tory government, who like previous Westminster governments just appoints people to the Lords to parachute them into the Scotland office to do their bidding, allowing unelected people to have a say on Scottish affairs.
We’ve been lied to the McCrone report, we’ve been cheated the stolen 6,000 miles of seas, and still we feel the need prove that we’re so democratic that we won’t attempt to leave this union unless it through the route that Westminster prefers, a route that goes nowhere.
If Westminster hasn’t turned Holyrood into nothing more than a talking shop in the next decade, (its already acting in devolved areas and the staging post known as Queen Elizabeth House in Edinburgh will continue to help Westminster become a player in devolved areas) maybe by then UDI will come onto the radar, if not I fear the game will be over for Scottish independence.
RepublicofScotland..
I’m failing to think of any country who’d be allies to England & boycott Scotland.
What does England have to offer & who’d be their allies?
They’ve managed to piss off every country since Brexshit & is blackballed themselves from everywhere.
@Republicofscotland,
Me and you as well as many others would probably accept UDI, but that may be very different to what a politician would do.
They have many other considerations when running a country in an international community as well as the potential domestic problems.
I think that’s why one of the best politicians of our time never attempted it when he was in power,
Update on Peoples Action on Section 30
Dear Backers,
Further to my email of yesterday, the overwhelming response has been yes. So much so I got, for the first time in 10 years, a warning about the space available in my inbox.
There are conversations going back and forth in the background at the minute and I just wanted to reach out and tell you what is happening.
First, this decision will not be taken lightly. As you are all aware from the last time, there is not just one legal professional involved. Just as I actively sought your opinion, I also want to hear all of the other opinions in the room. The supreme court is not what it once was, and I want to be 100% sure of all the pitfalls etc. I’m going to be using a very empirically evidence-based approach to deciding the next actions. The one plus side this time is that the new Lord Advocate is going in to defend the rights of parliament, and not to do the UK’s job for them like her predecessor, so there’s no doubt we’re all on the same side this time around.
I have to take a long stark look at what the effects of us interjecting are, to make sure it will only support and assist the case, making sure there’s no hindrance. I need to analyse the chances of being heard, the chances of success, and the different moving parts.
There are also different modes of interjection and each has to be looked at as well.
This is what I will be doing over the next week, and I shall update you as soon as I know the exact position.
Sincerely
Martin Keatings
Bob Mack @ 9:55 pm
“Of 30 countries who tried this past 70 years, only 4 were successful in gaining International recognition primarily for political reasons. Not a certainty.”
I’m no so sure Scotland would be declaring UDI from its own treaty-based alliance joint parliament provisions, Scots are merely withdrawing from that alliance agreement. Much as UK did in withdrawing from the EU treaty and that joint parliament, which likewise was not UDI. Sovereign entities do not need to declare their independence from anyone and may end any treaty alliance they may have entered into, i.e. because they are sovereign and may act as they wish.
@Alf Baird,
If only Alex Salmond had thought of that eh?
RepublicofScotland
Re a talking shop & tory stooge Secretaries of state for Scotland bypassing Holyrood. Sadly that’s what Sturgeon was well warned would happen by Mayhem, Mundel & later Bojo & she chose to ignore it, repeatedly.
They’d chisel Holyrood away until it was rendered no more than a coffee morning – sewing Bee club.
Oh well. It was fun until Emelda took over. See you on groundhog Day when it all goes around again ..
I don’t see us getting independence until a FM with a set of gonads steps forward & breaks the WM mould.
Bob Mack,
Alex is on record (I need to paraphrase from memory) that because it was done one way in 2014 doesn’t dictate it should be done that way again.
I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong but that’s my understanding.
Craig Murray had an article on the process of declaring independence and I think a confirmatory referendum.
So I don’t think it’s UDI alone that would need to be utilised in this specific scenario but it means the ball is in our court to organise and oversee a fair referendum with international observers.
Right now, wth the political mood music, Scotland would definitely be the new winners of the Eurovision Song Contest.
I meant to add, not leaving it to our neighbouring country to do it with us or for us.
@Breastplate,
Your quite right. Alex knew however ,that no matter the route we take it must ultimately be the majority that vote for it to happen.
IanB,
No, I’d never heard of Karakalpakstan but I’ll keep an eye on the story now, thanks.
Bob Mack…
Alex was working within the guidelines of the Scotland Act & devolution settlement.
Same mistake Sturgeon is doing.
If Cameron had said no to indyref I’m sure that would’ve been his next move.
I’m very disappointed to read this but I’m not surprised. Sturgeon lies like she breathes. She reminds me of Amber Heard in the Johnny Depp trial. I have never seen anything like her.
The best we can do is campaign for the pretenderendum as if its going to happen and take the fight to the doorstep of Bute House.
Please remember that over hundreds of years ,politicians representing Scotland but with allegiance to England and her political parties have slowly diluted the sovereignty of our nation through legislation designed for that very purpose.
We are mired in legalities and stripped of many aspects of Scots law as it was. We need to remember that we need be smarter with what we have remaining to us.
Alf Baird says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:06 pm
Bob Mack @ 9:55 pm
“Of 30 countries who tried this past 70 years, only 4 were successful in gaining International recognition primarily for political reasons. Not a certainty.”
I’m no so sure Scotland would be declaring UDI from its own treaty-based alliance joint parliament provisions, Scots are merely withdrawing from that alliance agreement. Much as UK did in withdrawing from the EU treaty and that joint parliament, which likewise was not UDI. Sovereign entities do not need to declare their independence from anyone and may end any treaty alliance they may have entered into, i.e. because they are sovereign and may act as they wish.
That’s an interesting point Alf. I suppose that would depend on whether you believed Scotland was a subnational entity or not.
A unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the state from which it is seceding.
Anyway you would still have to find a way to establish how many people wanted to leave the Union & more importantly have over 50% agreeing.
Maybe Unionist should get their way re the question and it should be:
‘Should Scotland remain a member of the British Union or leave the British Union?’
Maybe the question ‘Should Scotland be an Independent Country’ hinted that we were a ‘subnational entity’
All the constitutional stuff is fascinating if you can get into it, aye.
I get that. We all ‘get that’!
But it’s like the Sudoku from Hell and it’s a distraction.
We cannot and will not *ever* have a chance of securing independence unless/until we have someone at the head of the movement who really wants it to happen.
Sturgeon is not that person.
So, for the umpteenth time, I find myself writing the same four words, but formatting them differently…
She
Has
To
Go
David Hannah says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:25 pm
I’m very disappointed to read this but I’m not surprised. Sturgeon lies like she breathes. She reminds me of Amber Heard in the Johnny Depp trial. I have never seen anything like her.
I was just reading that Johnny Depp lost his part in Pirates of the Caribbean 6 & as Gellert Grindelwald in JK Rowlings Fantastic Beast because of allegations of domestic abuse.
There seems to be a question regarding Herd being charged with perjury.
Catch 2022 , brilliant. So appropriate , eg The enemy is anybody who’s going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.
It feels like we’re all dancing on the head of a pin, spinning round in ever decreasing circles, clutching at straws – you know what I’m saying.
Breastplate
Yes I remember that too.
Dogmatic Sturgeon was chasing her tail for her gold standard crap.
It’s ludicrous to think a Sovereign nation has to beg a foreign power for permission to leave a Union that’s no longer in its best interests to stay or even share it’s values & where it’s clearly heading. I can’t wrap my head around why it’s even up for debate now. We’ve tried the nice approach. Nothing happened.
It goes back to the divorce analogy of 2014. Dissolution. One side may not like it but that’s just tough! Grow up, sort crap out amicably, move along.
It doesn’t mean you hate them forever more & can still work together in future when the need arises.
But hang on, I’m sure Alex mentioned that & was met with the Bitter Together spiteful mantra on everything from reintroducing the Alien Act, removing brass plates, to bombing our airports to keep out johnny foreigners using us as a backdoor. Jings! You’re our friend you say? Lol *rolls eyes*
David Hannah 11.25pm
LOL! That was some show! More drama than an actual Hollywood movie.
Histrionic & Personality disorders. I’m going to watch Dr Currys testimony again with Sturgeon in mind this time just for the lolz.
Don’t forget the grumpies! Sturgeon is full of it.
I would agree with Alf Baird and other commentators. Scotland would not be declaring UDI, we would simply be withdrawing from the Treaty of Union.
But you are right, Ian. The immediate priority is to get rid of Sturgeon by hook or by crook. No progress can ever be made otherwise.
I’m old enough to remember what hatred of Thatcher felt and sounded like.
Didn’t affect me much. It was just ‘normal’.
But ‘Sturgeon’, now, is next-level.
@DJ,
We are not dancing on the head of a pin. We are looking at ways of using what we do know. One of those is the much talked about principle of Scots being sovereign rather than parliament. This was accepted by a Scots High Court judge in 1953 ( name escapes me) who insisred that Scotland could not hand over sovereign power to Westminster because it itself never had a history of parliamentary sovereignty. It could not gift what it didn’t own, even through willing politicians.
This could, if upheld, negate every Act pertaining to Scotland since the Union. No minor matter.
“the idea of an indyref in 2023 is stone cold dead”
The biggest betrayer in Scotland’s history would never have proposed it without being sure it was stone cold dead.
I might also add that the UK Supreme Court when looking briefly at this issue described Scotlands Parliament as the “creation of” and therefore the “creature” of the UK parliament, This has to be challenged.
Given there is probably no other journalist available who has been to the Karakalpak, I have written it up on my blog. I haven’t pointed out there some parallels with Scotland, but you will see them.
“Our existence demonstrates that slightly over a quarter of Scots want independence”
Scotland entered the union because a majority of the MPs who cast their vote in 1706, voted in favour of the union. How many Scots wanted to join the union, how many did not, or even how many Scots were allowed to cast a vote at all, never even entered the equation.
I appreciate that an agreement between Scotland and England to revoke the treaty would make things much easier for everybody, and would be the ideal scenario, both domestically and internationally.
But that scenario is only ideal when England is willing to enter the agreement or at least the negotiating table. Clearly, we have seen that despite Scotland giving in 2015 95% of the seats to SNP MPs and over 50% of our vote to pro independence parties, and despite sending continuous pro indy majorities both to Westminster and Holyrood for the last 7 years, England’s agreement or willingness to negotiate are not forthcoming at all.
Frankly, I don’t think they will ever be forthcoming in the foreseeable future, particularly now that we are about to enter a rather bumpy ride economically speaking, courtesy of a brexit Scotland never agreed to, and England expects Scotland’s assets to play a very important part in its life-raft and to satisfy its energy needs.
At this point we may need to settle for a less than ideal alternative, otherwise we will be in this same situation in 100 years’ time, fed up of sending majorities for nothing and fed up of listening from politicians the same platitudes over and over again.
Moving forward, perhaps the solution is to establish what Scotland can use to unilaterally invoke termination/withdrawal from the treaty of union.
In international law, a breach of the fundamental conditions in a bilateral treaty by one of the parties gives the other the right to terminate the treaty. Even unionist MPs have recognised in Hansard that this has happened many times already.
A fundamental change in circumstances compared with when the treaty was agreed is also a reason accepted in international law for the termination of a treaty. Circumstances have changed aplenty.
I have read the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties and, I may well be mistaken, but while there are several things that are cited in the articles as reasons to revoke a treaty, I have not seen in them explicitly expressed that that a majority of the vote is necessary to revoke a treaty.
For instance, taking the example of Czechoslovakia, Me?iar and Klaus, the two main political leaders whose parties represented only 23% and 11% of the vote respectively (according to Wikipedia), agreed, without consulting the population in a referendum, to dissolve Czechoslovakia and create two independent states.
While people did not vote in a referendum, and the decision to divide the state into two was taken after the election and therefore without a democratic mandate for it, and although there was not a majority of the vote explicitly backing such huge change, this was accepted internationally.
Just like the Irish did, I think our route might well be for the majority of our pro indy MPs not to take their seats in Westminster and instead reconvene the old Parliament of Scotland inviting the other MPs. At that point, the act of union with England can be repealed and also the treaty.
The difference between Ireland and Scotland is that Ireland was considered at the time a domain of the Crown of England. Scotland is not England’s domain and it is acknowledged as such in the debates in Westminster at the time. We have been told countless times that this union is voluntary.
It may be that even before the Act of Union with England is repealed by the reconvened Scottish Parliament, England decides to enter the negotiation table and agree for Westminster to repeal the treaty. This would be perfect, but if not, the Parliament of Scotland could just proceed repealing the treaty.
I appreciate this carries its risks too and Scotland needs to be prepared to act as an independent country from day 1. I must admit I am not impressed at all with the progress of preparations of Scotland to act as an independent country under Nicola Sturgeon. For instance, I am appalled that after 8 years there is still no prospect of new ports to facilitate trade and the current situation of the ferries is worse that dire. It seems to me she has not prepared Scotland at all, possibly because she never expected it to become independent on her watch.
I am not sure you can demand perfect democracy to repeal the Treaty of Union when no democracy at all was demanded when the union started. Particularly considering the union started in a rather dubious way with bribes that would immediately declare the treaty as void under modern international law.
Scotland’s democratic rights were not taken into account at all when establishing the conditions for the EU referendum vote either. Effectively England MPs self-awarded themselves a veto over Scotland’s vote in the EU referendum.
Scotland’s democratic rights or consent were not respected or sought either when repealing the treaty with the EU. The tories forced us out of the EU when Scotland voted by over 60% against brexit, and they did so with a mandate based on 25% of the Scottish vote and a ground-breaking “majority” of 6 seats.
Equally, we were thrown in the new post-brexit agreement with the EU by a party holding a minority of both the vote in Scotland and seats in parliament without our democratic consent. We were never asked if we wanted to join that treaty, in the same way we have never been asked if we consent on that treaty being breached because of the backstop. Nobody in the world, even the EU itself, appears concerned on the least about this democratic outrage against Scotland.
I am of the opinion that a party to a treaty can only credibly demand democracy when they do it consistently and to the same standards, for every treaty and every time you enter and exit one.
Consistency is as important as democracy itself, therefore either England as the UK demands a majority of Scotland backing both entering and exiting a treaty and all treaties of which both are parties, or never. What we cannot consent is a situation where the backing of the majority in Scotland is selectively demanded by our partner as an effective obstacle to restrict the entry of exit of a particular treaty but not the rest.
I think it stands to the obvious that giving the small number of voters Scotland has compared with England, given the open border between the two countries and the potential mobility of the vote through that border in a GE, and given that it is the British state who sets up the rules and the franchise, unless the British state is prepared for and willing to accept Scotland’s independence, and chooses not to interfere in Scotland’s plebiscite, Scotland will never reach again the 50% threshold of pro-independence vote.
In other words, all the countries in the world may recognise that Scotland wants independence if our pro-indy vote surpasses the 50% threshold, but if the conditions are set against us and the goalposts are being constantly moved so we never reach that threshold, frankly, all the recognition from the rest of the world in that situation is very nice, but pointless.
To my mind, the surest route to independence is a combination of the Claim of Right, Scots law and challenging the Treaty of Union in the Scottish courts. I fail to see how the Scottish judiciary on examining the Treaty of Union, particularly in the light of Brexit, can reach any conclusion, unless they are not being truthful (objective), other than that it is null and void. And surely it is incumbent upon the international community to respect the rule of law?
Sic a Parcel of Traitors in a Nation.
Scotland is tied up in the Scotland Act. It’s this the courts will find in England’s favour. Scotland signed up to what was reserved to WM & remains outside the competence of Holyrood. Scotland can’t change what’s reserved & constitutional change, or any notions of it, are reserved.
This is why I see this as a completely futile excercise.
The Scotland Act needs abolished, Holyrood closed & Scotland’s real parliament reconvened & our MPs removed from a foreign parliament.
Otherwise we’re locked in a continual loop Scotland will never win.
Hollyrood is WMs baby, not Scotland’s.
It’s stuffed full of WMs flying monkey’s.
Reminds me of why a complete incompetent, who’d cost the Scottish taxpayer over £500k, was never sacked.
Because Scotgov isn’t her boss.
Her boss sits in WM.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 9:05 pm
“So how is it a majority of Scottish MPs can’t form their won government”
Because quite rightly, nobody would regard it as democratically legitimate for a declaration of independence, which is a far more serious matter than a term of government in a multi-party state.
International Recognition is not conditional upon Democracy, but Scotland’s elected MP’s removing themselves from Westminster would be no less democratic than Westminster itself, and perfectly justified given the flagrant breaches to the Treaty of Union, including Scotland’s anti-democratic and unconstitutional subjugation.
I suspect a whole host host of Nations would be sympathetic to Scotland if we chose to go down this route. It is peaceful, lawful, we have due provocation and constitutional assault demanding a reaction. Such a course of action would be democratic “enough”, and could be beyond reproach with a ratification plebiscite after the Treaty is ended and exit negotiations have been progressed.
link to 12ft.io
God spare me from this…
It’s close, but I would almost rather read the Daily Express. At least its “them” who are the deluded fools.
Why are Scots such wimps. If you want it seize it, sure as death you’re not going to be given it. Hiding behind legalism, international approval and the rest is timorous, scared of turbulence, temporizing.
All liberation movements were driven by the action of a determined few. The few created a momentum which could not be resisted.
Of course you require a particular style of leadership for that.
Rules? We make our own.
Breeks
Talking about ” deluded fools ” , as you will have read in that typically fawning , uncritical ” Sturgeon The Messiah ” National article , exemplified by this extract from a letter …..
” My own view is that London will accept a Yes result and agree to negotiate the terms of independence. But any unwillingness on their part will best be stifled by the Scottish Government displaying the same heartening resolve as it has now shown. ”
Yip , that famously * straight – batting * , * Cricket playing * , honourable upholder of Democratic Values and Political Good Faith …” London ” is * bound * to accept and agree to negotiate ……” , isn’t it ? What , you don’t think so ?
You Sir , are clearly lacking ” the same heartening resolve ” as displayed by our Queen Nicola
Her masterstroke of handing every lever of control over the mechanics of our aspiration to Independence to our opponents will surely be recorded as …….
The handing over of every lever of control over the mechanics of our aspiration to Independence to our opponents
BRAVO !!
Breeks says:
3 July, 2022 at 8:02 am
link to 12ft.io
God spare me from this…
It’s close, but I would almost rather read the Daily Express. At least its “them” who are the deluded fools.
If you check the entire letter page, you will notice a letter from one of your pal Iain Lawson’s old muckers, ex-councillor and Renfrewshire SNP chief Brian Lawson, in which he not only ridicules Sturgeon’s plans but also Holyrood.
As for the Daily Express, it’s shocking how far it has fallen since the Daily Mirror take over – almost like the morons in charge are doing it as a parody of what they think a Tory rag reads like. No wonder it’s losing readers hand over fist to other titles.
I read it for the first time in years last week and it’s little more than a Scotland In Union propaganda sheet, filled with some of the most wildly ludicrous claims – the worst of which was that All Under On Banner was a “sinister, extremist organisation.”
AUOB sinister and extremist? The Tufty Club is more threatening than AUOB is or ever will be!
Andy Ellis
You sat the Scottish Government would start negotiating. On what authority? The scenario you describe simply brings us back to the point at which the Scottish Parliament has to assert the power to negotiate. It cannot authorise negotiations as a devolved assembly. The constitution is reserved. In order to proceed with formal post-independence settlement negotiations, the Scottish Parliament would have to become a proper national parliament. It can only do this by taking (asserting) the powers of a normal national parliament.
Those powers cannot be ‘given’ to the Scottish Parliament. This would imply that Scotland’s constitutional status is subject to the will of some agency other than the people of Scotland. In other words, it would imply that the people are NOT sovereign.
Power is not given. Power is only taken. Scotland’s independence cannot be restored other than by some form of UDI. We have been conditioned to recoil from that term. But in fact, it merely describes a necessary step in any decolonisation process – which from the perspective of applicable UN declarations, this is.
The only thing to be done is to decide on the form of UDI. This is why I refer to #ScottishUDI. There is no universal definition of UDI. There can’t be, because the constitutional circumstances in each instance can never be more than similar. There are options. We could, for example, choose to have the Scottish Parliament formally assert its primacy in Scotland only with regard to constitutional matters. This would effectively be a declaration of independence without actually being fully-fledged UDI. Doing it this way would limit the response from the British government. It would certainly challenge the taking of powers ver a reserved matter. But in doing so it would have to argue in court that Scotland doesn’t have a right of self-determination. The British would have to argue in court that Scotland is not a nation and that the people of Scotland are not sovereign and that Westminster has greater democratic legitimacy than Holyrood. I can’t see the British government relishing that prospect.
There is another benefit of #ScottishUDI. There would, of course, have to be a referendum to ratify the proposal to #DissolveTheUnion. But it would mean that people were voting on a specific proposal rather than a vague question. It would also mean that the Union was made the contentious issue rather than independence.
This comment facility is not suited to discussion. So I’ll leave it there.
@Orri 10.31 pm
Do you mean those who voted or those who could have voted? There’s a significant difference.
Do you then accept partition as, unlike a referendum, the breakdown of votes will be known for each constituency?
Those who voted. People who can’t be arsed to vote, don’t get to whinge about the result afterwards.
No, I don’t accept partition, and neither – in general – is it accepted in international law or precedent. Territorial integrity applies to “seceding” states, just as it does to the states they are seceding from. There are obvious exceptions to the rule like Ireland, but in general, particularly in the context of de-colonisation which accounted for the vast majority of instances of independence after WW2 and before the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the USSR, the “new” state’s borders were held to be inviolable.
If there was a movement in, say the Northern Isles to either remain part of the UK or to become independent themselves, they’d have to make that case and seek international recognition for seceding from Scotland. The same goes for anywhere else: the Crimea and the pretendy republics in the Donbas for example were not of course “real” independence movements, but confections instituted by Vlad and his mates.
@Peter Bell 8.59 am
In the situation envisaged, as soon as a clear majority of Scots votes for pro-independence parties – whether at GE2024, HR2026 or any earlier or later elections, Scotland is essentially independent because the majority of Scots have decided it is. The mechanics of how we move from there can be refined: it’s not as if we have a precedent to go on is it? The Scottish people will have shown their sovereignty by voting for independence. At that moment we are de facto, if not de jure, independent. All we’re talking about after winning the majority is the detail.
On achieving a majority, Scots MPs should immediately come back to Scotland and, together with Holyrood MSPs convene a Constituent or National Assembly. Whether that new body is directly elected by the people, or sits in parallel with Holyrood is up for debate. Early elections for a “new” parliament would need to be held. I imagine in a parliamentary system the new parliament would want to appoint the negotiators for the detailed agreements which will be necessary with rump UK, but it could equally be a separate body. The same goes for developing and passing a written constitution.
You can refer to you personal proposal for #ScottishUDI all you like, but it doesn’t mean anyone else will listen, or think it is either a good idea or backed up by any substantive evidence. UDI is hard, it is rarely successful and makes international recognition much harder to achieve. It will invariably only be accepted in extremis in accepted instances of decolonisation (not applicable to Scotland), due to violence, ethnic cleansing or flagrant abuses of human rights (also not applicable to Scotland), or where the “metropolitan state is seen as acting unreasonably and acting in bad faith to prevent the exercise of self determination.
The latter would be arguable in relation to Scotland where Westminster refused a referendum and then refused to negotiate after a clear majority of Scots expressed the desire to become independent whether via referendum or plebiscitary elections.
Your plan appears overly convoluted to me. If the referendum route is closed to us legally by decision of the SC, then a commitment from the movement to make all subsequent General Elections plebiscitary is simple, easily understood and easily verified. 50% + 1 of votes is de facto independence, the rest is just detail.
I have to agree with Ottomanboi and Peter that Westminster will not hand us any power and that we will have to take it. (This does not equate to violence)
Better to ask forgiveness (from the international community) than permission (from Westminster).
Ellis,
There are obviously a number of ways we can get to our destination and I’m glad that these ways are being debated.
I agree with you to make all subsequent elections plebiscitary, it is our prerogative to do so.
As we keep hearing, democracy is an ongoing process not an event.
I also think the international community are already at the point where they have little faith in what Westminster says.
@Peter A Bell,
I agree with most of your post, many commentators point to the fact that the Supreme Court has already decided that Westminster is sovereign following the Miller Brexit case.
The judges ruled that the will of the Scottish people was expressed through their elected representatives in Westminster. They studiously avoided actually stating the people were sovereign , but if they are taken at their attempted ” word fudge”, then what is to stop these same elected officials from acting on that same premise?
Referendum 2023 poll shows a pro-independence majority for the first time in any Panelbase poll since April 2021
Thereby proving what so many have said – that the polls would not start moving until there was a date and a campaign.
Nicola’s roadmap could turn out to be, as RevStu suggests, a roundabout with no exits – but if hurtling round it raises public support to a critical figure an exit may appear.
I think ALBA’s avowed intention to go with the flow is right. I am off to put a poster and a flag up.
I wonder if it would make any difference if Nicola gave BoJo a BlowJo. He does after all like foreign affairs.
Just saying like.
Off to finish my breakfast now.
We’ll at least Ian McWhirter reads wings
@Mia
I think it stands to the obvious that giving the small number of voters Scotland has compared with England, given the open border between the two countries and the potential mobility of the vote through that border in a GE, and given that it is the British state who sets up the rules and the franchise, unless the British state is prepared for and willing to accept Scotland’s independence, and chooses not to interfere in Scotland’s plebiscite, Scotland will never reach again the 50% threshold of pro-independence vote.
Seems like the dialogue of despair to me. If Scots as a people are really so tholed that they can’t bestir themselves to ensure 50% + 1 of them support independence, they probably don’t deserve it. If native born Scots – who still make up >80% of the population let’s remember – can’t persuade enough new Scots that independence is preferable to remaining in the current union, what does it say about us and about the validity of our prospectus for a better nation?
Believing that there are no circumstances in which the process will ever be fair just comes across as conspiracy theorising. No true nationalist could or should believe that our self determination is in the gift of the UK or needs its or anyone else’s permission. It is however undeniable that the path to independence will be much easier if it comes about as part of a negotiated and agreed process. The alternatives are either violence and incipient civil war, or a contested UDI which could take years or decades to resolve and leave us in legal and constitutional limbo like Northern Cyprus or Kosovo.
Statehood without international recognition is only partial statehood. As those entities trying to operate internationally with that status whether they’d prefer general recognition.
It is up to Scots to demonstrate to the international community that our case is sound, supported by a majority, and that we have tried all the reasonable methods to effect our independence by agreement before they will countenance radical action or UDI. It may be true that the current UK government has few friends, and that its apparent willingness to break international treaties will not go down well and probably strengthens our argument that they are not negotiations our self determination in good faith, but we shouldn’t give in to pessimism and / or conspiracy theories that we can’t ever win because the deck is stacked against us.
We have agency in this struggle and methods to advance our cause that don’t rely on accepting that we need permission to become independent, or that Holyrood is Westminster’s creature, or that we need to jettison the accepted precedents of referendums or plebiscitary elections for “cunning plans for indy” which have little or no intellectual, political or academic hinterground or back up.
Each unionist in turn looking to attack talks only of our Drug death totals as the worlds worst.
I had a look at the tables below an the USA is higher as a nation but has dozens of States with far higher rates than Scotland.
Can you compare knife killings in London, shootings in Birmingham, sleeve in government, corruption in government, cost of failed gov projects – Scottish Ferries Vs Track and Traceless, The disastrous Elizabeth line, HS2, Corruption like Hancock giving his friends PPE contracts or his family purchasing share i companies later handed NHS Contracts. The same situation with Zahawi the now Education minister.
link to kff.org
Shug says:
3 July, 2022 at 10:03 am
We’ll at least Ian McWhirter reads wings
He’s got to get some grown up reading material from somewhere, because he’s never going to get it in that Rangers fanzine that he works for along with the collection of diploma course intern bimbos and geriatric apron and rolled up trouser leg merchants therein.
Eight most popular topic in The Herald today, “Thousands have taken to the streets of Glasgow today to take part in an Orange Walk,” complete with fifteen colour photographs of the bigots favourite cosplay day.
Let’s you know all you need to know about the mindset they’re appealing to.
@Shug 10.03 am
MacWhirter wrote this in his piece, which I don’t really understand:
ANYWAY, after this de facto referendum, who would the victorious Scottish Government be negotiating with? As Nicola Sturgeon said in her statement, several times so that her troops got the message, she would only consider a valid referendum legitimised by a section 30 Order passed by Westminster. To repeat: no party in Westminster is going to back that request.
Surely that’s NOT what Sturgeon said or implied, unless I misheard. If the SC finds that no referendum is legal without a S30 Order (which most assume it will), and BoJo says “Now is not the time” in response to yet another letter from Sturgeon, then the plan is to make GE2024 plebiscitary.
If pro-independence parties win a majority at that GE, there is no requirement for a further referendum, we are to all intents and purposes independent from that moment. All that remains then is to negotiate our exit and figure out the process of disengagement. The referendum route is dead if the SC finds against the SG, so why would Nicola be insisting on a S30 sanctioned referendum AFTER winning a mandate for independence at plebiscitary elections?
MacWhirter has the wrong end of the stick surely?
Here’s a serious suggestion trying to kick off a constructive debate… I don’t necessarily agree with it myself, but just suppose…
Step 1. Scotland’s MP’s decree the Treaty of Union is breached. It is breached in law, no democratic mandate is required to contest it.
Step 2. Scotland unilaterally presents the UK Government with a Lisbon Treaty Article 50 “style” stay of execution for the decision. The effects are held in abeyance for a “transitional cooling-off period”, say two years, before the end the Treaty of Union becomes permanent.
Step 3. Scotland presents the UK Government with an ultimatum; to remedy and
reversecompensate Scotland for it’s unconstitutional Brexit subjugation and decades of under investment, and renegotiate a modern Treaty of Union, or, concede our differences cannot be reconciled and that no “new” Union can be resurrected from the old.In short, whatever happens, the 1707 Treaty of Union is at an end, but we enter a two year Transitional period of negotiation to either; resurrect a “New” United Kingdom Lite, which recognises Constitutional autonomy (no more Devolution) and powers of sovereign veto, or else, the Treaty of Union is laid to rest permanently and Scotland and England begin formal talks on permanent dissolution.
Step 4. The decisions reached during the 2 Years of Transition are put to separate Scottish and English ratification pleciscites.
For my part, I don’t want a political Treaty of Union with England, but a Sovereign Independent Scotland will need a Trade Agreement of some sort with England, and if Unionists wanted to pretend that this ex-UK “Benelux” style trade agreement was “the” United Kingdom surviving in name, but name only and precious little else, then who cares? Let them wear a butcher’s apron if it makes them happy. Scotland will be sovereign and autonomous and simply in a trade agreement with England.
Let me modify Step 1…
Scotland’s MP’s don’t declare the Treaty of Union breached, but declare their intention to declare the Treaty of Union breached….
(Yes, it would be an ultimatum).
@Breeks 10.39 am
Or:
Step 1: All pro-independence parties agree that, whatever the outcome of the SC case, all subsequent General Elections will be regarded as plebiscitary, with 50% +1 votes for those parties being taken as a mandate for independence.
Step 2: GE2024 (or whenever the next Westminster or Holyrood GE happens) produces a majority of votes for pro-independence parties signed up for the automatic mandate.
Step 3: We declare independence, and start negotiations for the detail with Westminster using whichever body or institution the Scottish people see fit to give authority to.
Rev Stu, have you seen James Kelly’s post of 29th June which questions your interpretation of the polls during Sturgeon’s tenure? I have no idea who is right (I’m not a great believer in polls anyway) but you might want to put your side of things. I know you and him have had your disagreements but he’s not Paul Kavanagh and does allow dissenting voices to be heard.
“Referendum 2023 poll shows a pro-independence majority for the first time in any Panelbase poll since April 2021
Thereby proving what so many have said – that the polls would not start moving until there was a date and a campaign.”
ScotsRenewables.
The above means nothing, they’ll be no indyref, and even if by some miracle there was one we’d lose again, the entire UK media machine is against us, with its fear, lies and deceit reaching into very home we cannot possibly match that, then there’s the at least half-a-million incomers from South of the border possibly more as these are the ones recorded due to registering with a doctor, to the majority of them it wouldn’t matter what the benefits of an indy Scotland were for them its a no to indy.
Then there’s the civil Service which actively worked against Scottish independence in 2014, we cannot win an indyref, the fair and proper condition within the UK don’t exist for that to happen.
Ellis wields this ‘argument’ every chance he gets. The fact that it was endorsed by Rev Stu doesn’t put it beyond criticism.
For a start, why should it be down to any of us to ‘persuade’ anyone else of the benefits of independence? My neighbour, an English dude, doesn’t think it’s a good idea and voted No. (He’s been living in Scotland for, I don’t know, thirty or forty years.) We established one another’s positions on this stuff a long time ago (well before 2014) and have avoided the topic ever since. He’s not going to change his mind and neither am I but we still live next door to one another so it’s best to just leave it be.
The same dude is certainly not going to be persuaded of the positive case for independence by watching the telly or reading the newspapers or listening to radio because none of them have serious discussions about the whole thing unless there’s an election in the offing and ‘he doesn’t do politics’ anyway so he wouldn’t watch/listen.
There’s another glaring hole in the great Ellis argument which few dare address because it’s so tragic. But its important…
A lot of people are seriously stupid and/or uninformed. The average IQ is 100, right? As George Carlin observed, you have to remind yourself that at least half of the population is even more stupid than that. They are beyond the reach of logical argument. They are, in truth, oblivious to any ‘argument’ at all. They accept or reject what is presented to them according to criteria that intelligent people cannot fathom. It’s every bit as difficult for a clever person to imagine being stupid as it is for a dolt to imagine being intelligent.
I know this all sounds a bit brutal but it’s true and it’s those people who are targeted by the politicos. Intelligent people are not a ‘problem’ for Sturgeon and her pals because she can rely on the legal profession and the civil service and MSM editors/producers to deal with them. No – she needs to appeal to the chronically thick. (This isn’t a ‘class issue’ btw – plenty of dafties in Spam Valley!) That’s why she knew that her grand announcement on Tuesday would be taken at face value – only a toty % of the audience would listen to it critically and practically no-one would take the time to actually read a transcript after the event.
Ellis knows full well that the ‘persuade the 20%’ argument is bogus – the real figure of immovable Nos, combined with the hopelessly stupid, is far larger. We saw quite a few of them marching through the centres of Ayr and Glasgow yesterday.
..the entire UK media machine is against us, with its fear, lies and deceit reaching into very home we cannot possibly match that,…
There isn’t likely to be a referendum, because it’s likely the SC will support the government. That in itself should be worth a few percentage points in the polls. It shouldn’t be that hard for the movement as a whole, irrespective of party differences, to play on the anti-democratic nature of such a refusal to increase support for using plebiscitary elections as an alternative, and for persuading them to switch from being against independence to supporting it.
The entire machine was against us between 2012-14, but the % in favour of independence rose from the high 20’s percent to 45%.
The entire machine has been against us since 2014, but the percentage in favour as stayed in the 45-50% range.
We probably have 2 years to prepare for plebiscitary elections which only need us to win a few more percentage points in order to win, and they are two years which will be very hard for lots of ordinary folk, and cast the shortcomings of the British nationalist project in to sharp relief.
We can’t blame the hostility of the MSM and the bias of the civil service for ever. In the end a majority just need to stand up and be counted.
Ellis wields this ‘argument’ every chance he gets. The fact that it was endorsed by Rev Stu doesn’t put it beyond criticism.
I’ve never said, nor do I believe that this or any of my arguments are beyond criticism. I do believe that none of those criticising Stu’s original coruscating fisking of the franchise restriction narrative have ever come anywhere close to addressing his points, let alone refuting them. None of that is new, it’s been argued about at length. You and others are entitled to your views, and to believe that they have widespread support. I don’t buy it. I don’t know anyone else outside a handful of regular posters in here that believe it either, but I accept that’s a subjective view. The only way to “prove” it would be to get specific polling commissioned on the matter.
So what is it you are saying? That because your neighbour – who has lived in Scotland for several decades – is a dyed in the wool unionist, he should be denied a vote in any referendum? Should it apply to all non-natives, only those who have been here for less than 40 years, or 30 years, or 15? Or should it only apply to those we suspect might vote the wrong way? How do you propose to make windows in to all those souls?
What about Scottish people who are convinced unionists? Shall we pre-screen those who say won’t take Scottish citizenship post independence and deny them a say too?
I simply don’t accept that it’s a hole in my argument that there will always be people who can never be convinced.
A lot of people are seriously stupid and/or uninformed.
Well indeed. We don’t screen people and deny them the vote if they fall below a certain IQ either. Again, I don’t accept it’s a hole in “my” argument. You appear simply to be “raging against the machine” to come up with excuses in lieu of convincing arguments backing up the plan to disenfranchise 20% of Scots. First it was that they weren’t Scottish enough, now it appears to be that they aren’t bright enough. I don’t think either argument hold water, or is one that any person or political movement which purports to be progressive should accept.
Ellis knows full well that the ‘persuade the 20%’ argument is bogus – the real figure of immovable Nos, combined with the hopelessly stupid, is far larger. We saw quite a few of them marching through the centres of Ayr and Glasgow yesterday.
I neither know, nor accept that the argument is bogus. Like Stu, and I think the majority of the movement, I think it is incumbent on us – and eminently possible – to construct a majority out of the pro-independence section of (I think) the 82% of population who are native born Scots, and the pro-independence section of the balance who are “New Scots”. There are clever and stupid people on both sides of the divide.
Unlike you and those who agree with you, I think civic nationalism is an important value, and central to the success of our movement. I don’t regard those arguing for the disenfranchisement of 20% of those resident in Scotland as on the same side as me, just as Rev Stu said in his original counter argument to the nativist prospectus. I’ve never wavered in that, and never will. Ethnic nationalists may have the same aim as civic nationalists, but it’s not the same movement.
“We can’t blame the hostility of the MSM and the bias of the civil service for ever.”
Exactly, that’s why a form of UDI is essential, in my opinion there’s no other way out of this union, for the conditions don’t exist for any other form of exit on a level playing field.
Ellis has certainly heeded Rev’s warning about personal abuse etc.
Well done Andy! Wasn’t so difficult eh?
Anyway, so far as his 11.46 goes, it has never crossed my mind that the neighbour shouldn’t have a vote. The fact that he’s English is neither here nor there. The native Scots who were marching yesterday all have their votes too and are equally unreachable.
There is no ‘plan to disenfranchise 20% of Scots’ but Ellis’s entire argument rests on that mischievous evidence-free assertion. He uses it to discredit those of us who want to discuss the franchise.
And he claims constantly to be speaking for the majority?! He cannot and does not speak for the majority of Scots, Yes-supporting or otherwise. He doesn’t even speak for the majority in here.
Ian Brotherhood says:
3 July, 2022 at 11:17 am
There’s another glaring hole in the great Ellis argument which few dare address because it’s so tragic. But its important.
A lot of people are seriously stupid and/or uninformed.
Then let’s wise them up and inform them.
Ian Brotherhood says:
3 July, 2022 at 12:00 pm
Ellis has certainly heeded Rev’s warning about personal abuse etc.
Well done Andy! Wasn’t so difficult eh?
Knock it off, Ian.
@Mark Boyle –
How?
I agree Ian.
We all have a point of view on the franchise (how could we not ) and where else to discuss it if not here.
Thats what we’ve always done.
We pick every aspect of Indy apart and look at it from all angles.
I’ve certainly changed my mind on some things by taking on board what others here have pointed out.
So mindful of the Revs rules which are no that difficult to abide by, I hope we continue to deep dive into all the issues with nothing off the table…
@Mark Boyle –
My ‘how’ refers to your 12.07.
How do we reach these people? What can we do that hasn’t been tried in the past decade?
If you stopped a random in one of those marches yesterday, or even those watching at the roadside, how do you even begin to communicate with them? Most of them don’t even know why they’re marching or what it is they’re watching. (And just for the sake of ‘balance’, you’ll find similarly ‘challenged’ characters every other Saturday inside Celtic Park.)
They are hopeless cases. (The only thing I can think of that might catch their attention is hard cash but it’s too difficult to explain that it’s all tied up in natural resources etc.)
Exactly, that’s why a form of UDI is essential, in my opinion there’s no other way out of this union, for the conditions don’t exist for any other form of exit on a level playing field.
You saying it and it being true are two different things. Independence following UDI is not an easy way out, nor is it guaranteed to succeed. The international community can and will accept it under certain circumstances, but it will look at each case on its merits.
The chances of it accepting that “a form of UDI is essential” in the case of Scotland are not high, but the chances or recognition are even worse in the event the community thinks we haven’t followed a process, particularly one which can’t demonstrate a majority in response to clear question, and that failure is down not to abuse / violence/ failure to negotiate on the part of the British nationalists, but our own inability to be persuasive enough.
No amount of protesting that we’ve been robbed, or colonised, or denied our rights will trump the plain fact that all we need to do is put a cross in a box, unlike in Kosovo, Timor L’Este or South Sudan. Asserting that that UDI is the only answer just leads us down the path of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Ian Brotherhood says:
3 July, 2022 at 12:24 pm
@Mark Boyle –
My ‘how’ refers to your 12.07.
How do we reach these people? What can we do that hasn’t been tried in the past decade?
If you stopped a random in one of those marches yesterday, or even those watching at the roadside, how do you even begin to communicate with them? Most of them don’t even know why they’re marching or what it is they’re watching. (And just for the sake of ‘balance’, you’ll find similarly ‘challenged’ characters every other Saturday inside Celtic Park.)
They are hopeless cases. (The only thing I can think of that might catch their attention is hard cash but it’s too difficult to explain that it’s all tied up in natural resources etc.)
The grunting neanderthals of the bigot Bully Boys and Girls are an unrepresentative fraction of the population who now have to combine their marches to do “big parades” in cities before doing their local ones because their numbers have crashed. Like the Ku Klux Klan in the States, the things they support out loud are automatically tainted in the eyes of the population at large, and in that lies a distinct advantage in itself. The humiliation of the hilarious Orangefest in Glasgow’s George Square a few years back showed they’re on their way out (except in certain parts of Lanarkshire, but what can you expect?) – albeit granted that was back when Rangers were at their nadir, and confidence in that “hivemind” was at an all time low.
It’s the Don’t Knows you target, and they are a miles bigger target market than those who have too much emotionally invested in all the trappings of “unionism” largely as part of a pretend master race waifu pillow wrapped in a Rangers top (the orange one, of course) – and even within that group there are cracks, those doing it only because of family ties, or because their employers are one of those curious types that still asks prospective new employees what school they went to two decades after they left secondary education, and who may have quite contrary views on the world within the privacy of the voting booth.
The proof in the pudding is that so many of these on paper Nos merrily put the SNP into power at Holyrood and handed over whopping majorities to SNP MPs at Westminster the first chance they got – they would like to believe Scotland could go it alone, but are not convinced … yet.
Moreover, there are plenty of closet “don’t knows” and “not sure about this” even within the realms of the most diehard “unionist” echo chambers, let alone the don’t knows – Iain Lawson ought to be proof of that.
Persuasion is not some instant Damascusian conversion – more the eroding down of the barriers over time. The speed with which said barriers are eroded is primarily down to “events, dear boy, events.” But with persistence, it can be done.
“You saying it and it being true are two different things. Independence following UDI is not an easy way out, nor is it guaranteed to succeed. The international community can and will accept it under certain circumstances, but it will look at each case on its merits.
The chances of it accepting that “a form of UDI is essential” in the case of Scotland are not high,”
Well it all depends on what kind of FM we have in place, a shrewd FM would in my opinion allay the fears of say the USA by keeping Trident, applying or remaining in Nato etc, our EU friends such as Spain, France, Ireland could be given access to our waters for fishing etc on the pretext that they acknowledge our leaving the union, we have an an abundance of excess renewable energy and Europe is screaming out for energy right now, no ways can be found to get the international community on board if you don’t have the right FM in place.
I know Sturgeon isn’t the right FM to take us out of this union, however Scotland still has connections to Europe, I’m pretty sure it has three or four embassy type building in European countries promoting Scottish interests, via these would be a good starting place to gauge the lie of the land on what type of reaction a form of UDI might meet across the continent.
It can be achieved if approached in the right manner.
Jeez! Is the ‘your anti-english’ card being played now?
Scotland did not vote against independence.
rUK did.
Scotland will never, ever, ever convince the rooting, tooting 1690 brigade.
Scotland won’t ever convince the English who live here *and love bomb Scotland* that England knows best in all things. ( I suggest you tune into LBC on a daily basis for the phone-ins – no better judge of public opinion than that)
Scotland won’t ever convince the hundreds of ‘Spuds’ out there that Scotland isn’t just a shite state of affairs & Ian is right – they’re lacking in skills. Jeez, even council & Holyrood elections confuse them so they don’t bother.
Then there’s the yuppies who’ve colonised places like Edinburgh
/St Andrews & Scotland should shut up. England knows best & anyone waving a flag is an embarrassment & an indy march is just a rabble of louts!
& Scotland won’t ever convince the pensioner brainwashed 24/7 by the BBC to *despise* Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon/ insert any indy name you like.
Scotland DID convince these people in a tiny window in 2014 for it to be snatched with the last gasp of project fear.
That momentum has passed now. Brexshit has passed now. Sturgeon ruined it & good luck trying to convince anyone now.
Lest we forget, what someone says in public can be far, far removed from what they tick in the booth.
Add to all of the above, remove 16/17 year olds & EU citizens/refugees who cannot vote in a General Election.
Seeing as England knows best in all things – let’s follow their best practice. You have to be a resident 5 years+ & No holiday homes.
@Mark Boyle (12.58) –
Okay, fair enough. Perhaps I’m just being too gloomy. It’s been a roller-coaster week and my already half-empty glass got shoogled about too much.
I wish I shared your optimism and I hope you’re right.
Ellis @12.34pm.
On Kosovo it exists because the USA wanted it to.
“within four days of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, fifteen countries (including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Australia) recognized the independence of Kosovo. By mid-2009, 63 countries around the world, including 22 of the 27 members of the European Union had recognized Kosovo as independent.”
A brief look at the problems and manipulations for for sovereign Scots reduces to one factor.
The devolved government.
Under this umberella of comes the intrusion and interference into Scots Law, our advocates, our courts and legal system,
Under the devolved government is an unfair electorial system outside Scotlands control.
Under this devolved government is a unfair tax system and barnett formula,
Under the devolved government the Uk falsely claims sovereignty over Scots and Scots preventing them from having the right to self determination.
And under and through the devolved government the sovereign Scots are held hostage in their own country.
It perhaps has gone unnoticed that the “Scots Claim of Right” that is part of the treaty of the union is being reserved by Westminster as a reserved matter through the devolved government by refusing the devolved government the right to approach the Sovereign Scots with the question of whom they would choose to govern them as the world changes.
The devolved government is the Sovereign Scots problem,
NS is just acting manger on a good pay by the Scottish devolved government providing she does as her bosses say, and swears an oath to the crown.
Meaning if The devolved government and the snp tried any manouvre’s outside Uk law it would be Treason.
So the devolved government is the problem,
The soverereign Scot cannot continue to use this system of control, it interferes with the articles of the 1707 treaty of the union.
The SOVEREIGN SCOT can choose whom and which system governs them for any length of time, at any time without breaking the treaty of the union oing so.
The scottish devolved government cannot make that move without facing accusations of Treason.
Andy Ellis says:
“Seems like the dialogue of despair to me”
It can seem to you whatever you wish. From where I am standing is the reality. Scotland has not control over the franchise nor the voting rules. 150,000 people from anywhere else in the UK can transfer their vote to Scotland and that would have been enough to frustrate the pro-indy vote in 2015.
“If Scots as a people are really so tholed that they can’t bestir themselves to ensure 50% + 1 of them support independence, they probably don’t deserve it”
The Scots ALREADY voted for independence in 2014. Over 53% of the natives did. This was trumpeted as a triumph by every unionist outlet that is out there. Personally I am not sure how demonstrating how the right of self determination of the people of Scotland was frustrated is something anybody claiming a democrat could be proud of, but there you go.
“If native born Scots – who still make up >80% of the population”
“Still”???? Try and compare that with the percentage of natives in England. The words “already was at the last census” is far more appropriate, in my view. Because of the delay in the 2021 census imposed by Sturgeon’s administration (funny, COVID did not seem to cause the census in England and Wales to be delayed), we don’t know today if that figure of 80% is even accurate anymore.
“let’s remember – can’t persuade enough new Scots that independence is preferable to remaining in the current union, what does it say about us and about the validity of our prospectus for a better nation?”
Nothing much. When 53% of the natives voted for independence and still the vote was frustrated by incomers, what it is saying is that the franchise is crap and the referendum was never an exercise in self-determination, but rather a tool to frustrate it.
“Believing that there are no circumstances in which the process will ever be fair just comes across as conspiracy theorising”
No. It comes across as having taken the time to take an effing calculator and calculating probabilities.
“No true nationalist”
????? Gaslighting already? Give it a rest…
” It is however undeniable that the path to independence will be much easier if it comes about as part of a negotiated and agreed process”
Sure. But what you cannot do is to hold the people of Scotland to ransom because our self-indulgent partner in an international treaty cannot face giving up control of Scotland’s territory and resources.
“The alternatives are either violence and incipient civil war”
No. The alternative is for Scotland to bypass the devolution that is constraining Holyrood and exercise its legitimate right to terminate the Treaty of Union.
“or a contested UDI”
Terminating an international treaty within the boundaries of international law is not “UDI”. It is just that, terminating a treaty.
“which could take years or decades to resolve”
Remind me again, how long has Sturgeon already wasted us with this devolutionist route to nowhere? And if like me you consider Scotland already voted for independence in 2014, how long the time wasting has been?
“and leave us in legal and constitutional limb”
?????? If you terminate the treaty within the context of international law, how on earth does that leave Scotland “in a constitutional limbo”? Do you actually think before you write?
“Statehood without international recognition is only partial statehood”
If Scotland terminates the treaty within the boundaries of international law, what makes you think other countries will not recognise Scotland’s right to statehood?
Do you actually realise that the route of terminating the treaty is a completely different route to that of restricting Scotland to the boundaries of devolution to exit the union? It seems to me you appear to be trying to blur the boundaries between both.
“It is up to Scots to demonstrate to the international community that our case is sound”
And it is sound. Westminster has been breaching the fundamental conditions of the Treaty of union for centuries. Don’t take my word for it. Go to Hansard and fill your boots. Unionist MPs themselves recognised this more than once in the records.
“supported by a majority”
The only majority Scotland needs support from is a majority of Scotland’s MPs determined to terminate the union. In 1706 a majority of MPs is what ratified the Treaty of Union despite fierce popular opposition.
“that we have tried all the reasonable methods”
Scotland exercising its legitimate right to repeal the Treaty of Union is a perfectly reasonable method to effect our independence. There is nothing radical about it. Countries all over the world have been entering and exiting treaties for centuries.
“We have agency in this struggle and methods to advance our cause that don’t rely on accepting that we need permission to become independent”
One of those methods is to repeal the Treaty of Union. Insisting in following the devolution route to pursue independence will always invariably lead to having to ask for permission. Unless of course Nicola Sturgeon grows the backbone to ditch the Scotland Act.
“Holyrood is Westminster’s creature”
For as long as those sitting in Holyrood insist in constrain themselves by the Scotland Act, Holyrood is and will always remain to be “Westminster’s creature”. For as long as the Scotland Act continues to restrict Holyrood’s power, Holyrood is not Scotland’s parliament. It is Westminster’s version of what Scotland’s Parliament should look like: a powerless entity.
There are two main routes to Scotland’s independence: the devolution route or the route where Scotland exercises its legitimate right to act as an equal signatory of an international treaty. Both routes are completely different and lead to different things. Both respond to different kinds of restrictions and requirements. The first one requires Wesminster’s consent or agreement. The second requires the treaty is terminated within the constrains of international law. Clearly you favour the first. My favourite is obviously the second.
You will never convince me the first option is the best in the same way I guess I will never convince you the second option is better.
I think we have to agree to disagree.
Wings, BoJo granting a sec30 –
He’d deffo go down in history as hero in Scotland which would feed his narcissistic personality disorder & give him a world wide gig on the international stage lol
Andy should stop looking for *stupid Scots* to blame for not achieving indy and acknowledge the very real elephant in the room.
It’s not Scots *paranoia* either.
Wales has the exact same problem.
Example, it wasn’t the Welsh who voted for Brexshite.
It was their country cousins who lived there that tipped the vote & always will.
Sadly the only possible way I can see of actually getting out of this “Union” is to have indi supporting parties win a majority of seats South of the border.. it could take another 100 years.
Migration from England according to NRS is fairly low in comparison to migration from abroad. The last measure was inward migration from all routes was 10,000 more then the number of Scots who left to other climes . These figures were from 2018 pre pandemic.
In The National,
“A Panelbase study published in The Times has found that support for independence outstrips those in favour of the Union, and puts the SNP “within touching distance” of a majority of votes in a General Election that could be a de facto referendum.”
The idea that only votes for the SNP count as independence votes is extremely dangerous for the Yes movement, this needs to be called out now.
Ellis has certainly heeded Rev’s warning about personal abuse etc.
Well done Andy! Wasn’t so difficult eh?
I’ve ceased to respond in kind to those abusing me certainly, in accordance with the Rev’s new strictures. Well done also to those who used to routinely label those disagreeing with them as yoons or worse for containing themselves, and a special mention for Ruby who has managed admirably to do a few posts without using the c-bomb.
Anyway, so far as his 11.46 goes, it has never crossed my mind that the neighbour shouldn’t have a vote. The fact that he’s English is neither here nor there. The native Scots who were marching yesterday all have their votes too and are equally unreachable.
So what was your point in using the example? It’s hardly exceptional to point out that there are many Scots – native or otherwise who do not accept the arguments in favour of independence and they never will. Doubtless there were quite a few folk in Ireland who felt the same after 1921. You don’t hear much of them now.
There is no ‘plan to disenfranchise 20% of Scots’ but Ellis’s entire argument rests on that mischievous evidence-free assertion. He uses it to discredit those of us who want to discuss the franchise.
You personally may not have such a plan, but others in the nativist camp assuredly do and have said as much, advocating that only native born Scots should have the vote (which is where the 20% figure comes from: it wasn’t mine it was in Rev Stu’s original rejoinder on twitter last year), or that the qualification period should be 15 or 10 years residence. I don’t know where you think the cut off should be, but it’s hardly unreasonable for anyone to ask you to justify your chosen criteria.
I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think the 2014 franchise should be retained, or that I’d be open – like Rev Stu – to minor changes to address glaring irregularities such as excluding double voting by second home owners or temporary residents like students. Neither of these are likely to amount to result changing numbers.
So your claim that I’m using arguments that nobody has made to discredit your arguments or close down debate is simply false. I don’t expect you to apologise for spreading your falsehoods. I know better.
And he claims constantly to be speaking for the majority?! He cannot and does not speak for the majority of Scots, Yes-supporting or otherwise. He doesn’t even speak for the majority in here.
I’m as entitled to say I think my views represent those of the majority as you are to assert yours do. I’ve never claimed to speak for them. Only one of us is right. Time will tell which. Unless you have convincing polling evidence or other direct evidence demonstrating that you are right and I am wrong, we’re not really any further forward.
Andy Ellis says:
3 July, 2022 at 2:57 pm
and a special mention for Ruby who has managed admirably to do a few posts without using the c-bomb.
DING! DING! PERSONAL ABUSE!
@Geri 2.01 pm
Andy should stop looking for *stupid Scots* to blame for not achieving indy and acknowledge the very real elephant in the room.
It’s Ian Brotherhood that thinks Scots are too stupid not me.
I said they were tholed and lacked political balls. that’s rather different.
Mia,
Having you cake and eating it, them having some more of someone else’s come to mind with this treaty of the union claptrap,
We have to remember one thing.
The Scots did not enter the treaty of the union, thy PROTESTED AND OBJECTED to ENTRY. and they did not get a vote to enter into it by a deliberate decision of the politicians,
Only the politicians actually committed themselves to a union of parliaments, and the scottish parliament was not elected by Sovereign Scots at that time.
Even the crooked Corrupt Scottish Parliament in 1707 recognised they were not rulers of the Scots and Scotland
When they entered the Scots Sovereign Claim of Right in the treaty of the union and england agreed.
All these points matter, although you will try be persuaded to think otherwise .
Why do we need all the people of Scotland that are not and have never been entered into the treaty of the union, to suddenly partake to withdraw under any voting system?
Getting mocked for pointing out factual legal history is purely a distraction to obfuscate the Scots from their common sense.
To muddy the mind,
The devolved government is another muddying of waters,
the treaty of the union never caught the Scots, it caught an unelected self volunteered group of people claiming to be a Scottish parliament. But not ever elected to be such by the Scots.
The Scots Claim of right, actually separated the Scots people from the self elected Scottish government in the 1707 treaty of the union.
Scots did not vote to enter the treaty of the union after a debate was held in the English Parliament as to wether the English Parliament would offer the Scots that opportunity, was turned down by the English parliament.
The Scottish three estates also separated themselves from offering the Scots a vote on entering the Treaty of the union, by including “the Claim of right.”
Thus both parties that entered into the treaty all had identified the Scots as not being in, or bound by the treaty of the Union.
That Scots retained that individual Sovereignty as a Sovereign entity separate from the treaty of the union,
Muddied waters indeed that make to make Scots think they now have vote themselves out of the UK.
Claptrap and hog wash.
The Scots were never in.
I’m pretty neutral on changing the franchise. It could do more harm than good but I think there’s a case for restricting the vote to those who have genuinely committed to living here, etc.
The way I see it, though, roughly 50% of us support independence at the moment and I’ve always assumed that number would be much, much higher if we had a less biased media. I think most would agree on that.
There’s no reason assume that there’s some sort of structural 50% cap on independence support.
If you assume a more balanced media would potentially result in a surge in support to around say 65%, possibly higher, and I do, well, the argument about the franchise becomes quite moot.
The problem, as always, is making the case, having the best arguments, and working out how to get through to people with a MSM that is 100% hostile to you and your arguments.
Looking at it like that, the one or two percentage points you might gain from tinkering with the franchise aren’t really worth getting excited about.
For the sovereign Scots people. It is a PSEUDO TREATY.
Definition.
A treaty, not actually, but having the appearance of.
A treaty Trying to pass of itself of as something close to the real thing,
Fictitious.
Spurious.
Deceptively similar. But not actually.
Bob Mack..
What about temporary migration, like WM deploying troops for example?
Not sure if the reports during indyref were ever disproved?
It was highly suss tho, a week out from the vote, there was a sudden stampede to register to vote from ppl who must’ve been living under a rock for years.
@Mia 1.42 pm
No. The alternative is for Scotland to bypass the devolution that is constraining Holyrood and exercise its legitimate right to terminate the Treaty of Union.
How is that going to be done and how will it be recognised? Who is going to do it? Who gives them the authority? Independence won’t be recognised unless we can clearly demonstrate other reasonable routes have been tried and unreasonably frustrated by the UK, and we can demonstrate a clear majority in response to a clear mandate. None of the cunning plans of indy proposed as yet do so.
If Scotland terminates the treaty within the boundaries of international law, what makes you think other countries will not recognise Scotland’s right to statehood?
The “if” at the beginning is doing a lot of heavy lifting there though Mia isn’t it? So far you and others proposing novel routes to indy have signally failed to demonstrate that this “termination of the treaty” will be accepted by the international community, or seen as having any effect in international law. Feel free to show me the peer reviewed evidence and discussion in the relevant academic circles. I’ll wait…..
You will never convince me the first option is the best in the same way I guess I will never convince you the second option is better.
You’re presenting a false dichotomy. I don’t accept Scotland’s – or indeed anyone else’s – self determination requires the consent or agreement of the “metropolitan” entity. There are a number of paths a people can conceivable use to gain independence, including in extremis UDI. International law is imperfect and there is no precedent of a polity like Scotland becoming independent in the modern era, therefore nobody really knows for sure how any of the actors who will be involved will react. We have some limited evidence from cases like Quebec, Catalonia and #indyref1 in 2014.
Given the limited precedents, the uncertain nature of international law in this area, and the lack of the generally accepted rationales for accepting UDI used by the international community in the past (freeing oneself from colonial rule and immediate or actual violence neither of which will be accepted in Scotland’s case), it is overwhelmingly likely that recognition will be far EASIER to obtain via an agreed process.
That doesn’t mean it won’t happen if the UK in our case won’t agree, or is demonstrated to be acting in bad faith, but we still have to make that case before the international community to gain widespread or general recognition. Failing to have that will have impacts, such as certain countries refusing to recognise our independence as has happened with Kosovo.
Depending who those countries are, that might mot be too serious, but is Spain and other EU countries regard our self determination as illegitimate, they will certainly veto EU membership. It will also have impacts on entry into other international organisations which require unanimous approval for membership.
Calling and winning plebiscitary elections in response to a britnat refusal to “allow” indyref2 on the same terms as indyref1 is part of the process. It is in my view both more likely to result in a positive outcome and achievable in a shorter time than half baked plans for UDI, but the next few years will doubtless give us a steer on who is right.
Should have added to my last question..
*Baring in mind, Scotland was host to the commonwealth games at the same time as indyref
@James Che 3.22 pm
For the sovereign Scots people. It is a PSEUDO TREATY.
So it is the Norwegian Blue of treaties, stiff and bereft of life, or the Schrödinger’s Cat of treaties, where it it simultaneously both alive and dead?
If it is only a psuedo treaty why have you spent so much effort telling us it needs to be dissolved?
Emergency powers
link to off-guardian.org
Really useful for just any troublesome wee emergency.
«…the passing of this bill maintains those [powers] that will ensure we are better prepared for future public health threats…»
Orwellian newspeak for sending in the polis.
Up yer kilt Sturgie! We will NOT go gently into your gulag.
The below is from Alex Salmond’s statement on Scotland’s independence route map:
link to albaparty.org
However, things are not all plain sailing for the independence cause. Such an election test would exclude 16-17 year olds and European citizens who are allowed to vote on the Scottish election franchise. After some confusion it is now being said by the SNP that the “mandate” in the election will require a majority of votes as well as seats.
That is an extraordinarily high bar to set since no party in Scotland has achieved that since 1955. Even Labour in its best year of 1966 fell a whisker short as did the SNP in the peak year of 2015.
If that was to be achieved it could not be by a single Party – the election would have to be fought by a united movement preferably with a single independence candidate in every seat. A “plebiscite election” would not succeed if it is just party political business as usual on the Yes side.
Obviously the vast majority of such candidates would be sitting SNP and ALBA MPs but it would be wise to bring the Green Party on board as well as key independence campaigners out-with party politics aiming to unseat the remaining unionist MPs.
And what then? Such a ballot would electrify international opinion but there are forces at Westminster who would die in the last ditch to stop Scottish independence just as they have refused to concede an independence referendum. The Indy MPs elected in such a vote would require not just to stand on the independence ticket but to pledge to take the political action required to bring it into being.
Their job would not be, as is happening now, to settle down in London but instead to settle up for Scotland.
Thoughts anyone?
What do we reckon the chances are of a united independence movement fielding a single candidate in every seat?
The “Yes Alliance” perhaps….?
From this article, it would seem that the media, in this case “The National”, are trying to muddy the waters in respect of the difference between a “Pro-indy” majority in a plebiscite election, and an “SNP-only” majority.
If a “Pro-indy” majority would result in independence, why should “Pro-indy” parties stand down in favour of the SNP?
Take my own constituency, Dundee West, as an example. I can see Chris Law winning with a reduced majority and Alba and the Greens picking up votes. All the “Pro-indy” votes should be counted, not just Chris Law’s.
Here are some quotes from the link below:-
“The onus may fall on pro-independence parties fighting the next UK general election on the sole issue of independence, requiring those in favour of ending the Union to secure 51% of the vote. “
“Leith said if the SNP did achieve a majority vote in a general election, the pressure on the UK Government to issue a Section 30 order for an “official” referendum would be “very significant” at that point. “
“It is possible the SNP could win a majority of Scottish votes in the next Westminster election, having been “pretty much on the cusp of 50%”, according to Diffley, the founder and director of the Diffley Partnership.”
He told the Sunday National: “There is recent precedent for it. If they can persuade the other pro-independence parties to stand down any candidates and have a united front under their banner, then that would also obviously help.
“The onus may fall on pro-independence parties fighting the next UK general election on the sole issue of independence, requiring those in favour of ending the Union to secure 51% of the vote. “
link to 12ft.io
Confused? Readers will be!
Andy Ellis @ 3.51
What do you reckon the chances are of a united independence movement with Sturgeon in charge?
Hatuey says:
The problem, as always, is making the case, having the best arguments, and working out how to get through to people with a MSM that is 100% hostile to you and your arguments.
I agree with that. I think ‘Yes’ did a pretty good job in the ‘2014 Dress Rehearsal’ this time around we will do even better.
Very interesting what Rob Shorthouse says about concentrating on the 30% who could have their mind changed.
link to tinyurl.com
By the sound of it ‘Better Together’ paid this professional organisation a lot of money to do the campaigning & find out who the 30% were.
Did the YES campaign employ a similar organisation?
Grassroots organisation could learn from this professional.
It’s probably not the best use of time just to have hard core independence supporters talking to one another.
The ideal solution would be to find out who the don’t knows are and have them attend the meetings etc.
Confused? Readers will be!
The confusion is easily remedied. Even if a “Yes Alliance” is never formed and there is no agreement on fielding single pro-independence candidates in every seat, all the pro indy parties have to do is announce prior to the GE that they agree that all votes for them are considered plebiscitary and part of any required majority for de facto independence. The parties don’t have to be co-operating, and I’d be surprised given recent events if the SNP will co-operate with Alba under any circumstances, but so what? It’s the total number of pro-indy votes that counts. The number of seats is immaterial, but it’s hardly likely we’ll lose enough seats not to retain a comfortable majority of those too.
We should stake the idea that victory in a plebiscitary election then gives us a mandate for ANOTHER referendum through the heart right now. 50% + 1 votes for pro-indy parties in a plebiscitary election is de fact independence there and then. Game over for the union as soon as the result is final.
@Merganser 4.05 pm
What do you reckon the chances are of a united independence movement with Sturgeon in charge?
Small to infinitesimal. It is earnestly to be hoped that Sturgeon will have been politically defenestrated long before then. Like many others, I would find it next to impossible to vote for the SNP or Greens under any circumstances, but could be prevailed upon to do so if they play nice and form part of a unified, inclusive movement fielding single candidates representing all pro-indy parties.
The mood music of the AIM meetings and the history of hysterical SNP attacks on Alba is hardly encouraging. I’d happily accept the concept that plebiscitary elections should take account of the votes for all pro-indy parties should no unified movement be formed.
Andy Ellis @ 4.17
I’d be interested to know how Sturgeon is going to be ‘Politically defenestrated’ and who is going to do it. Do you think this will happen before the next election?
“Migration from England according to NRS is fairly low in comparison to migration from abroad. The last measure was inward migration from all routes was 10,000 more then the number of Scots who left to other climes”
The net figure tells us very little, Bob Mack. What is relevant is gross migration, which is what shows the change in population.
Let’s consider the following two examples:
Example a
10,000 Scots leave Scotland vs 20,000 people from the rUK enter Scotland
Example b
50,000 Scots leave Scotland, vs 60,000 people from the rUK enter Scotland.
In both cases the net migration from the rUK is 10,000 but the potential change in the vote is very different.
It has been published that native Scots voted 53% to yes in 2014 while those coming from the rUK voted no by 72% (Clegg, 2015, the Daily Record). For illustrative purposes, let’s imagine the Scots natives who exit Scotland would vote 53% for independence, and those who come to Scotland from the rUK would vote 72% against independence in an imaginary indyref in October 2023.
How would the vote change in both examples?
Example a
in one year
10,000 Scots generate 5,300 votes for yes and 4,700 for no
20,000 rUK would cast 5,600 votes for yes and 14,400 for no
5,600 – 5,300 = 300 – Scotland earns 300 extra yes votes
14,400 – 4,700 = 9,700 – Scotland earns 9,700 extra no votes
If these migration figures are per year and we assume there is an indyref in October 2023 (ha, ha, ha!!!), then we would have to multiply this figures for 9 years to account for how the population has changed since 2014 indyref. The result is as follows:
300 x 9 = 2,700 yes votes earned
9,700 x 8 = 87,300 no votes earned.
Now imagine that instead of 10,000 Scots leaving Scotland it is 50,000 and 60,000 people from the rUK who come to live in Scotland:
Following the same calculations:
In one year
50,000 scots would generate 26,500 yes votes and 23,500 no votes
60,000 people from the rUk would generate 43,200 no votes and 16,800 yes votes
16,800 – 26,500 = -9,700 Scotland would lose 9,700 yes votes
43,200 – 23,500 = 19,700 Scotland would earn 19,700 no votes
After 9 years at this rate:
9,700 x 9 = 87,300 Scotland would have lost 87,300 yes votes
19,700 x 9 = 177,300 Scotland would have earned 177,300 extra votes
So, lets look at the yes vs no vote in indyref 2014
Yes vote:1,617,989
No vote: 2,001,926
Difference between no and yes vote: 383,937
For the purpose of the example, let’s imagine that the natives and those who remained in Scotland would have voted in 2023 in the same way they did in 2014. What would be the result if we add in those new votes acquired thanks to migration?
Yes vote: 1,617,989 – 87,300 = 1,530,689
No vote: 2,001,926 + 177,300 = 2,179,226
Difference between no and yes vote: 648,537
Now what would be the percentage of the vote for yes/no in 2023?
Total vote: 3,709,915
Yes: 41.26%
No: 58.74%
Do you see how much impact a net 10,000 from the rUK coming to Scotland could have in indyref if you keep the franchise wide open?
The net figure of 10,000 does not tell us the truth. As you can see, it is really gross migration (in + out) what gives us the real picture.
These examples are applicable to a plebiscite, because under rUK rules, most migrants from abroad will not have the right to cast a vote in the GE. So, as you can see, without control over the franchise, nor control of who comes and goes from Scotland, the longer it passes until a referendum or a plebiscite is called, the more likely is that no will win.
It would be most interesting to see the gross migration figures for the last 9 years.
@Merganser 4.27 pm
I’d be interested to know how Sturgeon is going to be ‘Politically defenestrated’ and who is going to do it. Do you think this will happen before the next election? ,/b>
Oh, that’s pure wishful thinking on my part. I doubt any of the political pygmies in the current SNP have either the support or the cojones to do it. Sturgeon and her candy floss haired storm troopers have the party stitched up like a kipper.
It’s possible it might happen before GE2024. Events dear boy….
But who knows? She could be around for a while, more’s the pity.
It seems to me that the SNP are trying to corral us into believing that it must be them we vote for and only them for our independence votes to count in a plebiscitary election.
A yes/no referendum is preferable and clearer than a plebiscitary election, I understand that beggars can’t be choosers but let’s not beg.
For example, in a plebiscitary election, we will undoubtedly have people who have always voted for Labour but are pro independence, it seems simple to tell them to vote SNP but perhaps they don’t want to vote for the SNP, it’s Scotland they want to vote for and not a political party.
Maybe there’s an undecided who has always voted Libdem, must they stand down for voting?
Will they go ahead and vote the way they have always done?
It can be argued that it’s swings and roundabouts but it may be confusing for more than a few.
There are pros and cons to a plebiscitary election we have to consider.
It most certainly won’t be a slam dunk.
@Mia 4.28 pm
How many people in the movement do you think would change sides if nativists got their way and ditched the 2014 franchise for something significantly different?
The turnout in 2014 was 84.59 % (3,623,344 votes cast from an electoral roll of 4,283,392). In the 1995 Quebec referendum the turnout was 93.5%. If the turnout in Scotland had been that high, 4,004,971 votes would have been cast which would have been an extra 381,627 votes.
Of course we don’t know how an extra third of a million people would have voted, but I’d lay money that lots of them were poorer voters who tended to be more pro indy.
Perhaps a civic nationalist movement should concentrate more on improving turnout than disenfranchising new Scots?
Sturgeon is a complete dud and this plebiscitary election idea is bonkers.
Just thought I would let you know in case you weren’t already aware.
No idea why people are wasting their time supporting this bonkers idea and not just letting Sturgeon sort out the mess.
Maybe when people find out what a dud she is they might take to the street to protest and that could help speed her departure.
One thing is for certain this ‘plebiscitary election shit’ will not help increase support for independence.
Andy Ellis @ 4.33
I don’t believe Scotland will achieve independence whilst Sturgeon is First Minister. When have you heard her refer to a ‘plebiscitary election’? She is setting up to fail again by calling it a ‘de facto referendum’.
So Alex Salmond books a avenue in Glasgow to kick off Alba’s indy cause and to ask folk to come along for a wee chat and take away with them a Wee Blue/Black book on the benefits of indy.
However a supposedly independence minded Greens councillors phones up the venue and manages to get the owner to cancel it, the owner says if I’d have know who it was for I wouldn’t have allowed it in the first place.
The indy movement will be anything but united, Alba and its supporters will not be welcome.
link to twitter.com
link to twitter.com
@Merganser 4.51 pm
You may be right. I wouldn’t trust her further than I could throw her. This whole change of tack is interesting though, don’t you think?
It will be interesting to find out in future what prompted this screeching handbrake turn in policy, from orchestrated booing of Chris McEleny for daring to propose Plan B at conference, to publicly announcing that Plan B was now a racing certainty.
Of course we don’t know when the next Westminster GE will be, and if she will still be at the helm of the SNP when it happens. The smart money says she probably will be. If the FM and SNP were serious about using plebiscitary elections they would have given Westminster an ultimatum that if they didn’t agree to indyref2 on the same terms as indyref1 by “X” date, then they and the Greens would stand down and provoke new Holyrood elections. Using a proportional system with a better franchise and doing it at a time of our choosing would demonstrate they are more committed.
Hi Andy Ellis at 4:10 pm.
You typed,
“The confusion is easily remedied. Even if a “Yes Alliance” is never formed and there is no agreement on fielding single pro-independence candidates in every seat, all the pro indy parties have to do is announce prior to the GE that they agree that all votes for them are considered plebiscitary and part of any required majority for de facto independence”
That would be fine but what if the SNP put out a statement along the lines of, “If the SNP achieve 50%+1 of the votes cast in this election, we will declare independence.”
What happens if the actual result is that the SNP get 49.5% of the vote and other pro-indy parties get 4% of the vote?
The SNP don’t declare independence?
Andy,
Lock all exit doors and throw away the Keys?
Only have one plan.
I think you will find that i have been looking at two side of the same coin when researching and talking of the treaty,
Ie, it is a legal international treaty and that the articles of that 1707 treaty on union have to all, be up held. Not selectively by Great Britain / UK parliament as a legal document.
In which case it has without doubt been abused and not adhered to by the Great britain / UK parliament from day one.
If it is saying it is legal then it has been breached and broken many times, which would mean the treaty no longer is legal itself.
Ie , And on the other side of the coin is the need to look at its legal construction and creation, whom is committed to it, whom is involved, and whom is bound by it. Whom signed up for it, who did not,
What is recorded, what documentation of proof is to be legally continued today.
Many of these subjects revolving around the treaty of the union 1706/07 are contradictory and full of contrary suppositions, rather than facts, history recorded and legal cases such as Lord Coopers statements of legal Sovereignty. Or the statement on UK parliaments site in 2022, stating that the Scots were not asked to vote join the treaty of the union.
Or the Great Britain/ UK parliament claiming it has the right to reserve to UK parliament the Scots Claim of Right from the Scots according to what is legal if the treaty of union articles are followed.
It is inevitable when discussing the subjective 1706/07 treaty of the union, and all surrounding it. That one point does not settle with another.
That there is no continuity between what is claimed by the Great Britain/ UK parliament and what is actually legal fact bring followed.
My position on this is twofold, two different sides of the same coin.
The treaty is either a legally binding international treaty that involves those whom voted and signed and agreed it. No one else, and is legally binding in the sense that legally it has to be followed.
And not only would it have to exclude the the “Claim of right for Scots “in its original treaty but also have recorded to have offered the Scots the right to vote to join the treaty and on what date the vote took place in that document.
Or the Scots by legal agreed statements made by both parliaments and in the treaty of the union 1706/07 are separately sovereign from the legal bindings of the treaty.
This is where the two sides of the same coin position I have spoken of are contrary to each other and contradict the treaty of the union and articles its supposition by The Great Britain/ Uk parliament and the Scottish devolved government placed in Scotland.
They do not tally. the UK or the devolved government cannot hold their own position as passed through Hansard in 2018, the Scots are Sovereign, that the Scots have a “Claim of Right” plus give their own evidence that they did not ask the Scots to vote to join the treaty of the union,
Then expect Scots to vote to become WHAT?
Not Sovereign?
Which means the Scots are able to quote and state that sovereignty at any time without the permission of either the Great Britain/ UK parliament, or the devolved governments.
“all the pro indy parties have to do is announce prior to the GE that they agree that all votes for them are considered plebiscitary and part of any required majority for de facto independence”
Wonderful, and then what? What do they do afterwards if
(and it will be a huge IF) they are allowed to reach officially the 50%+ threshold?
In other words, how will they ensure independence is delivered if they do not have a majority of pro-indy MPs, for example?
If you have several pro-indy parties standing on a mandate to terminate the union, and you are concentrating on the percentage of the vote to reach that mandate, then you are diluting the yes vote.
The immediate consequence is that under FPTP you might actually lose the majority of pro-indy MPs. In other words, you might gain over 50% of the vote but you will still be totally reliant on the benevolence of Westminster to agree to and move forward with independence. You would have no tools to materialise the mandate. Just like it has been happening for 8 years with the devolution route.
Unless you concentrate all the votes in one party, or one big party and a small one (like it happened in 2015), there is no way you can ever, in the present circumstances, reach majority of the votes AND simultaneously majority of the seats (and that is, of course, IF Westminster wants a majority of pro indy vote to show)
In other words, we would be forced to vote SNP. But after 8 years taking us for complete idiots, who is going to trust them again? And who is going to trust they will do anything meaningful with a majority of the seats, other than boring us to tears with soundbites for another 5 years, if they do not reach the majority of the vote?
As I said above, I am of the opinion that unless the British state wants Scotland to show an official majority of votes for independence, Scotland will never show that majority. So what is the most likely scenario in front of us if we go through the motions of establishing a majority of the vote as a mandate for independence?
We will end up with what we have right now: an toothless (useless?) SNP majority that will not progress independence at all because, officially, the pro-indy parties did not “manage” to pass the threshold of 50%.
That is what we have now.
“The parties don’t have to be co-operating”
Yes they do. Come on, if all the strategy is “to show Westminster” Scotland wants independence, why bother? They have known this since 2014, otherwise they would have never rushed to release the vow nor Sturgeon would have announced a few months before 2015 GE that a vote for the SNP was NOT a vote for independence, or she would have not been blocking progress towards independence ever since.
The only practical way to show a mandate for independence and simultaneously hold the tools to actually deliver it is by empowering a pro-indy MP majority with a manifesto where a majority of MPs is a mandate to terminate the union.
If the SNP stands on such manifesto, I will be the first running to cast my vote for them. If they don’t then I won’t bother, because it will be like casting a vote to waste another 5 years of Scotland’s time. 8 years of timewasting have been long enough.
“How many people in the movement do you think would change sides if nativists got their way and ditched the 2014 franchise for something significantly different?”
None, if they really want independence.
“The turnout in 2014 was 84.59 % (3,623,344 votes cast from an electoral roll of 4,283,392)”
Astronomically and suspiciously high when you compare it with every other election in the previous 10 years and ever since. This is particularly the case when you take a look at the postal votes.
“In the 1995 Quebec referendum the turnout was 93.5%”
An even more suspicious figure. What was the average turnout in Quebec elections in the 10 years before that referendum and ever since?
“If the turnout in Scotland had been that high”
That is a ridiculous assumption, Andy Ellis. 85% is already a massive expectation.
You are dancing on the head of a pin trying to find excuses to excuse the inexcusable: the vote of the native Scots was frustrated by using a unique franchise that is not seen anywhere else in Europe.
“Perhaps a civic nationalist movement…”
There is nothing civic in frustrating the right to self-determination of native Scots. There is nothing civic in attempting to fool the people of Scotland by giving them the hopes of independence when the franchise is setting them to fail. The only nationalism in using such an open franchise when Scotland’s borders are wide open and the native population is falling fast and being replaced with population from elsewhere, is British nationalism.
RoS @ 4.53
” Bigotry has consequences ” . Some dumb Green fuckhead .
As Ruby says above . Why are people taking this farce seriously ?
This whole pantomime is nothing more than ….
( A ) A Sturgeon arse-saving exercise
( B ) A Sturgeon arse-saving exercise
( C ) Ditto….. ad nauseam
My suspicion is it’s also the intended end-game , the final , definitive coup de grace for Independence
Unless Sturgeon can be removed I fear it will succeed
Thanks Mia for the breakdown..
Andy Ellis @ 5.03
The failure to give that ultimatum is indicative of the SNP’s lack of resolve on the issue of independence. It suits them to keep things ticking over rather than make a deft blow.
The conference ‘Plan B’ is not the one Sturgeon is proposing. She has persuaded the Lord Advocate to go to the Supreme Court for a declaration on a process which is proposed which is based on the term ‘referendum’. If the Court agrees to adjudicate on it, it is almost certain to say ‘no you can’t do that’
Knowing that she won’t win that, she has then deliberately chosen to use the phrase ‘de facto referendum’ as the next step,
thereby showing contempt for the court by trying to have her referendum disguised as an election, which is not possible, and won’t stand scrutiny.
It’s all tee’d up to fail, but it does have the effect of looking like she is doing something, and failure for us becomes success for her when the SNP is voted in for another few years to continue with its favourite policies.
The Lord Advocate won’t have a problem with the first step – it’s a genuine question which needs answering by a court decision. Further down the line her position could get very interesting.
Craig Murray’s latest:
ttps://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/07/karakalpak-unrest/
@Brian 5.07 pm
That would be fine but what if the SNP put out a statement along the lines of, “If the SNP achieve 50%+1 of the votes cast in this election, we will declare independence.”
The movement isn’t the property of the SNP. If – and it’s a big if – the SNP alone achieves 50% + 1 then they might have cause to do as they please and be proprietorial, but even then when the first post indy parliament is elected let’s see how many seats the SNP have then…?
What happens if the actual result is that the SNP get 49.5% of the vote and other pro-indy parties get 4% of the vote?
The SNP don’t declare independence?
That’s why it’s important that the SNP is disabused of its pretensions to own the movement, or to be “the big I am” deciding what happens. All the pro indy parties should jointly announce before plebiscitary elections that 50% + 1 voting for them is an automatic mandate for independence.
& 100% agree with 5.30pm
It’s typical BritNat BS *Scotland must try doubly hard to succeed* mantra while completely ignoring the root cause & rules of *The house always wins in Britland. In everything*
Follow what other countries do with who can vote in their referendums – they’re the experts. They’ve had more experience than us for a start.
@Mia 5.20 pm
In other words, how will they ensure independence is delivered if they do not have a majority of pro-indy MPs, for example?
The number of MPs is immaterial, it’s the number of votes that counts. Nobody will care about the number of seats in a FPTP parliament. They will care about a demonstrable majority.
…you might gain over 50% of the vote but you will still be totally reliant on the benevolence of Westminster to agree to and move forward with independence.
No you wouldn’t, because you’d already have made it quite clear to the britnats and the international community that due to intransigence and lack of good faith of the UK in refusing an “agreed” referendum on 2014 precedent, a majority in plebiscitary elections is now regarded as an absolute mandate, without the need for further referendums. 50% + 1 voting for pro indy parties is de facto independence.
The only practical way to show a mandate for independence and simultaneously hold the tools to actually deliver it is by empowering a pro-indy MP majority with a manifesto where a majority of MPs is a mandate to terminate the union.
That’s not the only practical way, it’s just your assertion of what you think might happen. All that matters is winning a majority of votes. Everything else comes after, same as if it was in a referendum. Win the majority, then negotiate the divorce. The number of MPs is immaterial. The union is terminated by winning a majority in plebiscitary elections: we are de facto independent the second the result is announced. You’re over thinking things and making them far more complex than they need to be or will be.
Like stated earlier, the two positions of the sovereignty of Scots and the treaty of union between english parliament of old and the captivity of the actual country of the sovereign Scots of Scotland do not legally tally.
It is a PSEUDO TREATY for the Scots.
However I agree that the three estates were beholden to the 1707 treaty of the union until the three estates closed the their doors almost immediately, for the better part of 300 years. Ending and closing the agreement of the Three estates to the treaty.
The three estates often referred to as the Scottish parliament have ceased to exist officially,
The present devolved Scottish parliament is not the three estates of the old Scottish parliament, nor can it be confused in its creation or structure as such.
The Scots that have retained their Sovereignty through all politics in their OWN Country of Scotland IN or OUT of a pseudo treaty of Great Britain/ Uk government and are in the position to choose and creat a new assembly of Sovereign Scots.
And Sovereign Scots in Their own Country cannot be envisaged or construed as comtemplating UDI.
The devolved Scottish government that swore an oath to the Crown and Uk could.
There is a distinctive legal difference.
The Devolved Government is the obstacle, with it oath’s, it could be tried for treason. That is why it has to seek permission to hold a referendum or appeal to the supreme court of great britain / Uk.
As many have said the first step is to organise our own assembly of Sovereign Scots.
It looks as if WGD is very angry with the media especially MacWhirter for criticising the de facto referendum.
Rob Shorthouse (see earlier video)
did say that their research found that people were going to Facebook for information.
I can believe that I don’t think that many people are reading newspapers.
Perhaps newspapers are not something to worry too much about.
He also talks about the Neil Oliver post made the night before the vote that garnered 11 millions hits.
@Mia 5.30 pm
None, if they really want independence.
You can’t possibly know that, any more than you can know the details of the whataboutery on figures you posed up-thread.
Astronomically and suspiciously high when you compare it with every other election in the previous 10 years and ever since. This is particularly the case when you take a look at the postal votes.
Conspiracy theorising nonsense. Show us the evidence to support your allegations. What can be asserted without evidence can be similarly dismiseed.
An even more suspicious figure. What was the average turnout in Quebec elections in the 10 years before that referendum and ever since?
What am I. your Google chimp? Do your own homework!
That is a ridiculous assumption, Andy Ellis. 85% is already a massive expectation.
If it’s achievable in Canada it’s achievable here.
You are dancing on the head of a pin trying to find excuses to excuse the inexcusable: the vote of the native Scots was frustrated by using a unique franchise that is not seen anywhere else in Europe.
It’s already been demonstrated over many months of discussion that the vast majority of self determination referendums since WW2 used residence criteria, not ethnic, blood or “citizenship” criteria. If a future SG restricted the franchise, it would be Scotland that would be out of step. You’re simply factually wrong.
I’m sure like most bad ideas this one simply can’t be killed however. Nativists keep coming out with it however many times it is pointed out that they are wrong. A few places ahve imposed short residence criteria of say 24 months, but nothing like the long durations commonly proposed by the nativists posting here of 5, 10 or 15 years.
Even if there was a decision to change the franchise to a non-standard ethnic basis, it doesn’t address the other criticisms originally levelled by Rev Stu and others, i.e it is both morally wrong and probably counter productive in terms of driving away as much support as it gains, possibly even more.
There is nothing civic in ….
Civic nationalism specifically eschews concentrating on “ethnic Scots”. Either you don’t really understand what civic nationalism actually is, or you’re being disingenuous for rhetorical effect. The franchise being used is in line with that used virtually everywhere else. What you and others are proposing is a very different beast.
Ottomanboi says:
3 July, 2022 at 3:47 pm
Emergency powers
Completely illegal according to the Cain of Right.
@wullie 6.41 pm
Completely illegal according to the Cain of Right.
I always thought Cain was a wrong ‘un…?
@Geri 6.12 pm
Follow what other countries do with who can vote in their referendums – they’re the experts. They’ve had more experience than us for a start. ,/b>
Self determination referendums overwhelmingly use residence criteria for franchises. Already independent countries voting on constitutional amendments or issues use their standard franchises for voting as you would expect.
They are two different things.
ROS
Ref that odious little prat in the greens. He didn’t explain the whole thing.
link to pbs.twimg.com
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWwdGq3WAAI_Be8?format=jpg&name=360×360
Geri,
Mia,
Agreed the set up of the vote system and franchise for us in Scotland means Scots have to try harder than any where else with another franchise,
It is set up that way, even the franchise for counting is owned by a tory, not exactly unbiased is it?
Republicofscotland says:
3 July, 2022 at 4:53 pm
So Alex Salmond books a avenue in Glasgow to kick off Alba’s indy cause and to ask folk to come along for a wee chat and take away with them a Wee Blue/Black book on the benefits of indy.
However a supposedly independence minded Greens councillors phones up the venue and manages to get the owner to cancel it, the owner says if I’d have know who it was for I wouldn’t have allowed it in the first place.
The indy movement will be anything but united, Alba and its supporters will not be welcome.
link to twitter.com
link to twitter.com
Oh, what a surprise!
Alliance for Independence yer arse in parsley!
Now are the “we need to put our differences aside” going to wake up and smell the coffee?
When it gets to the stage of Socialist Workers Party style “No platform for” the former First Minister who took the country to its only referendum for Scottish independence, like he was Nick Griffin or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”), time to quit the niceties, especially in the wake of Craig Murray’s confession over his own deplatforming by another part of the so-called “alliance for Yes”.
” Alliance for Independence yer arse in parsley!
Now are the “we need to put our differences aside” going to wake up and smell the coffee? ”
Da’s That Sell Avon for Independence
Now , THAT could be a game-changer
“The number of MPs is immaterial, it’s the number of votes that counts”
You cannot be serious. Let me ask you again, how do you expect to implement a mandate on independence if you don’t have a majority of MPs? Do you expect the Uk gov to be visited by Thatcher’s ghost and instruct them to agree to Scotland’s independence?
“Nobody will care about the number of seats in a FPTP parliament They will care about a demonstrable majority”
Who is “nobody”? You? Do your really believe what you say and think Westminster, at a critical economic point with a recession in the horizon, stratospheric energy and food prices, lots of jobs at risk, potential for far more pain if the EU terminates the agreement because the idiots in the UK gov breached a fundamental condition of the agreement, and with full dependence on Scotland’s assets and market to keep afloat, is going to give a toss about a majority of the vote when there is not a majority of pro indy MPs that can make the life of Westminster difficult if they refuse to take the seats and swear allegiance, they openly refuse to give legitimacy to Westminster as the UK parliament, and force another election?
If Westminster is so considered about vote majorities as you imply, what is your explanation for them doing absolutely nothing when in 2015 Scotland gave over 50% of the vote to pro indy parties? They self awarded themselves a veto to force brexit on Scotland, they denied us FFA despite the promises of the vow, etc, etc, etc. They did nothing about the majority of MPs because Sturgeon had taken the teeth of the SNP out in preparation for the majority.
“No you wouldn’t, because you’d already have made it quite clear to the britnats and the international community that …”
Let me ask you again, how do you plan for the mandate of independence to be delivered in absence of a majority of MPs?
Sturgeon “has made quite clear” for the last 6 years that Scotland has a mandate for a referendum. Do you really see a serious one in the horizon? The Rev has demonstrated beautifully in the article above how what we have been sold as 2023 indyref is just another carrot.
Blackford “made quite clear” that “Scotland will not be dragged out of the EU against our will”. Guess what? We have been out of the EU for over 2 years.
“Making something clear” means absolutely nothing unless you have the means to implement it and you are willing to use them. Sturgeon has not implemented anything because she emasculated the MP majority instead of using it. Unless you empower the MP majority you can make something as clear as you wish that will not go anywhere.
“That’s not the only practical way”
Yes, it is. Without an explicit agreement from Westminster to implement independence, only a majority of MPs withdrawing from Westminster will bring the UK parliament to an standstill. Just like the Irish did.
“it’s just your assertion of what you think might happen”
No, there is a precedent on the Irish.
“All that matters is winning a majority of votes”
No, it does not. A majority of the votes without a majority of MPs leaves you with no tools to implement the mandate unless Westminster is prepared to give you the tools to do it.
“Everything else comes after”
When after? After another 8 years or after 80? After Westminster has exhausted all our resources and render Scotland a barren land?
Let me ask you one more time: how do you plan to implement independence if you have a majority of the vote but you don’t have a majority of MPs? I do not mean MSPs constrained by the Scotland Act in a devolved parliament and without explicit agreement from Westminster that will accept and implement the result. I mean a majority of MPs in the parliament of the United kIngdom that can refuse to take the seats and block progress in parliament forcing another general election or the termination of the treaty.
“same as if it was in a referendum”
No. In 2014 Mr Salmond had got Cameron to agree to accept and implement the result of the referendum.
Do you seriously think Sturgeon will ever even try to achieve the same when all this woman has done in the last 8 years is to block Scotland’s progress to independence?
“Win the majority, then negotiate the divorce”
Win the majority of the seats on a manifesto where a majority of the seats is a mandate for independence and serve your partner with the divorce papers by means of terminating the treaty. This will leave your partner with no option but to drag itself to the negotiating table unless it is prepared to lose the chance of remaining as the continuator state.
How do you expect “to negotiate the divorce” if you don’t even have the means to drag your partner to the negotiating table?
“The number of MPs is immaterial”
Absolute bollocks. The number of MPs is crucial. The UK is after all a parliamentary democracy.
“The union is terminated by winning a majority in plebiscitary elections”
No. The union will be terminated either:
a) by Scotland recalling its MPs, reconvening Scotland’s old Parliament and within the context of international law, unilaterally repealing the Treaty of Union, or
b) by a majority of Scotland’s MPs refusing to take their seats and refusing to swear allegiance, denying legitimacy to Westminster to continue acting as the UK parliament and forcing either another general election or the agreement of our partner to terminate the treaty and start negotiations for separation.
c) by a majority of Scotland’s MSPs ditching the Scotland Act, cutting the umbilical cord that is binding Holyrood to Westminster and empowering the parliament to implement independence – this is very risky because unless Westminster explicitly agrees, you will be using a devolution tool ultravires and therefore “illegally” from the point of view of the rest of he world.
d) by finding some other way to get your reluctant partner, who has a very strong dependence on your assets, territory and markets to keep afloat, to find its generous side and mutually agree with you to voluntarily terminate the treaty and to give up control of your assets – good luck with that, specially when brexit is starting to bite.
“we are de facto independent the second the result is announced”
No unless you have either a majority of MPs who can implement the mandate by reconvening the old Scottish parliament and repealing the Treaty or by blocking the progress of the Uk parliament, or you have a prior agreement with Westminster.
“You’re over thinking things”
No. You are not thinking them enough.
“making them far more complex than they need to be or will be”
Let me ask you one last time: how do you expect to implement a mandate for independence based in the percentage of the vote when you do not have a majority of pro independence MPs?
Andy Ellis, I am at this point not sure if you are really burying your head in the sand and fooling yourself or attempting to fool me.
I think it has to be decided sooner or later, IS it the Scots themselves that permanently reside here that would be voting to gain independence of Scotland or everyone else that comes and goes in and out on a jet plane kind of scenario, on a temporary basis?
Would that include the monarchy and in laws an friends that may be on hols.
Would that include some of the house of lords that have private estates for the shooting and fishing season in Scotland?
Would that include the far eastern counties that own vast acres of land in Scotland, that are registered here but live some where else thousands of miles away?
Or that swedish gentleman that owns 13 Scottish estates.
Or those temporarly here working or contracted to the mod or oil connections that would benefit immensely and financially not to vote for Scottish independence?
Imagine charlie getting a vote on scottish independence or david cameron.
Heaven forbid anyone suggest that Blair Anderson has a chip on his shoulder with the Rev. Stu supported Alba Party over this …
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Robbo.
Lets see if the owner is still as “neutral” when the cost of living crisis begins to bite that little bit harder, and it will.
Still its disgraceful that a Green councillor would go to those lengths to hinder another indy party. Mind you Sturgeon screamed in delight when Alba won no seats at Holyrood “they’re dead” referring to the Alba party.
Mia @ Anytime
Braw 🙂
Scotland’s Constitution is the answer. Get the facts about this into the public’s head and we are home and dry.
Our Claim of Right of 1689 and England’s Bill of Rights 1689 were preserved when the Treaty forming the United Kingdom was signed. [See websites of Scottish Sovereignty Research Group and Salvo.]
These Acts are incompatible constitutionally – in Scotland the people are sovereign over parliament and the monarch, in England parliament is sovereign over the people. But it didn’t matter then as the two countries remained as two countries, and it doesn’t matter now.
We just need our Scottish independence party that currently has the best democratic mandate to represent Scotland, to ACT on the basis that Scotland is NOT subject to the English and Westminster system.
The SNP should be shouting loudly every single day that we are NOT subject to the English Constitution and thereby educating the electorate and giving them the confidence to assert the wish to withdraw from the United Kingdom. [As Robert Peffers said here for years – it is a United Kingdom not a Union of the countries. Much like the EU – all the members remain independent countries, they just have some common administrative systems.]
It has been obvious for years that M/s Sturgeon and the pathetic MSP and MP groups haven’t an ounce of brains or guts. They just erect barriers against the people’s voice being heard instead of enabling us to speak. It is scandalous.
A Canadian friend was telling me t’other day that if you drop a silent fart whilst passing someone you don’t like, this is known as ‘a drive-by’.
I have no idea how to work that into an analogy involving Sturgeon/Swinney/AUOB/Alex Salmond/Craig Murray and the Yes movement generally but I’m sure someone else can.
😉
Ruby says:
3 July, 2022 at 4:51 pm
Sturgeon is a complete dud and this plebiscitary election idea is bonkers.
Just thought I would let you know in case you weren’t already aware.
No idea why people are wasting their time supporting this bonkers idea and not just letting Sturgeon sort out the mess.
Maybe when people find out what a dud she is they might take to the street to protest and that could help speed her departure.
One thing is for certain this ‘plebiscitary election shit’ will not help increase support for independence.
Oh dear Ruby. Alex Salmond, Chris Maceleny, Angus Brendan MacNeil and many others have been calling for the next GE to be made a plebiscite for years.
Still, I suppose you must know better. Remind me again, where did you get your degree/experience in politics?
@Mia 7.20 pm
You cannot be serious. Let me ask you again, how do you expect to implement a mandate on independence if you don’t have a majority of MPs? Do you expect the Uk gov to be visited by Thatcher’s ghost and instruct them to agree to Scotland’s independence?
Quite serious. Our independence rests on demonstrating that a clear majority of Scots have voted for it, not that it has a majority of MPs in a FPTP parliament that most of the rest of the world laughs at. Whether we have all the Westminster MPs or 56 or 50 is immaterial from the point of view of demonstrating a popular mandate for independence, because as we know it was possible to get 56 of 59 MPs in 2015 on 49.97 of the vote. QED.
Who is “nobody”? You? Do your really believe what you say …
Yes, otherwise I wouldn’t have written it. The “audience” isn’t just Westminster, it’s the international community. The latter is probably more important, particularly if we are in a situation of making a case that the britnats are not acting in good faith and that we had no alternative to switch from the previous referendum strategy to plebiscitary elections.
f Westminster is so considered about vote majorities as you imply, what is your explanation for them doing absolutely nothing when in 2015 Scotland gave over 50% of the vote to pro indy parties?
Do you mean concerned, not considered? Why would Westminster do anything in 2015? The elections weren’t plebiscitary, and the SNP and Greens weren’t standing on a platform that gaining a majority would be taken as a mandate for independence. Gaining international recognition comprises demonstrating a clear majority, but also that it is in response a clear mandate for independence. 2015 couldn’t be considered that, because the movement was still assuming the referendum route was the path to independence.
Let me ask you again, how do you plan for the mandate of independence to be delivered in absence of a majority of MPs?
And again I say to you the number of MPs is absolutely immaterial. Why do you think it even matters? We win 50% +1 of the votes, declare that de facto independence and begin divorce negotiations. There is no need for any other referendum. Our Westminster MPs are redundant, we hold new elections for Holyrood, approve a new written constitution and that’s it.
No. In 2014 Mr Salmond had got Cameron to agree to accept and implement the result of the referendum.
This isn’t 2014. The whole point of using plebiscitary elections as a mandate is that the britnats have frustrated the use of the referendum route. We’re resorting to the GE route because they are acting in bad faith. If we get a majority, we’ll already have made clear before hand that winning a majority is de facto independence. No ifs, no buts. Game over. All that’s needed then is to work out the terms of the separation. Why do you find that so hard to understand?
The rest of you points seem confused and contradictory. You’re giving far too much power and influence to bringing the Westminster parliament to the negotiating table in my view. We win a majority in plebiscitary elections, confirm we are de facto independent, recall our redundant MPs from Westminster and hold new elections for a parliament or assembly which negotiates the terms of the divorce, writes and or approves a constitution and begins the process of state building. You’re the one apparently obsessed with our redundant MPs or making sure Westminster is happy.
We’re not going to agree, so it’s not worth continuing this discussion.
@sarah (7.48) –
Your mention of Robert Peffers reminded me to ask – does anyone remember whether or not Robert was in favour of SNP MPs withdrawing from WM?
Andy Ellis @ 8.10
I wish I was as confident as you that it is that easy.
Could you spell out for me how the Britnats have been acting in bad faith? Is refusing to agree to another referendum what you mean by acting in bad faith or is it more than that
IanB,
Robert Peffers would very much agree with rubbing Westminster up the wrong way.
We were in agreement with that.
There was no necessity on Scotland’s part to be polite.
I’m absolutely sure in this respect of his thoughts.
We had other disagreements but not on this.
‘The International Community’
How long have we been getting bombarded with The Global This and The World That and The International Whatever?
Does anyone else remember that photo of the Chooky Embra and his new wife, on honeymoon in Africa, surrounded by more dead wildlife than you could shake a stick at? He then went on to become President of the World Wildlife Fund.
Look at the state of the UN when it comes to handling Israel – ‘supine’ doesn’t even start to cover it. And they couldn’t stop the US invading Iraq and lynching Saddam Hussein, likewise with Libya/Gaddafi and they’ll keep going until they get Assad. When national leaders do get a chance to deliver some truth from the UN podium our MSM makes sure we never get to see/hear them.
Every day is a Global something-or-other day. If it’s not Mothers Day or Fathers Day (they’re fair enough I suppose) it’s fuckin Save The Plankton Day or some other pish. We’re being conditioned to accept this notion that everything has to be collectively agreed and sustainable globally, globally, globally. One Health, One currency, and eventually One Government.
The ‘World Economic Forum’ FFS!
Right now, outside Cunninghame House, the council administrative hub for North Ayrshire, there is a blue and yellow flag flying. No saltire, not even a UJ. WTF is that all about?
Why do we have to buy into this rubbish? If forced to identify with a political category I would select ‘socialist’ because that’s what chimes closest with what I believe. But I can see why some folk, especially Americans, get very upset about all this ‘global’ shitery – they see it as ‘communism’.
Let’s be honest here – before last night, had anyone here (apart from Craig Murray) even heard of Karakalpakstan? It is fuckin huge compared to Scotland, with almost half of our population. Go and read Craig’s short informative piece. And then ask yourself whether or not any of the talking heads sitting on the boards of various International Community bodies have ever heard of it either.
We don’t owe a fuckin thing to the ‘International Commnunity’. Nothing. And the ‘ethical’ argument is so juvenile it beggars belief. Mia, upthread, has crunched the numbers. Alf Baird has been waving warning flags for years. Time is running out. If we don’t find a way to get out of this fucking union then Scotland will, as Mia suggested earlier, be bled completely dry by WM. Red or blue, makes no difference. They need what we have (esp the water) and there’s nothing they won’t do to make sure we stay ‘catch’t!’
FFS people, we’ve been doing this long enough to know when we’re being played – Sturgeon is a sociopath and has surrounded herself with like-minded folk. She has no intention of having a referendum, and if by some miracle one happens then she’ll make sure it’s lost.
Again, I appeal for a sustained fundraising campaign to get the funds required to prosecute her privately. Put her on notice that her time is up and we mean business.
She. Has. To. Go.
And when she’s gone we can start campaigning seriously and, perhaps more importantly, making up with all the pals we lost because of her.
😉
@Merganser 8.10 am
I wish I was as confident as you that it is that easy.
I don’t think it will be easy. I’m pretty sure it will be hard. It doesn’t need to be that hard if we had a movement with leadership that was focused on and committed to independence. I don’t think we have such a leadership. That’s on us, and we have it in our collective power to change it. If we fail to do that, that’s also on us.
Could you spell out for me how the Britnats have been acting in bad faith? Is refusing to agree to another referendum what you mean by acting in bad faith or is it more than that
Refusing to abide by the 2014 precedent for #indyref2 in the face of multiple mandates from the Scottish people is an act of bad faith. It probably isn’t enough in and of itself to convince the international community that UDI is justified, but it’s the first step in making a case that we aren’t dealing with a rational or fair negotiating partner.
Thus if the SC finds against the SG, it means that the Westminster parliament will henceforward be justified in treating Holyrood as a subservient institution which will never be able to challenge the primacy of the UK parliament. That in itself justifies the move to a plebiscitary election strategy and a focus on ensuring the movement is totally committed to a strategy of winning 50% + 1 of votes at the next GE and declaring that de fact independence.
If the britnats try to scupper that it is further evidence of lack of good faith (per the Canadian Supreme Court’s (CSS) view in its ruling on the Clarity Act which the UK SC may well examine), and strengthens our case with the international community.
Although there is no hard and fast rule or case law, and international law isn’t conclusive, it is encouraging that the CSS said the Federal Government had a legal obligation to negotiate with Quebec or indeed any province that was trying to secede on condition the province had both a clear majority vote in favour and had asked a clear question.
@Sarah,
You are quite right. Constitution is the answer. Every Bill passed at Westminster has to have Royal Assent before becoming law. There is an inherent assumption that the Queen has that power over Scotlannd, which she does not.
This is verified by Claim of Right which clearly indicates the power of Scots to choose or remove their monarch rather than “dieu et Mon Droit”. They are not compatible.
This is a significant tweet from Craig Murray.
It’s not intended to ‘bug’ anyone, but it should be seen.
twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1543507183605895170
ScotsRenewables says:
3 July, 2022 at 8:06 pm
Oh dear Ruby. Alex Salmond, Chris Maceleny, Angus Brendan MacNeil and many others have been calling for the next GE to be made a ple biscite for years.
Still, I suppose you must know better. Remind me again, where did you get your degree/experience in politics?
Do you need a degree/experience in politics to be able to post an opinion on Wings Over Scotland?
It doesn’t matter what Alex Salmond, Chris Maceleny, Angus Brendan MacNeil have been calling for they are not the ones who promised me a IndyRef if I vote for them.
Nicola Sturgeon promised us an IndyRef she needs to produce the goods.
What were these guys planning were they going to go ahead with a a defacto referendum without first requesting a section 30 in the event of them having the power to do so? Were they going to go into an election promising a referendum which they knew they couldn’t offer? Were they going to count seat or votes? Would it just be the votes/seats of one party or would it be many parties? Were they going to feed us carrots?
@ Bob Mack: we can see it so what is preventing the SNP from seeing it? No, let’s not go there!
@ Ian Brotherhood and many others who see that the problem lies with the FM and SNP high heid yins. We need to get rid of them. Ian suggests a private prosecution of the FM – I’m all for that but what would be the grounds?
@sarah –
I have no idea. But she lied in front of that Harassment Inquiry and she did it under oath. She’s also lied in the Scottish Parliament. Repeatedly. (And that’s been covered in detail by Stu.) Maybe that’s a starting point? I really don’t know.
But there will be good lawyers out there who know how to do it.
I have been watching Through a Scottish Prism,
I have to say that their direction of thought is very similar to my own take.
That we will go ahead and champaign, but the Snp and the Scottish government will be left behind as it is taken over by the Scottish people.
ScotsRenewables says:
3 July, 2022 at 8:06 pm
Still, I suppose you must know better. Remind me again, where did you get your degree/experience in politics?
Ding! Ding! Personal abuse!
Ian B @ 9.20
Aye , seen that .
Still , we’re assured there’s fuck-all to * see here *
Phew !
Sarah @ 7.48
Couldn’t agree more Sarah and have had a keen interest in how the Treaty of Union can be exposed for what it actually is and how we use the rights we actually have rather than endure any more seepage of Diceys misdirection into our culture.
I wonder if taking on one Westminster seat at a time with full focus by the Yes movement may be a better way to go?
Given the current make up and mechanisms of the Yes movement,to galvanise everyone’s attention and resources on one seat may be better than trying to cover everywhere,as it would take more time than we have to organise the whole country.
Theres only 50 seats and I doubt we’d need them all as most would step into line when a few ( especially big names ) have to act within Scots law.
Do you ( or the other Wingers of course) see any merit in this ?
If you’re on The Twitter, please check out Cliff Richard trending. Your toes will curl permanently but at least he’s strengthening the case for independence. Even English people want to be independent from the auld fanny.
@ Ian Brotherhood: if our Scottish Constitution was properly in play then any citizen could challenge the suitability of the FM due to having lied. I have joined Salvo and look forward to the momentum building as the word spreads that Scotland has a very democratic Constitution but it has been hidden from us.
@ James Che: the Prism regulars are clear and principled. It is a great pity that Phil Boswell is no longer an MP – I believe he is an SNP member however so there’s hope yet.
Extract from the from the [Pre-Introduction] Draft Bill – Please read:
The purpose of this Act is to make provision for ascertaining the views of the people of Scotland on whether Scotland should be an independent country.
Question – is there an alternative for ascertaining YOUR view on whether Scotland should be an independent country?
An alternative – which is available NOW!
An alternative – which requires no S30 request.
An alternative – which requires no Supreme Court assessment nor adjudication.
An alternative – which does not ask for an anonymous (X) in a box, never to be seen again.
An alternative- which asks you to exercise YOUR Claim of Right as a Sovereign Scot with YOUR personal signature.
An alternative – where YOU nor Scotland have nothing to lose – but potentially everything to gain for the independence of YOUR country.
Across Scotland, for well over a year now at every rally that alternative is being supported by increasing numbers of Sovereign Scots.
Their individual VIEWS on whether Scotland should be an independent country are already known and recorded.
Recorded for the world via the UN, and all future generations to know.
The Declaration of an individual Sovereign Scot – has ONE purpose – to regain the independence of Scotland.
Rather than ask “should Scotland be independent” – ask yourself why it isn’t independent!
What is the ONLY reason it isn’t?
If, like me, you decide it was the Treaty of Union, then you will understand why the Declaration initiative opening words are:
Exercising my Claim Of Right as a Sovereign Scot, I declare:
I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Treaty of Union established through the Acts of Union in 1707.
@ Liz G at 10.20: “..taking on one Westminster seat at a time with full focus by the Yes movement may be a better way to go?”
I’m not quite clear what you are getting at. Do you mean that we should focus on one MP at a time and educate them about the Constitution and what we think they should do?
If I have understood you correctly, then I agree it is worth doing. I think the SSRG did send all the MSPs some information but I can’t remember what it was exactly. It would be nice to think that it was this that has triggered the “starting gun”!
@sarah (10.46) –
I haven’t had a look at Salvo yet, but noticed them tweeting material earlier.
So far as the ‘lying’ stuff goes, it’s a slam-dunk – I can’t remember the title of the post(s) which were published right here but someone else will.
Andy,
So resident & on electoral roll for 15 years + to vote in Englands brexshit independence referendum.
No EU citizens & no 16/17 year olds. No ‘new’ English & no refugees.
Dang! There’s your blood & soil staunch natives you keep trying to insult people as right there. Wrong flag for you maybe?
& Scots should just have an open door policy because…??
@sarah –
Ha!
I put ‘sturgeon’ and ‘liar’ into the search at the top of the page, and this came up right away!
🙂 🙂 :!
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Mia 7:20pm
Excellent post!
Image the state of WM with two parts of the mighty Kingdom removing themselves.
It would be about bloody time for Scotland! Sturgeons SNP are an embarrassment there & have done jack shit. She’d do nothing with a full house of MPs but more of the same.
You are spot on re seats. This is why SF don’t take their seats. To do so gives that den of vipers legitimacy & recognition that it clearly doesn’t deserve. Even being publicly stated repeatedly as *England’s parliament* doesn’t shame the SNP ito a correction of its full title & purpose.
Sarah @ 10.58
Sorry Sarah…Reading back i do come over as a bit garbled.
Anyhoo as far as I could pick up from today’s Salvo launch ( online with awful sound ) there seemed to be a proposal that everyone go back to their own areas and try to form a group.
I was wondering if it mibbi no be better to concentrate our efforts in a more targeted way.
To choose a Constituency and flood it with information and activities in line with the aims of Salvo and the Claim of right but also to put the individual MP on notice that they now can no longer claim they didn’t know they could be breaking the Laws of Scotland.
Then arrange to move on to another Constituency .
Its really just looking at the best use of our time to raise awareness as fast as possible.
Obviously the groups will need to be formed anyway but a bit of impact to get everyone interested might be helpful.
It was really just a thought I had after watching the meeting…
Andy 8:10pm..
Re 2015 election.
Umm, yes it was. If I remember correctly it clearly stated if there was *material change..like Brexshit*
Besides, forget 2015. That’ll never be repeated. That was off the back of the No vote & Cameron & Co starting the back pedal on Devo max immediately on the 19th.
Same with Holyrood majority. Alex broke the system cause he knew the system. Sturgeon knows feck all & doesn’t have the strategy to even change her style! Same goes for her duds in WM. No walking out, no challenges to flagrant falsehoods or parliamentary rules, they just sit there like weans waiting to see the headmaster & the snotty, whiney Blackford kid wants his maw.
This was proved when she tanked in 2017 solely on her own ticket.
There’s no way she’ll ever recoup those dizzy nights of indyref & 2015. She’s trashed the grass roots & sucked the life out the YES movement & along with it any notion she’d ever run our exit negotiation. All ppl can say is *she can’t handle the powers she already has* & it’s true. Scotland should have started acting like we were already independent from 2015 onwards. Instead they turned up to the day job with constant brag about Labour & fecking about in their seats for a laugh & a dare. Jeez!
I think yis are all forgetting something.
Pete Wishart said there would be a referendum during this parliament, so there !
So Sarah regarding this Salvo thinghy. Why ?
Tell me what the difference is from the religious bigoted “Bill of Rights 1689” and the “Claim of right act 1689” religious bigoted document by the looks of it?
Anywhere in documents I see the words “Papists” and “Presbyterians” gives me the boak.
I don’t know why they highlight in brackets this;
“They will cite parliamentary sovereignty and they will call in learned historians and legal experts to rubbish the very idea that the Claim of Right was protected as a constitution and not just a bit of religious bigotry. (But don’t mention the anti-Catholic sentiments and actions of the Bill of Rights!)”
Two cheeks of the same arse if you ask me.
Ian B @ 8.59
Brilliant post Sir .
Pretty sure today is WORLD LYING BASTARDS DAY .
It’s a ” moveable feast ” , so , it might be the morra , or the day efter , or maybe it’s every day . Whenever …..
#StandWithLyingBastards 🙂
One other possible hurdle on the general election strategy to independence in 2024 is the requirement for Voter ID in UK general elections. I’m assuming this will equally apply to Scotland, and will make it difficult for those without passports or driving licenses to vote.
@Geri 11.05 pm
So resident & on electoral roll for 15 years + to vote in Englands brexshit independence referendum.
No EU citizens & no 16/17 year olds. No ‘new’ English & no refugees.
The brexit referendum and a referendum on self determination are two different things. If you’re unable to see the difference I can’t really help you.
The franchise for the brexit referendum was:
British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens aged 18 or over who are resident in the UK or Gibraltar will be eligible to vote. UK citizens resident overseas will also be eligible to vote, provided they have been registered to vote at a UK address in the last 15 years.
I’m not sure allying yourself with the franchise set by british nationalists to achieve brexit, excluding 16 & 17 year olds, EU citizens and other residents is the plus you appear to think it is, at least not for a people or movement that holds itself out to be progressive and left of centre.
Of course nativism isn’t progressive or left of centre. It’s odd that so many people fluffing the concept in here and in the movement are so happy to be identified with a regressive, right wing narrative, but it takes all sorts I suppose?
Andy Ellis says:
Of course nativism isn’t progressive or left of centre. It’s odd that so many people fluffing the concept in here and in the movement are so happy to be identified with a regressive, right wing narrative, but it takes all sorts I suppose?
Personal abuse?
Anybody able to point me in the direction of where Scotland’s only pro-Independence newspaper covers the launch of SALVO yesterday?
@Cwiffer 7.35 am
It would seem to be another argument in favour of using Holyrood elections as a plebiscite rather than Westminster as the britnats would need to ask for legislative consent from Holyrood to make the UK requirements apply here.
I wonder if the devolutionists in the SNP would roll over and accept voter ID applying to Holyrood elections too?
ScotsRenewables says:
3 July, 2022 at 8:06 pm
Still, I suppose you must know better. Remind me again, where did you get your degree/experience in politics?
ScotsRenewables seems to be suggesting that I need a degree/experience in politics before posting an opinion on Wings.
That is ridiculous because you can enter politics without a degree/experience in politics. You can have a degree in drama and still get a ministerial post. You can even enter politics without any degree just good old experience of life which in my opinion is a lot better than a university graduate with a degree in politics who has never even done his own washing.
Do I know better than those with a degree/experience in politics? I think with regards to many topics yes I do. At least I could tell you what a woman is which is not something those studying for a degree in politics can and I also know the price of a loaf of bread.
Should I look to Angus Brendan MacNeil to see how things should be done politically? I’m sure he’s a pretty nice guy who might or might not have a degree in politics but here’s the thing about Angus Brendan MacNeil he is still an SNP politician.
Breeks says:
4 July, 2022 at 8:14 am
Anybody able to point me in the direction of where Scotland’s only pro-Independence newspaper covers the launch of SALVO yesterday?
I don’t read/buy that newspaper , but have you tried the Crime Section ?
That SALVO event must be a Breach of the Carrot surely ?
Breeks says:
4 July, 2022 at 8:14 am
Anybody able to point me in the direction of where Scotland’s only pro-Independence newspaper covers the launch of SALVO yesterday?
Do people actually read newspapers anymore? Rob Shorthouse working for ‘Better Together’ asked people where they got their information from and the answer was from Facebook.
They concentrated on Facebook & Twitter to get their ‘Better Together’ message across.
(See video posted earlier)
It’s maybe time to forget newspapers and concentrate on the internet as a means of spreading the word.
Anyone who still reads newspapers (and watches BBC news) regularly is probably too long on the tooth, too set in their ways to change their opinion on Scottish independence (whatever that may be). Let the mainstream media preach to the converted.
Luigi says:
4 July, 2022 at 9:13 am
Anyone who still reads newspapers (and watches BBC news) regularly is probably too long on the tooth, too set in their ways to change their opinion on Scottish independence (whatever that may be). Let the mainstream media preach to the converted.
Did you really just write that?
Effigy 2 July @1057 pm
Further to my earlier observation about potential Supreme Court bias I note that Ian MacWhirter published a timely article offering an additional get out for the Supreme Court – ie it is not able to adjudicate on politics (lol), only the law and that The law (legislation), as laid out in the Scotland (contr)Act of 1998, is likely* to be found to bind the plaintif at this time.
Accordingly the news (now in public) that Martin could be in a position to join in the action on behalf of Scotland (which is bound by the Treaty of Union rather than Acts written under it) as early as next week is particularly good as it reduces further, defacto and significantly the time limit in which the Supreme Court can now make its decision without betraying extraordinary bias in the matter..
*or not
Yep it’s close to reality. The point is the MSM are not worth the effort. Why waste a huge amount of time and effort trying to placate a hostile sector that is rapidly losing influence anyway? There are so many alternatives now available.
“The brexit referendum and a referendum on self determination are two different things”
No, they are not, actually. The EU is a multinational political union, and so is the UK of Great Britain.
Yet again you are trying to imply the only route for Scotland to exit this political union is by “seceding”, in other words, as if Scotland had the same status in this union as Wales or Catalonia. That is incorrect.
You are completely ignoring the fact that, just like the UK had with the EU, Scotland is part of the UK union by means of an international treaty it can unilaterally terminate.
Scotland was never annexed to the Kingdom of England like Wales was. Scotland entered voluntarily, as an independent sovereign state, into a political union. This political union rests on an international treaty with fundamental conditions that, if breached, give Scotland the legitimate right under international law to make the whole treaty void or a part of it.
Love him or hate him, Cameron’s franchise for the EU referendum was much more in line with the franchises every other country in Europe (and most of the world) use for constitutional matters.
The only main difference is that the Cameron’s was slightly more stringent in the sense that ex-pats who had been living over 15 years out of the UK lost their right to vote. Other than that, actually, Cameron’s franchise was spot on.
“Of course nativism isn’t progressive or left of centre”
First of all, what on earth is “nativism”? Another newly created buzzword that means absolutely nothing but has emotional charge, like “civic nationalism”?
Secondly, who makes you think for even a second that you have the last word in what is progressive or not? You may THINK the franchises of most of the world are not progressive. That does not mean they are not.
What exactly is “progressive” in frustrating the self determination of the natives of a country so another country can keep control of the natives’ own one?
There is nothing progressive in it, it is extremely regressive. Why? Because it is just another expression of imperialism and colonialism. Colonialism and imperialism was in vogue in the 18th and 19th century. While the British state and USA are still rather fond of them, for the rest of the world they are a bit passé now.
As per being left or centre, frankly, who gives a shit? Scotland’s politics are currently polarised in one direction and one direction only: yes vs no to independence. The concept of left, centre or right” is dead, particularly in a one-party state like the UK is where the only way you can distinguish the “left” from the “right” and from the “centre” is because they are wearing a different colour rosette.
Boris johnson raiding the Scottish and Welsh cupboards before he goes.
£60 million from the Scottish budget.
And 30 million from the Welsh budget.
According to the daily rags.
The people cannot wait for the politicians and courts to decide this,
Sarah,
Liz G,
I have to admit I do not know what or how the “Salvo” reads,
As I do not do any other social media outlets,
And that point you both made and talking about it is important it can be made for many Scottish people whom are totally unaware of Salvo.
You know social media is an excellent Idea, but it also leaves perhaps quarter of Scots like myself still ignorant,
Anything I can do?
@Liz G
Re Salvo and the Claim of Right.
I’m liaising with someone just now re producing a ID boolet holder, with the highlights of the Claim of Right within.
Ideal to hold ID when going to Vote for example.
I suggest we persuade our Indy Politicians to do a we personal ceremony when obtaining theirs and making a we declaration to uphold and abide the the rules within the Claim of Right.
Something along the lines of ‘I uphold the rights of the People of Scotland – Sovereignty lies with the people.’
I’m hoping it will catch on, in a similar way that the ‘ice bucket challenge’ did.
I’m hoping it will be enough of a ‘do’ and creates a sense of pride, that our dissenfranched voters start signing up to it.
And I’m hoping the more Indy Politians who lead by example in doing so, a peer pressure is created on the remaining ‘so called’ Indy Politicians who do not.
It’s just a rough outline at the moment. Jump in with criticism, good and bad.
Ken Ross has written an article for Solidarity Socialist Network which is well worth reading as it exposes Sturgeons real intentions.
Until she is gone Scotland will continue to be conned. I can’t believe people can’t see through her by now.
@ James Che,
Salvo have a website – http://www.salvo.scot
Hope that helps. If you cannot access that, let us know and I’ll think of something else (ie paper copies).
Heading out just now, will look in later today.
*robbo says:
4 July, 2022 at 6:53 am
So Sarah regarding this Salvo thinghy. Why ?
Tell me what the difference is from the religious bigoted “Bill of Rights 1689” and the “Claim of right act 1689” religious bigoted document by the looks of it?
Anywhere in documents I see the words “Papists” and “Presbyterians” gives me the boak.
I don’t know why they highlight in brackets this;
“They will cite parliamentary sovereignty and they will call in learned historians and legal experts to rubbish the very idea that the Claim of Right was protected as a constitution and not just a bit of religious bigotry. (But don’t mention the anti-Catholic sentiments and actions of the Bill of Rights!)”*
I think the difference is one is taken seriously and referenced and the other ( guess which) not so much.
As to the bigotry within both yes its there and is in that context indefensible.
But as the study around Salvo shows The Claim of right is as much a Live document as the Bill of Rights and that I think is the point.
That it needs built upon and improved is not in dispute ( it could also be argued that its a document containing the assumption that Scotland has a Monarchy and thats up for modernisation too ).
But if it is (and it is ) a live and legal document….do you want to leave it that way, with all its bigotry intact?
Or do you want to bring it out dust it off and start working from it ?
Remember if we don’t we are stuck with the Bill of Rights and and its own form of bigotry being assumed to apply to us with nay hope of changing that.
Pretending that both documents arent there would,I think,be a mistake.
As Westminster have nay hesitation in using old documents ( Henry v111 laws ) when it suits ther purposes.
So the question becomes…do you want to assert the Scottish documents that allow you to redress ancient wrongs, or, are you content to leave us still under the English interpretation of the foundations of Law?
I’d also point out that The Claim of Right is only a part of the Documents which forms out Constitution.
Why this not only matters now, it matters as we become independent too.
Because we are not a NEW country as Westminster would like to have the word believe….and therefore there is NO successor state ( listen to the language :rUK ect ) and that is going to be very important going forward …
Janes Che @ 11.03
Daisy Walker beat me to it James.
The web site is up and running, while its still very new its a fantastic resource as an introduction on how to read and understand the concepts of our existing rights
Daisy Walker @ 11.23
Sounds good Daisy.
We need something that instant says we’re Constitutionists.
Especially something that transcends all the different Indy groups and that we can ALL get behind
Wings – not relating to this topic or anyone on it…
But …Houston, you have a problem.
Keep safe ..
Daisy Walker.
Thanks very much for the link, hopefully a good number from here and elsewhere will join.
It started with sovereign Scots, it will end with sovereign Scots.
Liz, haven’t looked at it yet but doesn’t the already accepted & endorsed by both parliaments ‘Claim of Rights’cover everything already?
& Dr Mark McNaught also wrote a constitution for consideration?
Sorry if I missed something. Or if it’s unrelated. I’ve been out the loop on various shananigans & latest warring factions.
Liz G,
Thanks very much also, for the attempt to give out the information,
Daisy was quick with you close behind, a good team,
Perhaps independence will happen because women will take the lead. God knows they have taken enough put downs recently.
And yet barely no one comes into existence without them. Without them making family decisions for the family unit, for friends and finances, often with great organisational skills, and sacrifices that benefit more than the one.
I do not idolise women, but I have healthy respect for all they do for the bigger picture.
Liz G says:
4 July, 2022 at 11:52 am
*robbo says:
4 July, 2022 at 6:53 am
So Sarah regarding this Salvo thinghy. Why ?
Thanks for replying Liz g.
It will be interesting in the times ahead how this would develop. As you say if we go Monarchy route or Republic.
As well as sorting out the blatant bigotries my mind is racing of the thought if we decided Monarchy, then the trans woo woo lot get involved we’re gonnae have a few strange prince’s and princesses coming into the loop. Frogs will be the least of our worries of what they’ll turn into!
Geri,
If i am correct both parliaments are aware of the “Claim of right” but are ignoring it,
This is more about forcing them to make use of it. On behalf of all of us. The more of us that back it the better.
@Mia 9.55 am
I’ll break my response up in to a couple posts and number the points, or it’d be too long given the length of your response and the many questions posed up thread.
No, they are not, actually. The EU is a multinational political union, and so is the UK of Great Britain.
1) If you are unable to discern the difference between the brexit referendum to leave the UK and a referendum on self determination, I can’t really help you. Simply insisting they’re no different isn’t making a reasoned case. Even by your own lights, it’s patently not the case. The international community and instiutions, international law and other countries don’t regard the UK leaving the EU as indistinguishable from Scotland becoming an independent country.
Yet again you are trying to imply the only route for Scotland to exit this political union is by “seceding”, in other words, as if Scotland had the same status in this union as Wales or Catalonia. That is incorrect.
2) I neither said nor implied that the only route to independence is “secession”, nor do I believe it. We’d all get on a lot faster if you actually interacted with what people posted, not what you wish they had posted in support of what passes for your argument.
There are multiple paths to independence: an agreed referendum, plebiscitary elections, UDI, a popular uprising, civil war. Nor do I believe that the situations of other potential independent countries like Wales, Catalonia, Quebec or wherever else are just the same, or that they have the same status. There are of course similarities and differences when analysing the cases of any of the different potential new independent countries.
You positing that Scotland is some special case which makes it sine qua non ignores the fact that to become independent ANY new country will still be expected to fulfil the same general criteria by the international community. Our colourful history and past treaties may inform how our case is heard and treated, but it will only be part of the general analysis by each country as to whether they will or won’t recognise Scotland as an independent nation.
The stark fact is, it wouldn’t matter if the Treaties of Union had never existed, or if Scotland didn’t have a 1000 year long history as an independent kingdom before 1707, the international community aren’t going to prioritise Scotland over other nations, or treat it as a particularly special case, simply because some Scots are convinced that these things mean we’re different from everywhere else and thus deserving of special treatment.
Cameron’s franchise for the EU referendum was much more in line with the franchises every other country in Europe (and most of the world) use for constitutional matters.
3) On the franchise issue, you’re conflating two different things and committing a category error. The franchise used by already independent countries for deciding constitutional changes or issues is quite simply NOT the same as the franchise used in instances of self determination by countries or regions which are seeking to exercise self determination. If you are unable to discern the difference between these two things, again…I can’t help you.
Independent countries restrict those who can vote on constitutional issues using citizenship criteria, which is entirely logical. Countries or regions which are holding self determination referendums or votes don’t have citizenship criteria, because they aren’t independent.
This is why the most commonly used franchise criteria in virtually all such referendums since WW2 is residence based and inclusive, not citizenship based (which it can’t be because you can’t define who would be a citizen “before the fact” of independence) or ethnically based or blood / birth based.
This matter has been extensively discussed in here before. You may have missed it, but the information is out there. If you doubt it, feel free to go and look it up.
First of all, what on earth is “nativism”? Another newly created buzzword that means absolutely nothing but has emotional charge, like “civic nationalism”?
4) “Nativism”and discussion of it is hardly a novel concept, particularly in here over the past year or so. I realise many people find it pejorative, but that’s their problem. It means in this context people who are advocating the restriction of the franchise for future independence referendums to exclude either all non-native born Scots at one extreme, to particular sub-sets of those who were entitled to vote in indyref1 in 2014 by imposing minimum residence criteria at the other extreme. Many have been suggesting periods of 15, 10 and 5 years.
Robbo,
That thought was actually funny in a twisted sort of way, with regards monarchy and a certain Epstein friend,
Plus with the latest disgusting news of ( Pinch) and smother while drunk from westminster.
Geri @ 12.30
Not as I understand it ( I’m on a bit of a learning curve myself) there are a myriad of Documents which form a Constitution for Scotland.
All interwoven with each other and for want of a better way of putting it.
The Claim of Right was the tin hat on them all.
So much so it got baked into the Treaty of Union ( the foundation document of the UK Parliament) therefore the Claim of Right cant be removed from the Treaty, so is live active and very much valid.
As for Mark McNaughts work…
As I understand it he’s taking part in the upcoming SSRG convention where the work to put all of this together is on going.
James Che @ 12.33
Thank you James.
I of course agree with every word
@Mia 9.55 am – part the second.
Secondly, who makes you think for even a second that you have the last word in what is progressive or not? You may THINK the franchises of most of the world are not progressive. That does not mean they are not.
5) I neither said nor believe that I have the last word in defining what is and is not progressive. I’m simply expressing my view as we are all entitled to do. I didn’t pass any judgement on “other” franchises as they aren’t relevant to my point.
The point is that I and others regard restricting the franchise for the Scottish indyref (by people I regard as “nativists” in this context) as politically and socially regressive, and against the values of civic nationalism. You and others are free to disagree with that assessment. Nobody is stopping you.
You’re not entitled to your own class of fact however, or to assert – as others have – that no other countries would use the franchise we do, and that other countries are more restrictive, when it is simply factually inaccurate, or because they are doing what you did above and conflating voting franchises in two different circumstances.
There is nothing progressive in it, it is extremely regressive. Why? Because it is just another expression of imperialism and colonialism. Colonialism and imperialism was in vogue in the 18th and 19th century. While the British state and USA are still rather fond of them, for the rest of the world they are a bit passé now.
6) I don’t think most folk accept that the Scottish situation is one of colonisation or imperial oppression. I know it’s become a popular trope amongst some in here and in the wider movement, but it’s not one that is widely or generally accepted. It certainly isn’t accepted by the UN in relation to Scotland.
I don’t believe the UN or international community thinks the franchise used for the Scottish independence referendum, and/or the number of New Scots eligible to participate, constitutes “frustrating” self determination. Some people in the movement – who I firmly believe are the minority, which I’m entitled to believe, just as you or they may feel the opposite – are enraged that one study (for which the back up data is no longer available) found that the 2014 result was swung to No by the votes of non-native Scots.
They are of course entitled to their view that this means the franchise should be changed. Others are equally entitled to argue that disenfranchising people is socially regressive, at variance with civic nationalist values, probably counter productive politically, and also out profoundly out of step with the accepted practice and vast majority of other self determination votes.
The concept of left, centre or right” is dead, ….(etc.)
7) I note your belief that the concept of right and left is dead. Again, you’re quite entitled to your view. I don’t think it’s one that many share, but such is life. I think it’s still pretty mainstream to hold that there are real differences between the philosophy and polices of a right wing Tory, a far left Labour supporter, a classical Liberal, a fascist and a communist for example.
I don’t think we should be blinded by the fact that NuLabour often sound pretty indistinguishable from the Tories and assume there is no longer any difference at all between different political philosophies. You do you though…good luck convincing folk that your take is correct, and good luck convincing the movement as a whole – and those who do think the terms “progressive” and “left of centre” are still meaningful – that disenfranchising up to 20% of the folk who could vote in 2014 isn’t socially and politically regressive and electorally ruinous.
Robbo @ 12.34
Your very welcome robbo.
I think its all very fascinating too.
I know others find it somewhat a dry subject.
But as you pointed out the possable modern adaptations could be very interesting in many unexpected ways.
Nevertheless it is nice to know that we have something to work with and one of the main benefits is that it reduces the risk that Holrood and Civic Scotland can impose a mini me Westminster on us before we’ve even stopped the party.
We have rights….
James..
I don’t think they’re ignoring it..
I think they know they can’t speak/vote against it or they’d have the wrath of a gazillion midge’s befall them & why the yoons either filibust throughout about unrelated topics or have a mass exodus because they can’t vote against its existence so may as well see who they can pick up in Strangers bar instead.
& going back to one of my previous entry’s – any part of Scotlands right to exist, in whatever form or document just doesn’t compute. We’re a region of the North – no more important than Lincoln County Council.
Boris johnston seems to have abandoned the unionist position in favour of London first and only.
There is no way to find favour with Scots or in Wales come to think of it, by stealing from the Scottish and Welsh budgets to give to another country,
Not to much about it in the usual brit papers, but picked the news up from many other news networks from America to Australia.
It would be the last move a leader of Britain would make if did not want to spur Scotland or Wales on to separate from the union or towards independence.
He has his own interests, Britain and keeping the union together is not one of them, he actually is antagonistic.
But he also fails England and leaves it short of cash, food employment, and health care, and does not worry,
Between the Tories and Labour with a good dollop of green issues I can fore see the demise and a Britain not because of Scotland, but because of the corruption and sleaze and over spending of a UK government
I was not surprised to hear this morning of rumbles that England want to leave as well Scotland and Wales.
Less than 24 hours after the Blair affair, and Salmond’s calling for an alliance with the SNP and the Greens?!?!?!
link to dailyrecord.co.uk
link to thenational.scot
OK, which part of “ain’t gonna happen, ever!” don’t you get Alex?
And the problem with weaponising an early GE in 2024 is we won’t have exhausted the getting a referendum process by then. So to international observers we will be jumping the gun.
We need recognition if all this is going to work. We have to demonstrate that a sanctioned referendum is a an absolute no go before we opt for a plebiscite election or that recognition will not come. We will be Catalunya II.
There is a possible reason for all this, though I’m not sure I trust Sturgeon is fully on board with this. Plebiscite elections can work, IFF they are recognised by other countries who then recognise you as a result of it putting pressure on WM to open negotiations.
Absent a good clutch of recognitions, ideally surrounding UK with recognising states, WM can just shrug their shoulders at a plebiscite win, no matter how clear.
Geri,
I doubt you will get much agreement that we are considered a region other than in Westminsters elitist minds. And the snps.
‘If you don’t know my way of skewing everything to fit MY way of thinking then I can’t help you’
Good, you can’t help. Thanks for clarifying.
Btw, BINGO! BING! BINGO! HOUSE!
*Scotland is *different*
How very predictable. I can’t explain why. I can’t help you either cause your daft. It just is…
Ends..
Geri says:
4 July, 2022 at 1:24 pm
‘If you don’t know my way of skewing everything to fit MY way of thinking then I can’t help you’
Good, you can’t help. Thanks for clarifying.
Btw, BINGO! BING! BINGO! HOUSE!
*Scotland is *different*
How very predictable. I can’t explain why. I can’t help you either cause your daft. It just is…
Ends..
—
Well said.
Muscleguy.
We will doing what we have to do to speed up the process.
But I would not worry to much, it seems three countries want to leave the UK. Four if you count N Ireland eventually.
Many people in England prior to the 2014 Scottish referendum said they would move to Scotland if we got independence, many asked if we could stretch the Scottish border as far own as Yorkshire and liverpool.
The propaganda that Scots were or are the baddies is belied by how many in England are fed up with the UK governance for many years now.
Wales and Ireland are not happy either.
My granny used to have a saying/ phrase when one person was stubbornly adamant that they alone were correct in their view.
“The whole world can’t be wrong an only you right”
This is fast becoming the position of the UK government.
The
I think the plebiscite stuff is really just an attempt to scare No10 via the Civil Service into giving us a S30 in order to keep some control over the process. I doubt Sturgeon has strategised it beyond that.
But it is not beyond possible being as charitable as possible. We will need recognising states. What did Sturgeon talk to Biden about? Did she sound him out? if she got a Yes it might have emboldened this move.
Watch who else ScotGov is talking to. Eire, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, Iceland. Hell all the Scandis. That surrounding thing. It matters. It’s realpolitiks.
Mark Boyle,
I think he has to enquire about some form of cooperation, it needs to be organised if this is going to be the case.
If as you say, it will never be the case, then the public get to see the who is not willing to put country before party.
@Mark Boyle 1.13 pm
OK, which part of “ain’t gonna happen, ever!” don’t you get Alex?
I saw on line that Harvie was saying it was up to Green Party branches to decide whether they would stand candidates, which doubtless means that they will given their track record of doing it even where it reduced the chances of pro indy MPs or MSPs getting elected as in Edinburgh central from memory. They always hide behind the decentralisation thing, but then such is their work hatred for Alba, ISP or anyone else, that they’ll take great pleasure in refusing to cooperate anyway?
Looks like the Yes Alliance is dead before it was even born?
nativism |?ne?t?v?z(?)m|
noun [ mass noun ]
1 the theory that concepts, mental capacities, and mental structures are innate rather than acquired by learning.
2 chiefly US the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.
3 a return to or emphasis on indigenous customs, in opposition to outside influences.
DERIVATIVES
nativist noun & adjective,
nativistic adjective
James Che. says:
You know social media is an excellent Idea, but it also leaves perhaps quarter of Scots like myself still ignorant,
Anything I can do?
Where do you think these people who don’t do social media get their information from?
Would you say the 25% who don’t do social media aren’t very interested in politics or anything else that is going on?
Would it be worth ‘Yes’ groups setting up classes to help people use the internet?
If we had loads of money like ‘Better Together’ or £600k to spend we could find out who these people are and if it would be worth spending time trying to inform them.
Are they ‘don’t knows’ ‘hard core unionists’ or ‘independence supporters’
When we did find out we could send 100’s of people (like Better Together did) to target them.
I suppose without the money and the resources we could just do it on a very small scale.
Important not to spend time preaching to the converted which is what happens for the most part on all the independence supporting websites.
James Che,
“I doubt you will get much agreement that we are considered a region other than in Westminsters elitist minds. And the snps.”
I think many of us are inculcated to believe that Scotland is a region and not a country, you only need to take a look at some of the debates on here that liken Scotland’s problems to challenges other regions face in other countries around the globe.
It really is Schrödinger’s Scotland in that respect.
I think most people on here agree that Scotland is a country but still subconsciously or otherwise argue from a standpoint of Scotland being a region.
There is an extra hurdle we seem to have made for ourselves, in that we seem to want verification of our status as a country from our neighbour instead of the international community.
If Scotland really is a country, is there such a thing as a country that isn’t independent?
Yes, countries have obligations to others when they have brokered deals but they’re still independent, surely?
Are we really not independent or is it an illusion we are not independent?
Some argue that we are a country, that we no longer have obligations to another country that broke their end of the bargain in a deal and as a country, we need only formalise the end of that deal or agreement.
Anyway, if Canada didn’t welcome Scotland to the international community, who the fuck would they play curling with?
Apart from getting the paperwork sorted is there any reason why YES groups need politicians?
What do we need Nicola Sturgeon for?
We need her to get a Section 30 as she promised in the last election and that’s all.
She only has one job.
We definitely do not need Patrick Harvie.
These politicians just cause trouble!
With regard to the section 30 ‘Yes’ groups without any bloody politician would probably have better success with Boris than Nicola Sturgeon every will.
Lets go folks! Full steam ahead without any politicians.
Sturgeon you’re fired! You’re ‘pseudo referendum’ is shit!
Nativism:
Andy’s definition: Stupid blood & soil 100% pure Nazi types.
Uses: piss poor attempt at a personal insult, handy when in a pickle.
Examples: ‘Look at Geri & others there talking about best practices in other countries regarding referendums. They’re nativist nutters!’
Muscleguy,
You are correct about sounding other countries out, some countries will be happy to welcome Scotland back with a “what took you so long” while others like the USA will be asking “what’s in it for us”?
“I think the plebiscite stuff is really just an attempt to scare No10 via the Civil Service into giving us a S30 in order to keep some control over the process. I doubt Sturgeon has strategised it beyond that.”
Muscleguy.
The Britnat media today, talking about whether or not Holyrood has the legal authority to hold a plebiscite with a GE in mind, no conclusion was arrived at either way.
I can see this ending up in court as well.
If Boris signs the section 30 game on and he can deliver Brexit and save the union.
The conservatives would declare him a saint and he gets another two terms easy.
Does he have the balls??
I ‘ve heard anyone who talks about “Nazi’s” out with the context of ww2 or a man called ‘Hitler’ have lost the argument.
RepublicofScotland,
I think if the Supreme Court does us the favour of sticking 2 fingers up to Scotland, then we should use the GE to win a majority of seats in Scotland to hold a confirmatory independence referendum of our own making that will limit outside interference and be overseen by international observers.
Of course, Westminster won’t like it but tough!
Ruby, I think the time for a section 30 has well & truly expired. It should’ve expired on the very first ‘now is not the time’ from Mayhem.
Sturgeons response should’ve been tough titty. MY mandate says otherwise.
Would we even want one now? Sturgeons *Gold standard* failed us last time, as it would playing by the same rules of the very country we want a divorce from & conducted & overseen by the exact same who’d make sure we lost it anyway by hook or by crook. The Supreme Courts are corrupt too. Proroguing Lizzies parly wasn’t unlawful..oh yes it was..oh no it wasn’t. It’s going to be a circus.
It needs to go external now to neutral observers who oversee the whole process.
@robbo 3.07 pm
Indeed. Somebody ought to have a word with Geri lest Rev Stu puts him on the naughty step. I believe the actual words he used were:
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 July, 2022 at 11:16 am
MARKER
From this point in the thread, any more personal attacks will see the comments deleted and the attacker placed on the pre-moderation list. No exceptions.
I suspect Strugeon looked into her crystal ball and saw that she wouldn’t be able to fool the Scottish electorate one more last time.
Useless at financial management
Useless at heathcare and drugs
Useless at education
Useless at inward investement
Useless at culture, media and sport
Useless at law and policing
Useless at Transport (as bad as the Greens)
Useless at farming, fishing and forestry
Useless at selecting talent for her cabinet
Not useless at blocking dissent and reform
Not useless at taming the media
Since the indpendent-minded within SNP have been silenced, we should be thankful for small mercies that Unionists and Labour seem to have finally realised they should hammer Sturgeon on her record, every chance they get.
There won’t be any independence while Sturgeon is gatekeeper (of anything). I have no clue why people like Craig Murray think we still have to hitch our mules onto the Sturgeon wagon. Look where the pro-Sturgeon voting got you last election -in a worse hole.
@ Liz G, James Che, Daisy Walker and all – sorry to be out of the loop today given the response to my thoughts about Salvo and the Constitution – am tied up with some non-political tasks but hope to return this evening. Meanwhile you are getting on fine!
Playing Devil’s Advocate again. What if getting a referendum next year is NOT the aim of the exercise?
What if the aim is to demonstrate to the world the futility of attempting to do that?
Viewed like that this kind of makes sense. They/We need WM to demonstrate that we have no legal referendum route to Indy. The faster and more comprehensive the better.
Why October ’23 then? Maybe dissolve Holyrood & call a plebiscite for then?
Everything else is sleight of hand, distraction to get the Yoons focussed on the wrong things.
I know this sounds beyond what we assume of Sturgeon. But what if we are wrong?
Andy. I missed that post from Wings. My bad.
Makes me wonder why you’ve been allowed to continue tho as you obviously didn’t miss it but aren’t adhering to it.
We can all see exactly what your implying here by your nativisim BS to your dissenters. Everyone is to listen to you. Period.
Muscleguy says:
4 July, 2022 at 3:41 pm
Playing Devil’s Advocate again. What if getting a referendum next year is NOT the aim of the exercise?
What if the aim is to demonstrate to the world the futility of attempting to do that?
But what “gallery” would that play to? Who, in that world, would actually be influenced, and to what effect? What could they do about it?
Far better for Scotland to assert whatever strength that is has, and back it up with confidence and firm resolve.
How often does a fight, or sporting event come down to who wants victory the most?
@Geri 3.44 pm
I’m sure Rev. Stu will let you know if he agrees.
Perhaps he doesn’t think that describing a position advocating disenfranchising large sections of the 2014 indyref electorate as “nativism” is unreasonable? The same could be said for labelling it a regressive policy politically.
You appear to have trouble discriminating between disagreement and abuse. It was a tactic commonly used by yoons against cybernats in the past.
You’re the one “Godwinising” though, so there is that to be taken in to account too.
Breeks.
I would argue for it is an illusion we are not considered a Country,
A purposefully invented illusion.
For the very reasons I have Always discussed until Those on here are sick of hearing it.
However no one is able to disprove the facts.
1) The English Parliament agreed not to give the Scots a vote to join the treaty after they held a debate on it.
2) That leaves all Scots officially out side the treaty of union.
3) That also leaves all Scots Sovereign Out side the Great britain parliament
4) the unelected commisioners joined the three estates the treaty of the union. They all signed their signitures to it,
5) again, the commissioners, the three estates, and the English parliament decided not to include all of Scotland.
6) To confirm this sovereign separate position and entity of the rest of Scotland compared to or with the three estates, the three estates entered the Scots “claim of right” into the treaty of the union in 1707,
and the english parliament and the crown agreed that was the Scots position then agreed to it being part of the treaty of union.
7) the ( whole ) of Scotland nor its Sovereign people were considered as being included as part of the treaty of the union.
8) THIS MEANS that the REALM or KINGDOM of the SCOTS could not and were not entered into the treaty of the union as a complete package.
9) As i have stated many times when you look at the details, the construction, the creation, the terms and agreements of whom is actually signed up to the treaty of the union legally. It was not the Scots.
10) Any conditions imposed from The British Parliament , wether it be of Laws, Statues, legislation of devolved government, Does not and Cannot be applied to a sovereign Scot that remained sovereign in their own Country which was never part of the treaty, and kept outside the conditions of the treaty.
11) The Scots by not being allowed to enter the treaty of union remain sovereign Scots of their Country. Scotland.
12) [ The three estates admitted they were not Sovereign in Scotland ] to the English parliament by inserting the ” Scots Claim of Right ” Not Sovereign to agree to join Scotland to England the union treaty, not Sovereign to sell any or part of Scotland, not sovereign to choose our king or queen..
England parliament agreed they were not that the three estates were not sovereign of Scotland, when they agreed the Scots claim of right,
So when all the agreements were finalised between the two, the outcome was what?
The Scots were to retain their Sovereignty, as separate from the treaty of the union, and Sovereign Scots decide if they are Sovereign over and in their own country which they never bargained away by entering into the treaty of the union.
I hope one day every Scot will realise that the treaty of the union between England and the Scots never happened,
It is solely a treaty of the signitory three estates and the parliament of England.
For the Sovereign Scot The rest is a pseudo Treaty,
A sounds like, but actually isn’t .
Having the appearance of, but not actually so.
Trying to pass something of as the real thing.
A sham, fake, false, pretence, spurious, and deceptively fictitious.
Since her declaration of a referendum next year, or plebiscite thereafter, I’d like your folks thoughts as I’m no political anorak. I’ve noticed a hell o a lot of houses built in the Highlands and elsewhere (Edinburgh Snub)the last 8 yrs.
Most bloggers ridiculed for mentioning a plebiscite and all of a sudden she’s on it.
Now why just then, did she get the results of the census showing that enough people have moved to Scotland,(hence the 7.5 yr stall) so that when she calls the ref/election on the same franchise, Scotland hasn’t got a hope of getting the result it deserves.
That address was maybe meant to be Breastplate. , but breeks your welcome to read it to.
If we were solicitors or lawyers we would be going over the details, facts and small print.
And it is so very surprising that all the snp lawyers never check the treaty of the union, not.
Andy, nothing wrong with following other countries best practices. It’s only a problem for you because it doesn’t fit your world view. Guess what? Tough!
15 years resident in Scotland sounds fine to me. It worked for Brexshit. It works in other countries.
Of course, we could follow your wokey pokey romantic notion & just throw open a free for all & just trust it’s not abused. That’s progressive right? Or is it just sheer stupidity?
& Of course, you being all seeing & all knowing, will be fully aware what nasty conatations the EU have for anything described as even remotely ‘Nationalist’ They’ve lived that dream! It’s 100% guaranteed to you tho they’ll be a Yes voter on entry?
Funny that they weren’t last time eh? Neither was 16/17 yrs & rUK. But hey, I know! In the event of a very hard fought for ndyref2 let’s try that shit again shall we? Maybe they didn’t mean it.
Btw, are you a fully paid up member of the green ink brigade?
James Che,
There are many debates to be had on how to get Scotland from A to B.
Whatever path we take will need the willing and committed participation of our representatives to implement the plan.
For example, Craig Murray posted a couple of years ago, how he would like to see us go about it but it means nothing if the dross we have for our representatives are not on board.
So the practicalities outweigh anybody’s ideas and ideals…for the moment.
Lions led by donkeys comes to mind.
Breastplate @3.08pm.
You can bet they’ll be a legal challenge against using the GE as a plebiscite by more than just the UK government, we already have some guy that own care homes in Scotland (I can’t recall his name) claim he’ll legally challenge any indyref.
& I’m sure Wings would agree he’s not a God.
He does get things wrong. Like the time we’d to not split indy parties & vot dud SNP 1&2 lol.
It was never a good idea to have SNP with 100% of the say as we soon found out.
& Please God stop running to teacher for validation. It’s embarrassing. What age are you?
If Wings wants to moderate. Fine. Rename it Wings & Andy Ellis over Scotland :p
Regarding other countries not welcoming Scotland to the international community, how many possible reasons are there for doing so?
Let’s say we use Craig Murray’s route.
Surely they would have to state their reasons for rejecting Scotland?
Would some of them argue reasonably that Scotland isn’t a country?
Would some argue that it wasn’t a democratic process?
What would the arguments be?
Some countries will happily welcome Scotland to the international community, for what reasons will they do so?
If anyone can think of any reasons why we wouldn’t be welcomed using this route, we should collate them.
RepublicofScotland,
If Westminster don’t have their own way, of course there will be legal challenges, so I agree.
Muscleguy says:
4 July, 2022 at 3:41 pm
Playing Devil’s Advocate again. What if getting a referendum next year is NOT the aim of the exercise?
“No, M. Night Shyalaman, that’s not an idea, that’s a twist!”
(Sorry, couldn’t resist!)
Geri says:
4 July, 2022 at 3:15 pm
Ruby, I think the time for a section 30 has well & truly expired
What? Just because Theresa May said now is not the time.
You can’t claim Boris Johnson has refused to grant a section 30 when he hasn’t even been asked.
If you want to advertise our plight internationally surely that would be step one.
I can’t imagine this ‘pseudo referendum’ nonsense would have hit any headlines in England far less internationally.
I’m proposing that the next AUOB march be to Downing Street with a request for Boris to grant us a Section 30.
Surely a section 30 would be better than what Sturgeon is offering.
@Geri 4.53 pm
Andy, nothing wrong with following other countries best practices. It’s only a problem for you because it doesn’t fit your world view. Guess what? Tough!
Which countries? Best practices on what…? Self determination referendums you mean…? OK, tell me which countries used the same kind of criteria as the nativists are proposing for #indyref2 then Geri. It’s not my “worldview” it’s a matter of factual record, which you should be able to research, find and present to the alert readers here on WoS to prove that I am wrong, and not advocating for international best practice.
I’ll happily acknowledge the best practices of these other countries you know about that disprove my argument: fill yer boots. We await your response with interest.
15 years resident in Scotland sounds fine to me. It worked for Brexshit. It works in other countries.
It may sound fine to you, but how many people would agree with you? It wasn’t the criteria for being able to vote for brexshit by the way. I’ll post it again since you seem to have missed that, as well as Rev Stu’s warning about being abusive up thread:
British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens aged 18 or over who are resident in the UK or Gibraltar will be eligible to vote. UK citizens resident overseas will also be eligible to vote, provided they have been registered to vote at a UK address in the last 15 years.
link to gov.uk
You appear to be confusing the 15 year figure with the one stated above in relation to the period in the past in which UK residents overseas must have been registered to vote. If you’re honestly advocating for a residence criteria of 15 years before people get to vote in a self determination referendum, I haven’t found a single example of any referendum, anywhere at any time that used such a period. A few have used periods of 24 months. Most simply enfranchised residents on terms similar to #indyref1 in 2014. If you know otherwise, feel free to provide your evidence.
Of course, we could follow your wokey pokey romantic notion & just throw open a free for all & just trust it’s not abused. That’s progressive right? Or is it just sheer stupidity?
Well, it’s not just my notion, it was the notion accepted by the movement as a whole for indyref1 and widely held up a “good thing”, perhaps even best practice. Certainly it was regarded as progressive and fitting in with the claims of the movement to be civic nationalist in nature, rather than ethnic nationalist or nativist. You may think that’s stupidity, but I have my doubts the majority agree with you.
How is it you think it’s being abused? What are you advocating precisely to stop the abuse? Voter ID is being introduced by Westminster for UK elections, though probably not in Scotland for Scottish elections, which is supposed to be specifically aimed at stopping abuse of the voting system and personation.
Seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut to me, as there are vanishingly few such frauds at election time. I suspect that’s not the type of abuse you’re concerned with though, right?
& Of course, you being all seeing & all knowing, will be fully aware what nasty conatations the EU have for anything described as even remotely ‘Nationalist’ They’ve lived that dream! It’s 100% guaranteed to you tho they’ll be a Yes voter on entry?
Leaving aside the pop about me being “all seeing & all knowing”, I’ve read that paragraph a few times and have no idea what it is you’re getting at. That’s not abuse by the way, just puzzlement. I honestly have no idea what the 2 sentences mean or are trying to put across. Happy to respond if you can clarify what it is you’re trying to say.
Funny that they weren’t last time eh? Neither was 16/17 yrs & rUK. But hey, I know! In the event of a very hard fought for ndyref2 let’s try that shit again shall we? Maybe they didn’t mean it. ,/b>
Nope. Not a scooby about that one either, sorry. Feel free to clarify and I’ll give it my best shot answering your point.
Btw, are you a fully paid up member of the green ink brigade?
No, blue generally though I rarely do anything but type these days. Given your confused points above I’d say the characterisation fitted your output rather better.
You do certainly seem to be sailing close to the wind on the abuse front though. Rev Stu might not notice though if you’re lucky…..the thread is pretty old and quite a length now, so you might get away with it. Fingers crossed eh?
Breastplate says:
4 July, 2022 at 5:11 pm
Regarding other countries not welcoming Scotland to the international community, how many possible reasons are there for doing so?
Perhaps because they think Scotland is part of England.
I spent a lot of years being described as ‘la petite anglaise’ and being asked why I burned Joan of Arc.
I gave up trying to explain I was Scottish especially when the response I got was ‘Ah you are from Ireland.
Ruby,
Yes, I’ve been called English on numerous occasions too but an official rejection of Scotland to the international club would have to come with official reasons, no?
In Spain I was ‘la inglesa’ their knowledge of Scotland was limited to two football teams.
They weren’t happy about me hanging on to Gibraltar.
We need to get Scotland on the map before we can be recognised international.
Get out you best kilt and bagpipes out for the march to Downing Street.
@Breastplate 5.11 pm
Regarding other countries not welcoming Scotland to the international community, how many possible reasons are there for doing so?
Quite a few:
1) Some will argue self determination only applies in colonial situations, and does not include peoples like Scotland, Quebec or Catalonia.
2) Some will argue there is no right to self determination under international law where a people can exercise their rights “internally” within an existing state.
3) Some will argue that territorial integrity of states overrides the rights of peoples to self determination.
4) Some will fear that a successful bid for independence by Scotland will encourage nationalist movements in their own countries (e.g. Spain with the Basque Country and Catalonia, Slovakia and Romania due to Hungarian and other ethnic minorities, Cyprus due to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Vlad’s homeland due to it’s many ethnic minorities and constituent republics, China for the same reasons).
5) Some will argue that “balkanisation” is in itself a bad thing and promotes international instability.
6) Some argue self determination is in itself a tool of largely European imperialists and colonialists to validate their seizure of native lands in Africa, the Americas, Asia…well, almost everywhere really… and to deny indigenous peoples the right to their own lands. (Probably best not to get into dicussions on zionism at this point….?).
That’s a few to be going on with though.
Surely they would have to state their reasons for rejecting Scotland?
Aversion to anything with the whiff of UDI will be the biggie. Most states are unlikely to countenance a claim unless it has followed a process, unless there is immediate violence, ethnic cleansing, or a long history of a people being oppressed.
As discussed earlier though, not being able to point to a clear majority vote in favour, in response to a clear question and clear mandate will be enough for most to ignore a declaration (c.f: Catalonia 2017).
Would some of them argue reasonably that Scotland isn’t a country?
Probably not if they know their history, but many won’t care. Bavarians consider their homeland a country. It had it’s own army, king and foreign office even under the German Empire until 1918. they can accept Scotland is a country but still regard independence as illegitimate or questionable if it results from UDI.
Would some argue that it wasn’t a democratic process?
I’m sure some would particularly WRT UDI. Demonstrating a process, majority support, a clear question and mandate, and bad faith on the part of Westminster will be good counter arguments however.
Some countries will happily welcome Scotland to the international community, for what reasons will they do so?
Because it might suit their purposes and they have no love of the UK, and would like to see it weakened and humbled, particularly post brexit and Westminster’s threats to break international treaties. Also some might have genuine simply altruistic reasons like thinking it’s a great idea for another small country to join the ranks of independent nations. I imagine our Irish cousins would be pretty pleased, and most Scandinavians always seem pretty surprised we didn’t do it decades ago. The diaspora in the US, Canada, Oz and NZ would probably help in their countries too.
Breastplate says:
4 July, 2022 at 6:06 pm
Ruby,
Yes, I’ve been called English on numerous occasions too but an official rejection of Scotland to the international club would have to come with official reasons, no?
You are correct.
Did Spain not say they would vote against Scottish membership of the EU.
Perhaps they would reject Scotland for the same reason.
Then there could be countries who would be bribed/blackmailed by the UK. They could make up some official reason for rejecting Scotland. ie illegal referendum.
Perhaps something to do with self-id & men being women could cause us to be rejected.
(That would depend what you mean by ‘the international club’)
That’s all I can think of at the moment.
It’s an interesting question.
Spain said they would vote against Scottish EU membership if our independence was the result of UDI or a non-agreed process, as they feared it would encourage the Basques and Catalans. They had a not issue if it resulted from a 2014 style referendum.
It’s a racing certainty they’d refuse to recognise our independence if we declare UDI or are in dispute with rump-UK. They still don’t recognise Kosovo, and neither to 3 or 4 other EU members with ethnic minority concerns like Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania, and Greece.
What are the advantages of being recognised by ‘the international community’?
If it is so important should we not be seriously looking for ways to get a section 30 and telling Sturgeon where to stick her ‘pseudo indyref’
Sturgeon needs to get us a section 30 as promised if she can’t then she should go.
Sturgeon out out out!
Hi Ruby at 5:48 pm
You typed,
“I spent a lot of years being described as ‘la petite anglaise’ and being asked why I burned Joan of Arc.”
That ‘burning” accusation would have been easily dismissed, if at school, you had been taught the following history… (see the links below.)
The Relief of Orléans
Joan was led into the besieged city of Orléans on April 28th, 1429, to the celebratory skirl of the Scottish pipes. The tune played for her was “Hey Tuttie Taiti”. The same tune that had marched Robert the Bruce into battle at Bannockburn a century before. The same tune that Robert Burns would set to his poem “Scots Wha Hae” centuries later.
Her escort consisted of 60 Scottish men-at-arms and 70 Scottish archers led by Sir Patrick Ogilvy of Auchterhouse, hereditary sheriff of Angus. And her standard, depicting God as King of Heaven, was made a few months previous by Hamish Powers, a Scotsman living in the city of Tours.
There to welcome her was the bishop of the city. And, yes, he was a Scotsman too. John Carmichael was his name although he was known to his French flock as Bishop Jean de St Michael. A priest and a native of Lanarkshire, Carmichael was amongst the victors at Baugé and the survivors at Verneuil. Indeed, one of his first acts upon becoming bishop was to institute a Messe Ecossais for the souls of the Scottish dead. That pious custom continues to this day.
and
“Scots Wha Hae” (English: Scots Who Have; Scottish Gaelic: Brosnachadh Bhruis)
Background
The lyrics were written by Robert Burns in 1793, in the form of a speech given by Robert the Bruce before the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, where Scotland maintained its sovereignty from the Kingdom of England. Although the lyrics are by Burns, he wrote them to the traditional Scottish tune “Hey Tuttie Tatie”, which according to tradition, was played by Bruce’s army at the Battle of Bannockburn.[1]
According to tradition, the same theme was played in 1429 by the Franco-Scots army at the Siege of Orleans in front of Jeanne d’Arc[citation needed]. The song, called “Marche des soldats de Robert Bruce” in France, belongs to the traditional list of military music, and commemorates the long-lasting Auld alliance between France and Scotland. As for the Battle of Bannockburn, the theme really played was probably a traditional Scottish theme such as “Hey Tuttie Tatie”.
link to maidofheaven.com
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to youtube.com
Ellis,
Of course there are numerous reasons why some countries will be onside and others not but those questions you answered were meant to be in the specific circumstances of Craig Murray’s route.
It was the official reasons that I was looking for, and for the specific route that has been mentioned.
Yes, like the Eurovision Song Contest, the official reason that country 404 won it was that it had the best song.
I think we all know that wasn’t the reason they won.
So I agree that countries will do what is best for them but they still have to have an official facade.
Ellis,
Regarding Spain, but perhaps I’m mistaken, I thought they had already said that Scotland’s position was not comparable to Catalan’s position.
Ruby,
I remember Baroso, hopefully spelled it properly, saying something about Scotland’s position.
I seem to remember around that time, the UK was trying to get foreign politicians to say anything negative about Scotland at all.
If I remember correctly, Baroso is Portuguese, so I’m not sure how qualified he is to comment on what Spain thinks or rather, thought then.
Ruby,
It’s not necessary to be recognised but it is optimal to be recognised by as many countries as possible for mostly economic reasons, trade being a massive part of that.
You’ll await my response, Andy.
That’s nice of you.
Okay. I’ll play. For a bit. Keep it short tho. No time for epics.
What’s the criteria to vote in Swiss referendums?
Estonia?
Here’s a thought, wouldn’t outsiders be able to vote in a newly acquired independent country & just reverse it back again? Dang! I guess that’s why they have residency rules!
Breastplate says:
4 July, 2022 at 7:08 pm
Ruby,
I remember Baroso, hopefully spelled it properly, saying something about Scotland’s position.
I seem to remember around that time, the UK was trying to get foreign politicians to say anything negative about Scotland at all.
If I remember correctly, Baroso is Portuguese, so I’m not sure how qualified he is to comment on what Spain thinks or rather, thought then.
I don’t remember Barosso saying anything about Spain but he did say a lot about Scotland EU membership being very very very difficult almost impossible or some such shit.
He only did this after receiving a love letter from Tugendhat.
Where is Barroso now?
I love what Michael Forsyth & Lord Lawson said to Michael Forsyth as a result of Tugendhat’s letter.
I’ll try and find a copy of what they said.
Ruby,
I think he suggested Spain would veto Scotland’s membership because of the Catalan situation but I’ll happily be corrected if I’m wrong, my memory is not what it once was.
Brian Doonthetoon says:
4 July, 2022 at 6:55 pm
That ‘burning” accusation would have been easily dismissed, if at school, you had been taught the following history… (see the links below.)
That’s great Brian I’ll be ready next time.
In the meantime we could keep this piece of history handy for the French just in case they decide to reject Scotland. They do love their ‘Jeanne d’Arc’ she is a national heroine of France.
As it stands we might be in their bad books due to ‘l’amour et le fer à repasser’
Breastplate says:
4 July, 2022 at 7:24 pm
Ruby,
I think he suggested Spain would veto Scotland’s membership because of the Catalan situation but I’ll happily be corrected if I’m wrong, my memory is not what it once was.</b.
You are probably correct Breastplate I just don't remember. The one I remember talking about Spain was 'Mariano Rajoy' who I believe was a big fan of Franco.
@Geri 7.14 pm
What’s the criteria to vote in Swiss referendums?
Citizenship. Short enough? How is that comparable to self determination referendums?
Estonia?
The Estonian self determination referendum on 3/3/1991 enfranchised Individuals with a permanent Soviet residence card in Estonia. Turnout in the referendum was 82.86%. 78% voted Yes, 21.5% voted No. The question used was “Do you want the restoration of the national independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Estonia?”
Estonian independence was declared on 20/08/1991 during the coup against Gorbachev in Moscow by communist diehards.The first international recognition came from Iceland 2 days later. It’s estimated a third of Estonia’s total population of 1.6M were ethnic Russians in the early 1990’s, the vast majority “planted” there after WW2. The Estonians didn’t disenfranchise them, only serving Soviet military were denied the vote.
Here’s a thought, wouldn’t outsiders be able to vote in a newly acquired independent country & just reverse it back again? Dang! I guess that’s why they have residency rules!
Yes, they would. It’s called democracy. Are you honestly saying that the majority should be over-ruled? Wouldn’t the vast majority (around 80% probably?) of native born Scots have grown a pair by then and been converted to the benefits of democracy?
Thought experiment for you Geri: if the vote amongst native Scots was a dead heat with neither side reaching a majority, but non-native votes pushed us over the limit to >50% Yes, would you say it was illegitimate? Would you fuck.
I was in the No camp through 2013 and all the way to 18th Sept 2014 where I let my heart rule my head and voted Yes. The results come in the next day and I wasn’t too fussed with the result as I had always been No up until 24hrs previously. I just thought what the hell, let’s give it a bash and see what happens.
I work in the O&G industry and soon after this referendum, the industry collapsed, I felt a sigh of relief at the time that it was a No vote due to the economic arguments used in the campaigning.
Fast Forward 8yrs, I am back in the No camp but this time I need to see a much better campaign, more clarity on the questions that were not answered informatively last time. Couple Brexit with Scexit and the unknown certainly changes things and it may look like this current cost of living crisis is like a walk in the park. Regardless, If the Yes movement can convince me that I and my family will be better off in an independent Scotland then I’m all for it.
It brings me onto my next point and that is this 50%+1 voteshare. What makes everyone think that this would lead to independence? Just like after the 2014 vote, the 45% never gave up, what makes everyone think the 49.999% of the No vote would give up? (Based on that 50%+1 win)
Is there risk that this 49.999% movement can come together, (3 GB parties disband and 1 Rejoin Union party forms). The Scottish elections come up and this new party win with this massive vote share and govern Holyrood under the guise that they will mandate a re join the Union movement and push that through.
In other words, what makes a 50%+1 final when presumably the losing side are going to act in exactly the same way the Yes movement did from 19th Sept 2014 to date?
We can go back and forward when the country is literally split down the middle.
Boris may recognise this and put a 50%+ vote on the electorate or a 66.6%+1 vote ok the turnout. Nicola is needing to negotiate a Section 30 with Boris, he may give her one but with strict concessions. I just can’t see a 50%+1 result putting this to bed. Half the country will be annoyed and will just not accept it. They will say now it’s 1-1, best of 3 or use the result in 2014 vs result of Indyref2.
And as above, surely there is a risk of a “rejoin the Union” movement forming the day after defeat in Indyref2?
If the SNP could convince those like me who are No (but not firm) and show that there’s a large majority where the result will not be questioned then great. I just don’t think they are there yet with a very questionable day to day performance record in the 15yrs they have governed. Try and bring the country together, not divide it.
My 2p worth anyway.
Wrong.
Not in referendums regarding their constitution.
Parliamentary Mickey mouse, yes.
Constitutional matters, no.
Tsk, Ellis. No swearing.
*Permanent residence* seems to be what your struggling with.
A permanent address that you actually live in & on super important issues, say a referendum on that counties Sovereignty & constitution, strict rules apply like those dang *nativists* you squealing about.
In fact, I’m pretty sure that rule has Int law/ Int universally accepted recognition written all over it & why *territorial rights* is scattered within those laws.
& I’d 100% respect the result if it was a fair fight.
But it’s not going to be a fair fight from the get go with your *anyone can vote* pish that even the Int community recognises as suicide for the permanent residents who’d be swamped with migration.
I mentioned Int best practice – you go off on a tangent.
Wrong.
Not in referendums regarding their constitution.
Parliamentary Mickey mouse, yes.
Constitutional matters, no.
Wrong how? I’ll re-iterate what I said earlier to Mia. The franchise used for self determination referendums and the franchise used by independent states for constitutional changes are two different things. Which part of that don’t folk understand?
Virtually all self determination referendums since WW2 have used residence based criteria. It’s the norm. If a future Scottish Government gave in to nativist pressure and changed the 2014 franchise to exclude all or some non-native born Scots, it will be out of step with the norm.
@Ger 9.43 pm
I mentioned Int best practice – you go off on a tangent.
Why is it a tangent? International best practice is for self determination referendums to be residence based. Check the records. “Swamped with migration” makes you sound like Nigel Farrage. I have my doubts that’ll play too well in the movement.
& finally. Promise.
Brexshit.
I gave *an example*
You set phasers Tae malky straight off!
But thinking about it now – Are you seriously suggesting Brexshit, a vote that affected all four parts of the UK & it’s livelihoods & 2 dragged out against their will is/was different.
How many seats does the EU have in WM?
@Geri 9.35 pm
A permanent address that you actually live in…
So wait…your whole issue is you think were being swamped with second home owners that will outvote the natives?
There are truly not enough LOLZ in the world.
@Geri 9.55 pm
Are you seriously suggesting Brexshit, a vote that affected all four parts of the UK & it’s livelihoods & 2 dragged out against their will is/was different.
Finally? Promise?
Different from indyref1? Yes, I really am.
Would you like me to explain the concepts of “small” and “far away” to you too? Sadly I don’t have a model farm animal as a teaching aid.
Residence based.
Give us a laugh. How long should they we resident?
Don’t you worry about my staring anywhere.
I’d worry about your own.
I bet you’re the pub bore that has everyone begging for last orders to sound.
I’m sure Cameron used *swarms* but guess who else summons Farage? The trans woke blokes. You’re in good company then.
Don’t forget yer green ink letters this week.
*Note to self, scroll past Ellis next time*
@Geri (and the nativists at large)
Those of you advocating for the exclusion of a section – or in some cases all – New Scots from the franchise might like to read and inwardly digest the following open letter from Mark Frankland to Lisa Nandy, posted on the Yes Caithness FB yesterday:
Saturday, January 18, 2020
AN OPEN LETTER TO LISA NANDY MP
Dear Lisa
I have just watched your interview with Andrew Neil and I am absolutely furious: furious enough to slam a few words down on paper in the form of this open letter.
Some background. I was born and raised a few miles up the road from the constituency you now represent – Blackburn. In 1989 I became the white half of a mixed race couple. Soon we had two brown boys and by the mid 90’s it was abundantly clear Blackburn was no place to raise two mixed race boys. A septic tide of racism was starting to seep into every brick of the town and the BNP were strutting their stuff. So we ran. We fled a hundred miles north up the M6 and found ourselves a new future in Scotland.
I never felt English, but after twenty five years I feel very Scottish. They call us New Scots up here. And being a New Scot has meant my two boys have had the chance to grow up in a country where racism barely exists. The BNP never managed more than 1% up here. UKIP and the Brexit Party never made it past 4%.
How dare you make up fairytales about “narrow, divisive Nationalism.”? And how dare you criticise the Scottish Government for a record which you describe as “frankly appalling.”? I think it is time for a few home truths. We still regularly visit my wife’s family who live in Lancaster. When they need to see the GP they have to wait over a month for an appointment. We get one in no more than two days. When they pick up their prescriptions, they pay through the nose. Ours are free. When they park up at the hospital, they pay through the nose. When we park it is free. When my nieces and nephews look to university, they have to get their heads around the idea of living with a minimum of £30,000 of debt. If they lived up here, it would be free. English prisons are overcrowded to boiling point, Dumfries Prison is seldom more than 70% full. At eight o’clock in the morning in Lancaster almost every shop doorway is home to a homeless person. In Dumfries there is not a single one.
And I know about this stuff by the way – I manage the region’s largest food bank. A few months back I handed out a food parcel to a young lad who had been made homeless in Manchester. After a few weeks on the streets, he decided to make use of his last worthwhile possession – his bike. He hit the road and headed north. He stopped at town after town to apply for a bed for the night and he was turned away every time – Wigan, Blackburn, Preston, Lancaster, Kendal, Penrith, Carlisle…. until he crossed the border. Into Scotland. And when he applied for homeless accommodation in Dumfries, he was given a room for the night straight away. So how dare you take to the airwaves to accuse my Government of a “frankly appalling record.”
However, that statement pales into insignificance in comparison to what you had to say about our demands for a second Independence referendum. You actually suggested the UK should look to other countries for some clues on how to deal with “narrow, divisive” nationalism. And you actually cited Spain’s handling of Catalonia as a shining example.
As a New Scot, I have come to be a fervent supporter of the dream of independence. In the 2014 referendum I took the ‘Yes’ side in many debates. Over the years, I have written lots of blogs on the subject and nearly a million readers have read them. I guess it is fair to say I wear my heart on my sleeve. I am allowed to do this because I still live in a country where free speech is still allowed and tolerated. And every time I post a blog, I feel lucky and take a moment to remember all those who paid a heavy price for fighting to free their nations from the rule of London.
In Ireland. In India. In Aden. In Israel. In Kenya. In Ghana.
It’s a long, long list. A shameful litany of imprisonment and beatings for those who dared to defy their London masters.
You seem impressed by the Spanish Government’s handling of the Catalonian Independence movement. Well, I’m not. If I was posting my blog in Catalonia, I would be in prison by now. And if I had joined a march for independence, I would have been beaten within an inch of my life by Spanish riot police. And by now, my leaders would either be living in exile or imprisoned for years. And this is how you think the likes of me should be treated? This is the shining example of good practice you feel the Westminster Government should aspire to? Well, shame on you Lisa Nandy.
No wonder your party is down to one MP in Scotland.
Mark Frankland
New Scot
January 2020
FAO Ellis
See all these ‘New Scots’?
Where their births were registered will take legal precedence, post independence.
eg Those born in India cannot also become Scottish, as dual citizenship is banned; Those of Indian descent can claim Overseas Citizenship of India, but cannot vote in elections, as only residency is given as a right.
Why should someone who cannot legally be a ‘New Scot’ vote in an independence referendum? Voting in Govt. elections is a different game entirely, as seen with the difference in rights from the example above.
Also, some people are already legally excluded from voting, it wouldn’t be unlawful to add a few more just for one day.
It looks as if this thread has turned into ‘a bin fire’
@Scott 8.40 am (1)
Where their births were registered will take legal precedence, post independence.
Says who, Scott? You and the small minority of nativists? Self determination referendums are almost invariably held on residence criteria, not birth registration criteria. You and others who favour a politically and socially regressive independent Scotland might like to exclude all New Scots like Mark Frankland, but you don’t have the support of the movement and you’d be making the Scottish self determination referendum an outlier with respect to all the other referendums held since 1945.
You’re entitled to argue for that of course, but those opposed are entitled to point out why we think it’s a bad idea, and why it might negatively impact the chances of any vote using such a franchise being accepted by the international community. So far all those arguing in favour of a nativist franchise have been able to come up with is that we are being swamped by incomers and/or the only way we can win is to move the goalposts from the 2014 precedent.
Yes, my apologies to all.
It’s the Andy show.
It appears my *use other countries best practices* quickly descended into me being a *staunch nativie blood & soil type*
When pointed out the natives of a country, in important matters like constitutional matters, is recognised by Int law (by the UN) for very reasons to protect small countries from invasion, I’m a racist Farage type.
Then has the audacity to summon Wings for help on personal abuse *to him*
Soon BoJo with revert to Victorian times & reppeal The People’s Act. Has anyone seen him of Yoon forums battering his keyboards in disgust??
Or is it the usual Yoon shite *Scotland IS different* because Andy Yellis says so.
BTW great example Scott.
@Scott 8.40 am (2)
Voting in Govt. elections is a different game entirely, as seen with the difference in rights from the example above.
You’re doing that thing nativists do again, comparing two different things and insisting they are the same. The franchise used for self determination referendums, and that used for referendums or elections by independent states, are two completely different things.
By definition a country or region claiming self determination does not have citizenship criteria of its own: that only happens after independence. Once independent Scotland will have its own citizenship criteria just like all other countries: it might allow dual citizenship and it might not. Doubtless it will have residence criteria for people before they can become citizens and vote. Excluding hundreds of thousands of existing Scottish residents from voting in a self determination referendum would however be the only example of it happening anywhere in the world.