The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


How you do it

Posted on November 29, 2022 by

It’s more than two years now since we published this article, but it’s worth quickly going over it again, because there’s nothing on Earth more tedious than boneheads on social media going “Oh, you slag off the SNP but what’s YOUR plan if you’re so clever?”, who haven’t bothered to read any of the dozen times we’ve already answered that question since 25 months ago.

This is it. This is our plan. Try listening this time, thickos.

STEP 1

Dissolve the Scottish Parliament and force a general election. This is very easily done within the current rules, despite what the terrified, panicking cowards of the SNP and some of Scotland’s more clueless mainstream media hacks will try to tell you. All that’s required is for Nicola Sturgeon to resign and for the election of a replacement to be blocked by the pro-independence parties who have 72 of the Parliament’s 129 seats.

The above, as we’ve already noted and entirely as we’d expect from Scottish political journalists, is simply completely and embarrassingly factually incorrect. The standing orders of the Scottish Parliament very explicitly DO allow MSPs to vote against a First Ministerial candidate as well as for one.

Even if some sort of procedural semantic chicanery (something we addressed in our previous piece) was to somehow result in a Unionist being elected as the new FM, as erroneously suggested by Mr Farquharson above, the SNP and Greens would still command a comfortable majority of votes in the chamber and could simply bring the new government down via an immediate vote of no confidence.

(Although even if Sarwar or whoever got himself elected FM, the chances he’d have been able to form a government in the first place are basically nil, since the Ministers of that government also have to be voted through by the Parliament.)

So it is, and this cannot be emphasised enough, a foolproof plan. Under the Scotland Act and the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament, there is NO outcome of Nicola Sturgeon resigning that does not end in a general election. So remember this: the SNP and Greens can trigger an election at any time they choose to from today onwards.

STEP 2

The pro-independence parties all run the election on the same manifesto comprising the text below. (The paragraphs in italics are optional and only add clarity.)

We believe that the Scottish people are sovereign, and we hereby announce our intention to declare Scotland independent and submit that intention to the will of the people in this election for their approval.

Accordingly, if pro-independence parties should secure more than 50% of the constituency votes in this election, we will consider that a clear mandate to withdraw from the Treaty Of Union, declare Scotland to once more be an independent state, and seek recognition from the international community on the basis of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of all peoples to self-determination, that self-determination having been expressed by this vote.

Should the UK Government wish, we are willing to confirm that mandate via a referendum, to be held no later than three months from the date of the election, on the same question as that used in 2014. If no such referendum is requested or conducted, the declaration of independence based on the election result will automatically be considered to stand.

Upon the secure establishment of independence, a new general election will be called immediately.

With regard to other policies, our current positions on all issues remain unchanged, and all future legislation will be brought before the Parliament, debated and voted on in the normal manner.

And that’s it. You win the vote, you have a legitimate democratic mandate to declare that Scotland rescinds the Treaty Of Union, citing the Claim Of Right in support, noting the UK government’s refusal to provide any other peaceful democratic route, and you ask the international community to recognise that fact.

Clearly, a unilateral declaration is much less clean and tidy as a solution than a Section 30 referendum, but it’s a time-honoured method by which many nations have achieved their independence and there are no other credible options remaining now that the legal route has been extinguished. We have absolutely nothing left to lose.

The specific beauty of doing it via a Holyrood election rather than a UK one is that it disarms the argument “Oh, but the Unionists and media will refuse to treat a general election as a referendum”.

In the case of a UK general election that is in fact quite a strong argument, because while – as noted by Sir John Curtice the other day – it’s wholly legitimate for a party to stand for election on a single issue, Scotland is only 8% of the UK population and so the media will be fully and properly entitled to focus on other issues most of the time. It’s hard to win a campaign when your only policy is almost never discussed.

But in an election in Scotland only, in which most of the seats in the Parliament will be decided on the basis of that single issue, the media and the other parties cannot simply pretend it isn’t happening.

Holyrood’s dual ballot system also defuses the claim that using the election as a de facto referendum belies the other serious issues facing the country. Because if you’re using the list vote as a “normal” one while using the constituency ballot as your referendum, you still end up with a multi-party Parliament broadly reflecting the political choices of the country as normal.

(Because that’s the entire point of the list vote.)

In the 2021 Holyrood election, the SNP swept the vast majority of constituency seats, other than a few enclaves of Tories in the borders and Lib Dems in the Northern Isles.

Given current polling that would be almost certain to be replicated if the constituency vote was counted as a plebiscite election, because the SNP’s 45% of support is plenty to win almost every seat under FPTP.

And even if it wasn’t (eg if Unionists fully embraced the de facto referendum idea and voted 100% tactically for whichever Unionist party was in second place), the list would balance out any changes, using the 1.1m list votes for the SNP that were almost completely wasted last year.

(More than half of the SNP’s seats in their first ever Holyrood victory – 26 out of 47 – were list seats.)

So the Holyrood electoral system specifically enables the election to be used as a proxy referendum without causing any significant distortion to normal politics. It’s possible for the indy parties to both have their cake and eat it, and for them to do so right now, not in two years’ time.

Using a Westminster election has none of those advantages, AND is significantly arithmetically harder to win because you don’t get 16/17-year-olds or EU citizens, both of whom lean towards independence. It is a stupendously obviously inferior alternative. In fact, it’s a straight-up terrible one.

It is simply inconceivable that the SNP doesn’t know all of this. Of course it does. So ask yourselves, SNP loyalists, why your party is ostensibly pursuing a dreadful plan riddled with huge gaping holes a child could point out (and which Unionists certainly will), and refusing to countenance what even a blind drunk idiot or Alex Cole-Hamilton would recognise as a much better one.

Perhaps also ask yourselves why the party is going through the farcical pantomime of “debating” the issue in several months’ time, when its own deputy leader has publicly announced that the matter has already been decided and one of the only two options has been discounted.

It’s almost as if, a cynical person might think, they were deliberately trying to damp down and take the heat out of the situation rather than exploit people’s entirely justified anger at the Supreme Court ruling, which currently gives a Yes vote a huge lead.

Or to put it more succinctly – why do you think the SNP seem so determined to lose?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

175 to “How you do it”

  1. Al-Stuart says:

    .
    Jeezo Stuart,

    Please don’t lead with a hound photo,

    I thought this was PayPal Paul at Wee Ginger Dug.

  2. sarah says:

    Rev, how about you get this printed and delivered to every SNP branch/MP/MSP/Councillor/Yes branch?

    Let everyone know they have been rumbled and that loads of other people know they know.

  3. PhilM says:

    When the high UK price of energy is making Scots conspicuously much poorer and when the UK governing class is determined to crush Scots in a suffocating headlock, there has never been such a perfectly clear and concise argument for regaining our independence. Westminster is determined to keep an energy-rich Scotland poor, cold and without hope. Any illusion that we are a valued part of a successful union and all the stronger for it has been completely destroyed in front of our eyes. They want our resources and they want to keep us poor. Every SNP leader before the current one would have considered this moment to be like coming across an oasis in an endless desert. The UK is an international laughing stock. No-one would begrudge Scots the opportunity to pursue a different course. And if not now, when?

  4. Daisy Walker says:

    Just received… footage from SNP HQ’s most recent meeting

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA

  5. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Makes sense Rev. However, I am sure if it all went to plan, Westminster would still say: “That’s all very well, but, Holyrood is a devolved assembly and we still call the shots.”

    Better for the pro-Independence parties to all resign their Westminster seats, and have the by-election on the same day, then, when a majority of pro-Independence MPS were returned, they have even-greater right to cite the Claim of Right and the termination of the Union.

    Westminster can, and will, ignore Holyrood. They cannot ignore what is hapening in their own area.

  6. Daisy Walker says:

    Sorry Rev, I did actually remove the http/ bit before posting, but it seems to have added it in automatically.

  7. Garrion says:

    As Jonathan Swift put it, “Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired”.

    Thanks for taking the water/rock approach though.

  8. Geoff Anderson says:

    You mean the SNP lied, what a surprise.
    What next? That they don’t actually want Independence!

  9. A bloke called Gerald says:

    Is it just possible, the SNP won’t dissolve Holyrood because they’re too scared to ask Sturgeon to resign? 🙂

  10. Josef says:

    I’m still thick: Which forum for such declaration ought to be used?

  11. Geri says:

    Excellent manifesto.

    Rules out the maybees aye, maybees naw, maybees when I feel like it, maybees when this *insert latest crisis here* is over..

    Clear from the get-go! Kosovo did it! Recognition will only ever come after the event.

    Sturgeon, get yer coat!

  12. Graeme George says:

    I think it’s a great plan but I don’t think it would pan out the way you describe, if the UK gov think it would work they’ll hobble it one way or another ie they could suspend Holyrood and declare the election illegal, that said that’s no reason not to do it in fact that’s exactly the reason to do it , Nicola Sturgeon has to realise or be made to realise there is no route to independence that doesn’t involve confrontation with the British state she’s been avoiding it for 8 years, now is the time

  13. Geri says:

    I have a thick question.
    If Sturgeon & her cabinet resign does that mean those votes are lost or can they still vote?

  14. stuart mctavish says:

    Excellent.

    One way to force such action might be to push the political class for better answers as to why they dont yet appear willing to embrace either the ballot box option provided by the brilliant lord advocate [which, being politicians, they might be reasonably expected to favour], or the claim of right legal route provided by the brilliant Sara Salyers [which, being nominally community oriented, they might also be expected to like]

    Meanwhile & O/T, finally getting to the promised debate on David Davis colluding with the speaker to savage John Nicolson for complaining about Nadine Doris entering House of Lords despite misleading a committee aver the sale of channel 4 or whatever, despite having been particularly saddened, during an urgent question that ought to have preceded it (about a BBC journalist in China being arrested to save them from covid), by the failure of everyone present to call out shocking hypocrisy over ‘our’ own treatment of Julian Assange.

  15. frank gillougley says:

    I think that Robin McAlpine had it when he recently used the ‘c’ word in his article, that the one-time political party of the SNP had now morphed into a corporate entity under Nicola Sturgeon. For me, all the notifiers are there and especially the other ‘c’ word – controlling.

  16. stuart mctavish says:

    Put the spade down and grab the mace

  17. Vivian O’Blivion says:

    All msm attention at the next Westminster election will be caught up in the impending “Starmageddon”.
    Scottish constitutional debate will be denied oxygen.
    The Labour manifesto will promise “radical constitutional change” including abolition of the House of Lords (which they first promised in their 1910 manifesto!).

  18. Gregory Beekman says:

    Daisy Walker says: @1:42 pm

    LOL!! That Life of Brian clip is spot-on!

    It’s EXACTLY the current SNP!

    Thanks for the giggles but shame it’s true……

  19. stuart mctavish says:

    give it to the obnoxious ‘father ‘ of the house and blow a kiss to the deputy speaker who also now owes John a sincere apology on the way out the door.

    never apologise, no need to explain

  20. Desimond says:

    Try an imagine the SNP without Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister.
    Can you?
    They cant. Nicola for sure cant.

    The only way she leaves that role is being dragged oot and that aint happening anytime soon.

    The journey of SNP defeating Scottish Labour only to become the new Scottish Labour is now complete.

    Tell the people nothing, put party ( and self) first, Get a Committee gig, and pray Jo Mug Public only realise once you have secured a comfy lifestyle for yourself. The only thing missing is a compliant and befriending Media but that might still come, given how bad its getting.

    Angus MacNeil almost teased about pushing for above plan the other night but sadly he seems to be all talk and no backbone or just hoping for the best without any means of delivering.

    Sadly I cant see above plan or Alex Salmonds piece getting the coverage and backing they deserve or need. SNP will shut all talk down and Media will happily keep status quo.

  21. Andy Ellis says:

    Excellent piece. I’m not sure we really need to bother offering a confirmatory referendum within 3 months: doesn’t the plebiscitary nature of the election make it somewhat redundant?

    Once we have > 50% +1 votes, we just declare that those MSPs constitute an interim administration until fresh elections are held.

    Five will however get you 10 that the usual hard of thinking suspects will be along directly to insist that you still need a 2/3 vote in Holyrood.

    I’m actually wondering if “Scott” is actually Keith Brown’s alter ego. 🙂

  22. Merganser says:

    If Nicola Sturgeon self-declared as a man would (s)he then have the balls to resign?

  23. Calum says:

    “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

  24. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Rev, how about you get this printed and delivered to every SNP branch/MP/MSP/Councillor/Yes branch?

    Let everyone know they have been rumbled and that loads of other people know they know.”

    There’s a Print button at the bottom of every post. You can print it out yourself and send it to them, or save it as a PDF and email it to them, or copy the text.

  25. ross says:

    This is the plan though, isn’t it?

    The disagreement here appears to be whether to use HR or Westminster, not the defacto referendum on a manifesto commitment part… both ways are the same.

    do you not think we should not just get behind this now? I don’t understand the reason for discord on the election to use. It’s been put to bed that it’s Westminster to be used (and there are solid advantages of using that election) so why don’t we just get behind it?

  26. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Westminster can, and will, ignore Holyrood. They cannot ignore what is hapening in their own area.”

    Of course they can. If 45 SNP MPs stand down and trigger by-elections, the MOST that can be re-elected is 45. Quite likely a few with tiny majorities would lose their seats. How have you helped the cause by reducing the number of SNP MPs at Westminster?

    (Quiet at the back, there.)

  27. Ottomanboi says:

    People look taller when you’re on your knees.
    Even in China the ceremonial kowtowing to established authority appears to be ending.
    Citizens are tired of the system’s condescension; similarly its globalist backers.
    Aren’t we all?

  28. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The disagreement here appears to be whether to use HR or Westminster, not the defacto referendum on a manifesto commitment part… both ways are the same.”

    They’re not remotely the fucking same, for reasons I just spent 1300 words explaining. One has a chance of winning, the other has basically none and wastes two more years in the meantime.

  29. solarflare says:

    Good to see The National there sticking perfectly to type in being an SNP mouthpiece rather than a pro-independence source of journalism.

  30. stuart mctavish says:

    371 – 16
    WTAF SNP, Not only was a vote allowed on such an insidious stitch up but 2/3 of the Scottish MPs appear to have put the boot in too (?): maybe an (urgent) explanation is required after all..

    I suggest the best way for it to be heard might be to collude with the greens and speaker in Holyrood to bully opposition MSPS, see how they like it when a criminally negligent culture grounded in petty bullying, corruption and deceit (but especially petty bullying and deceit) is encouraged to run riot in Edinburgh too 🙂

  31. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I’m not sure we really need to bother offering a confirmatory referendum within 3 months: doesn’t the plebiscitary nature of the election make it somewhat redundant?”

    If it was my decision I wouldn’t bother with it either. But it’s an option, and it does provide an extra line of argument for persuading the international community. Offering to back up a de facto referendum with an actual one says we’re bending over backwards to make sure the vote is an accurate and settled expression of the will of the people.

  32. ross says:

    PS

    Westminster is the election about “standing up for Scotland”. SNP cannot govern therefore it’s about standing up for Scotland only really. They cannot, therefore, be accused, of ignoring the “day job”.

    Holyrood is an election about day to day issues and govt record.

    Two years is time to build the positive campaign and heal division (SNP amongst others at fault for that, no question).

    I wouldn’t dismiss HR as a route but Westminster route makes sense to me.

  33. Derek says:

    “Geri says:
    29 November, 2022 at 1:58 pm

    I have a thick question.
    If Sturgeon & her cabinet resign does that mean those votes are lost or can they still vote?”

    They’d only be resigning from their cabinet posts, so yes. Unless they aren’t re-elected as MSPs in the election…

  34. Breeks says:

    To be honest, I can see Holyrood being left out of the equation altogether.

    A shameless First Minister who hasn’t the grace to resign after causing this absolute Constitutional dumpster fire, has squandered one screaming open goal after another, and boots away any talk of progressing Independence on the volley, is NEVER going to step down because it’s the right thing to do for Scotland.

    I say we give Sturgeon her dues: let her rattle around in impotence bouncing off the walls of the Holyrood Parliament like Elkie Brooks’ Pearl the Singer; the “parliament” which her own feckless incompetence rendered impotent in the first place. Seal up the doors with her inside for all I care.

    She’s a serial capitulator when it comes to Scotland’s rights and interests, and Scotland doesn’t need this perennial walking puncture getting anywhere near the Indy Bus.

    SALVO’s Constitutional Route and Liberation Group can crash Holyrood and swerve around the wreckage all by itself, just as readily any plan which requires the cooperation of the SNP to resign with honourable intent. There’s no handing control or influence over to Sturgeon’s feckless self serving nobodies.

    The Red Sovereignty of Scotland’s Claim of Right requires the permission or consent from nobody, although it would be foolish not to observe in passing that the brand new King of England has already sworn fealty to the Claim of Right.

    If King Charles III now dares to give Royal assent to ANY Westminster legislation which impinges upon Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, then he might even be impeached and removed as Scotland’s Monarch by a 2022 Claim of Right to echo 1689. James VII and Charles III, the two Scottish Monarchs dethroned by the Claim of Right. Got a ring to it, hasn’t it?

    It is my firm conviction that any plan which resurrects a role for our freshly emasculated Holyrood is already off the pace. It’s our sovereign Constitution or bust baby.

    Why trust any “democracy” which requires the consent, “management”, and acquiescence of Westminster’s white sovereignty? Nothing else which comes out of Westminster does any good for Scotland.

    To succumb to the vernacular, fuck Sturgeon, fuck the SNP, fuck Holyrood, fuck Westminster. Stop watching the tired old soap opera and get yourself signed up the Liberation.Scot and lend your weight to the action which will actually bring down the Union, and take the International community along with us.

  35. ross says:

    Westminster is the election about “standing up for Scotland”. SNP cannot govern therefore it’s about standing up for Scotland only really. They cannot, therefore, be accused, of ignoring the “day job”.

    Holyrood is an election about day to day issues and govt record.

    Two years is time to build the positive campaign and heal division (SNP amongst others at fault for that, no question).

    I wouldn’t dismiss HR as a route but Westminster route makes sense to me.

    “One has a chance of winning, the other has basically none and wastes two more years in the meantime”

    Scots either want indy or they don’t. The voted nearly 49.97% SNP at Westminster in 2015 so I don’t think your assertion flies.

  36. Andy Ellis says:

    @Rev Stu

    Fair enough: I can see the argument for “being more royal than the king” as it were. It will be fun watching the physog’s on britnat MSPs post victory though.

    I trust you will enjoy your new status as the movement’s Mr Reasonable. 🙂

  37. Andy Ellis says:

    Scots either want indy or they don’t. The voted nearly 49.97% SNP at Westminster in 2015 so I don’t think your assertion flies.

    In 2015 Scots weren’t placing their votes for Westminster on a plebiscitary mandate. As the SNP have often been at pains to point out, votes for them in contexts other than the preferred referendum route were not necessarily taken by them as indicating support for independence as such, merely as support for the SNP as their preferred government in Holyrood or representatives at the imperial parliament.

    From memory folk also used to say with a straight face that they were voting for competent government…..no….really! Those were the day, huh?

  38. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I have a thick question.
    If Sturgeon & her cabinet resign does that mean those votes are lost or can they still vote?”

    Sturgeon is the only one who has to resign, and she only resigns as FM. She remains an MSP and has a vote.

  39. ross says:

    I know plenty people, including myself, that would feel like giving the SNP a kicking on domestic policy in a Holyrood election but on the question of independence will back them.

    much easier to deflect this is in a westminster election.

    SNP at westminster is a protest vote. It makes more sense.

    Also, HR has the complicated system of counting the two votes. We are STILL debating who got a majority as constituency votes were pro-union and List votes were pro-independence in 2021. Any nuance in this won’t be accepted. Counting up the one set of votes is another advantage for Westminster.

    Prestige is important too for international attention. Doing it in their back yard with the eyes of the world.

    I really don’t get the frothing on this issue. you can make an argument on either side. we are where we are, we need to back it. we’ve already seen the SNP get close to 50% in Westminster, add Alba and the Greens this time. There’s a clear path.

  40. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I trust you will enjoy your new status as the movement’s Mr Reasonable. ?”

    “New”?

  41. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I trust you will enjoy your new status as the movement’s Mr Reasonable. ?”

    “New”?

  42. Geri says:

    WM MPs are only voting fodder for England.

    They make zero difference to the Independence cause. 56 didn’t, neither did 35 or 45.

    Thier arse is welded to the benches doing fk all but making an absolute are of themselves & Scotland in the process. No MP voted in on an Independence ticket should take thier seat there. It only gives that place legitimacy – especially after that SC judgement. They’re only ornamental.

  43. Geri says:

    Stuart & Derek, cheers for replying!

  44. ross says:

    This 16 year old thing needs nipped in the bud.

    16 year old today are exactly what age in two years time?

    And the idea EU voters are actually a Yes demographic is debatable to say the least (shifting towards Yes is not the same as an out and out Yes block). Most of them in my experience have just taken ages getting settled status and don’t want upheaval thank you very much.

  45. No Idea says:

    ‘It is simply inconceivable that the SNP doesn’t know all of this. Of course it does. So ask yourselves, SNP loyalists, why your party is ostensibly pursuing a dreadful plan riddled with huge gaping holes a child could point out…’

    One the one hand, you call these people terminally inept, which they clearly are, and on the other you say they’re lying and obfuscating. Which is it? Are you maybe giving them too much credit for actually knowing things, like that journo, when they’re a terminally inept shower of shite? Seriously.

  46. Doug says:

    Thank you, Rev. Again.

  47. Andy Ellis says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    29 November, 2022 at 3:18 pm
    “I trust you will enjoy your new status as the movement’s Mr Reasonable. ?”

    “New”?

    Will our better nation have the equivalent of exercising 5th amendment privilege?

  48. stuart mctavish says:

    Ross @2:59

    Unless I’m mistaken, a 317 – 16 vote in favour of the Speaker’s collusion with David Davis (and some other despicable MP caught out by the content of his own lie about having had sight of the correspondence) against John Nicolson is as good a sign as any that the buggers struggle to stick up for each other – let lone Scotland.

    Time then perhaps to take a lesson from the China-BBC journalist story and pull them out for sake of their own heart – a positive way to do so being to give them a minority role on the convention of the estates (with whom they can then share their Westminster salary and expenses until such time as independence is either taken or won)

  49. Ottomanboi says:

    FOR SALE
    SCOTLAND.

    https://www.highlandtitles.com/

    https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/04/21/the-dark-side-of-fake-scottish-titles-an-inside-look-at-the-plots-of-land-being-gifted-to-

    From my research there was a time SNP intended to put a stop to this land feudalism.
    Land would be held in common by the state on behalf of the people.
    The aristos etc would be sent packing, assetless to London.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47963208

    Another great idea in the trash or just not quite so important as it used to be?

  50. ross says:

    @stuart mctavish

    I’m not up with the day to day. I’m talking about a defacto referendum in 2024.

    The last graphic of this article reveals that a Westminster election can be won.

    The rest is unnecessary division.

  51. Robert Louis says:

    This article sums up everything dodgy about the current SNP. WHY, when they have this ready made opportunity, do they choose another more difficult route, sometime in the future??

    Rev STU, is right, we need to ask the question, just WHY is Nicola Sturgeon so determined NOT to pursue independence, whilst pretending to want it.

    It stinks. It really does. She is holding Scotland back. Nicola Sturgeon, not unionists. And she has done so, over and over and over again.

    As Robert Burns so rightly put it,

    “For London’s gold, they are bought and sold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation”

    More than ANY unionist, THEY, the SNP, are now Scotland’s greatest enemy. Doing London’s bidding. They should be run out of Scotland. Away tae England to worship at their masters’ feet.

  52. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “16 year old today are exactly what age in two years time?”

    As I’ve just spent some considerable time pointing out, we have no need to wait two years. And even if we did, there would at that point be new 16/17-year-olds who we have no reason to believe would be less inclined to Yes than the last several years of 16/17-year-olds have been.

  53. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The last graphic of this article reveals that a Westminster election can be won.”

    No, it doesn’t. It suggests that it could be won IF IT WAS TOMORROW. Which it isn’t going to be. Two years is an eternity.

  54. Andy Ellis says:

    The last graphic of this article reveals that a Westminster election can be won.
    The rest is unnecessary division.

    It still doesn’t address Stu’s points though:

    – a Holyrood vote could be precipitated within weeks by our own representatives, not be contingent on the vagaries of British nationalists in Westminster deciding when to call a GE, or waiting 2 years for the next scheduled one;

    – the Holyrood electorate includes 16 & 17 year olds excluded at Westminster who are generally acknowledged and shown in polls to be heavily in favour of independence;

    – the Holyrood electorate includes EU citizens and others excluded by Westminster franchise. Again, it is likely that these groups will be more likely to support independence given brexit, potential EU association or membership for Scotland post independence, and the “hostile environment” policy championed by the britnats; and

    – lastly, Holyrood is “our” Parliament, supposedly set up to be different from Westminster, more progressive, it even harked back to being the old Scottish Parliament reconvened. Given a choice of which Parliament gives the best optics to the outside world as the basis for asserting our self determination, it seems self evident that Holyrood’s claim looks more attractive and more likely to garner international support.

  55. Ross says:

    “WHY, when they have this ready made opportunity, do they choose another more difficult route, sometime in the future??”

    It’s in 2024.

    The only polling we have so far shows a majority for the SNP on the basis they are proposing.

    The real question is.. WHY are we so keen to sow discord when the plan is now clear and demonstrably winnable?

  56. Robert Louis says:

    Breeks at 3pm,

    I think you are right, we will need to just bypass these useless clowns in Holyrood and Westminster.

  57. Maureen says:

    Susan Dalgety
    @DalgetySusan
    ·
    15h
    Scotland 2022: Where an event today, to mark 30 years of a campaign to end violence against women, BANS attendees from talking about single sex spaces. Does the keynote speaker
    @NicolaSturgeon
    have to abide by these intolerant rules?

    https://twitter.com/me2intheuk/status/1597520123254157313

  58. Ross says:

    “No, it doesn’t. It suggests that it could be won IF IT WAS TOMORROW. Which it isn’t going to be. Two years is an eternity.’

    It backs the proposal. And it doesn’t mention tomorrow.

    Two years. No long enough to unite and heal the 2014 spirit back but it’ll have to do. Tomorrow. Now that would be a disaster.

  59. Republicofscotland says:

    So, there it is in black and white posted by the Rev, our exit out of this prison via Holyrood, no excuses, no but’s about it, we could be free in 23.

    So, what’s stopping Sturgeon and her SNP MSPs from implementing this procedure? I’ll tell you what’s stopping them they aren’t the slightest bit interested in independence the status quo suits them to a tee.

    Sturgeon the Judas and her treacherous SNP MSPs have their own interests at heart, not Scotland’s and certainly not Scots that’s for sure. let’s be honest about them they are people of low moral character, lacking a conscience, they are all about self-serving, they put themselves and the party before an entire country, all the half-decent ones jumped ship to the Alba party leaving the flotsam and detritus behind.

    Sturgeon the betrayer and her backstabbing SNP MSPs will do a hell of a lot more damage to Scotland and its economy before we manage to vote out these charlatans, the betrayer will never resign and her spineless and gutless MSPs will let this fabulous opportunity to rid ourselves of this prison like union pass us by.

    If there’s any more marching or demos to be held, they should be directed towards Holyrood, and Bute House let the b*stards know we know that once again they are selling Scotland out.

  60. George Ferguson says:

    To think if Stu was an SNP Spad he would be getting 60k a year or still a political consultant on six figures. The SNP will not act until they see the electoral consequences. Here is a prediction for this Thursday and the local Council by-election. Everybody in the village is saying an SNP gain. I am saying a Labour hold. Why? A sense of entitlement from the SNP campaign plus the cut through GRR is now having. This could be the most embarrassing prediction I have made. It’s a Labour/ SNP battleground so will be very informative. Under single transferable vote I am voting anybody but the SNP. Let you know on Friday what happens.

  61. Maureen says:

    A charity event to push for an end to male violence against women and girls has banned discussion about single sex spaces.

    Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, is scheduled to give the main speech to the 30th anniversary gathering by Zero Tolerance in Edinburgh today. The charity‘s core belief is that male violence should not be tolerated.

    A note sent to attendees said it wanted “to create a safe and supported environment for our guests and ask you to support us in this aim by refraining from discussions of the definition of a woman, and single sex spaces, in relation to the gender recognition act”.

    It added: “As feminists we have strong opinions on these subjects, but this is not the place for that conversation.”

    According to the event page, it has been organised “for those who are committed to ending men’s violence against women and girls but particularly for senior managers in government and national public bodies, elected representatives, local authority officials, civil servants, and senior managers and policy officers working in the third sector”.

    Sturgeon’s speech, due to be delivered about halfway through the event, is expected to last be about 20 minutes. is due to deliver the main speech, which is due to last 20 minutes, around half way through the event.

    The decision might have been made to “save the blushes of the first minister”, suggested Marion Calder, director of For Women Scotland.

    She praised Zero Tolerance’s work but said: “Thirty years on, Scottish women must be wondering what has happened to this organisation.”

    A final vote on the bill, which would allow people to change the sex stated on their birth certificate without a medical assessment and lower the transition age from 18 to 16, is expected to be held at Holyrood next month.

  62. Doug says:

    @George Ferguson 4:15pm

    Any particular village in mind, George?

  63. Johnny says:

    Go away, Ross, your game can be easily seen.

    Concern troll.

    Beat it.

  64. Geri says:

    Ross

    Because, as I understand it, a Plebiscite in 2 yrs was Nicola Sturgeons idea of what a Plebiscite would be, not a Plebiscite at all but repackaged nonsense that we’ve already tried for 8 yrs – it’d be to present to WM *to ask* permission for a referendum. Same pish, different title.

  65. ross says:

    I have in other posts but let me address them:

    – a Holyrood vote could be precipitated within weeks by our own representatives, not be contingent on the vagaries of British nationalists in Westminster deciding when to call a GE, or waiting 2 years for the next scheduled one;

    It must be either 2024 or earlier. It’s almost inconceivable it will not be 2024.

    – the Holyrood electorate includes 16 & 17 year olds excluded at Westminster who are generally acknowledged and shown in polls to be heavily in favour of independence;

    16 year olds of today are 18 year olds of 2024. You do not lose these voters. You will lose older ones.

    – the Holyrood electorate includes EU citizens and others excluded by Westminster franchise. Again, it is likely that these groups will be more likely to support independence given brexit, potential EU association or membership for Scotland post independence, and the “hostile environment” policy championed by the britnats; and

    Show me the polling that reveals this group as a Yes group. They may have shifted /towards/ Yes, that is a different proposition to being a Yes minded group. If anything those born outside the UK have always shown a preference for the UK staying together. Many of them have taken ages getting their papers in order to gain leave to remain in the UK. I am willing to concede this if presented with evidence. Even if so, it’s not a defining issue.

    – lastly, Holyrood is “our” Parliament, supposedly set up to be different from Westminster, more progressive, it even harked back to being the old Scottish Parliament reconvened. Given a choice of which Parliament gives the best optics to the outside world as the basis for asserting our self determination, it seems self evident that Holyrood’s claim looks more attractive and more likely to garner international support.

    This is the weakest argument of all. Perhaps it shouldn’t be but we have to face cold reality. The international community take more note of a UK election than a Scottish one. This is simple fact. This means more international media coverage of the election issues. The SNP make it an election issue. It becomes international by nature. Neither route guarantees anything about the result but UK election DOES GAURANTEE more international attention.

  66. Desimond says:

    Dear Rev
    RE:

    29 November, 2022 at 3:18 pm
    “I trust you will enjoy your new status as the movement’s Mr Reasonable. ?”

    “New”?

    DO NOT REPOST IT.

    One rule for us…one rule for you eh …tsk!

  67. ross says:

    @johnny

    You having a laugh? this whole article is the definition of concern trolling.

    I’m the one saying get behind the proposal. A defacto vote on independence.

    I want people to come together for 2024. We have two years to heal division, get our ducks in a row.

    You’ve all been negative and you may be right in the end. WoS is a good resource but I really hoped when a plan was set, we’d get behind it.

  68. Tony O’Neill says:

    Ross,you sound like a snp sturgeon loyalist to me.

  69. Christopher Pike says:

    Would you recommend holding this election in the spring of next year, once the better weather has arrived?

    I’m more of a devo-max guy myself, but I’m genuinely confused at how the majority of the YES movement still have faith in the SNP – WeeGingerDug/Lesley Riddoch etc are not stupid people. Surely, they can see what’s happening within the SNP?

    I remember reading tweets from Pete Wishart telling independence supporters that the UK Government was secretly preparing for a referendum, which was clearly B.S. Your movement has deified the SNP and refuses to accept constructive criticism.

  70. George Ferguson says:

    @Doug 4:19pm
    It is a very large heterogenous Ward. It’s a microcosm of Scotland in general and a straight Labour vs SNP battleground. So as an ex SNP member why won’t I vote for them?. I didn’t see any mention of Independence on any of the SNP campaign material. Then there is GRR! They have been leading GRR. The SNP have thrown the kitchen sink at this by-election. I will let you know on Friday what happens and what locals are saying about the result.

  71. KT Lorimer says:

    I think if I were FM I’d give WM an ultimatum – agree to a referendum by date x or I resign and we have one anyway.

  72. Hatuey says:

    An excellent explanation of the possibilities.

    Sturgeon doesn’t want any of this and is panicking. My guess is the Supreme Court ruling took her by surprise and she stumbled into all this very much unprepared.

    Now her job is to put the genie and hope back in the bottle and that isn’t going to be easy; hope spreads like wildfire through oppressed and impoverished populations.

    Our job is to maximise the pressure and scrutiny so that they can’t turn this into yet another mandate. That “optional” part in the article that refers to a confirmatory referendum is a huge concern to me in terms of allowing them to turn this into another mandate.

    If we can sustain pressure on the SNP, putting them between a rock and hard place (of the Scottish people’s expectations and the British State’s resistance), we can create a dynamic that is unstoppable, ratcheting us towards independence.

    With more and more people struggling to feed and heat themselves in a country that is swimming in energy and resources, this could get very interesting.

  73. ross says:

    @Geri

    “Because, as I understand it, a Plebiscite in 2 yrs was Nicola Sturgeons idea of what a Plebiscite would be, not a Plebiscite at all but repackaged nonsense that we’ve already tried for 8 yrs – it’d be to present to WM *to ask* permission for a referendum. Same pish, different title.”

    That’s not the current position Geri. It’s a defacto referendum that is being proposed. If that changes, i’ll be the first to criticise. I am no fan of many in the SNP and agree there are troughers there. I don’t think the article above even suggests that the current official plan is not a defacto ref. It’s the legislature and timing which is being questioned.

  74. Liz says:

    Sorry but anything that pricks that pompous ass’s balloon is fine by me.
    Nicolson was nearly crying, poor me, the speaker doesn’t like me, boo hoo hoo.

    This is just him showing his true arrogant colours.
    He’s blocked everyone who dares to question his motives.

    I’m so sorry I caused a pile on, weep, weep.
    Why, he does it all the time to women.

    And Wishart, I’ve been in this house for 21 years…, we know Comfy slippers and you should damn well be ashamed to have been there so long.

    Sturgeon at the Zero tolerance event, M Wadhaw there also.
    A woman in the audience calling Sturgeon out, and she replies by talking about TIMS.

    They cancelled the on line debate because- they couldn’t ensure everyones ‘safety’.
    If words scare you, youre not fot to be in a position of authority.
    I swear they’re trying to stir people up.

  75. Desimond says:

    @Ross

    The fact you still have enough hope in your heart to believe Nicola will deliver on some Westminster based mission is a great testament to you but beyond my reckoning Im afraid.

    I’m sat looking at this classic..

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/whats-the-process-for-a-second-independence-referendum-in-scotland/

  76. Dave S says:

    would be gutting if we won the election but then lost the vote.

  77. Andy Ellis says:

    @ross

    I have in other posts but let me address them:

    I don’t think you have, but I’ll persevere.

    It must be either 2024 or earlier. It’s almost inconceivable it will not be 2024.

    Although the future isn’t ours to see and we can never discount some political earthquake, there’s no really good reason to think that circumstances will be that much better for the movement in 2 years time than now, or in the next few months. If there were any real signs of “the movement” coming together more in the next few years, having a group hug, and getting the 2014 vibe back, there might be some mileage in your argument.

    I doubt many people really see that happening. The SNP leadership and activist base aren’t going to suddenly see reason. Perhaps the membership might try and wrest control of the party back, but that’s already failed once. That only leaves the electorate to give them a bloody nose electorally by voting for other pro-indy parties. Luckily, that won’t really matter if the plebiscitary nature of such elections is “baked-in” and the movement ensures the SNP isn’t able to assert ownership and exclude Alba, ISP etc.

    Sooner would be better than later. There’s no reason Holyrood elections couldn’t be pushed for early next year, even if we can’t organise or don’t want them in mid-winter.

    16 year olds of today are 18 year olds of 2024. You do not lose these voters. You will lose older ones.

    Well….duh…! The issue however is that you’re advocating for a Westminster vote that excludes 16 & 17 year olds who would be able to participate in a Holyrood based plebiscite, so not sure why you think this helps your case.

    Show me the polling that reveals this group as a Yes group. (& etc….)

    I’m not sure there is any detailed or recent polling, but the smart money has to be on those EU citizens who haven’t left in disgust post brexit being more favourably disposed towards a potential independent Scotland which is either in the single market / EEA or a full EU member. It’s not something that can be definitively proven one way or the other. Perhaps it’s something Rev Stu can ask if he commissions more polls in coming months. It would certainly be an interesting breakdown.

    Whether it’s a defining issue for many people or not, it is a pretty major one. Much could be said of many issues. GRA reform IS a defining issue for some, but not for others. NATO membership, or the monarchy similarly are important for some, but not others.

    This is the weakest argument of all. Perhaps it shouldn’t be but we have to face cold reality. The international community take more note of a UK election than a Scottish one.

    I’m not sure that it’s axiomatic that the international community will be relatively less interested in a plebiscitary Holyrood election than it would be in a plebiscitary Westminster election. Indeed, I think you can make a counter argument that by focusing only on Scotland in a Holyrood vote, the international media would be MORE likely to devote resources, time, money, personnel and camera crews specifically to cover a Holyrood plebiscitary vote than they would be to cover the Scottish aspects of a general Westminster election.

  78. Republicofscotland says:

    Not that I give a flying f*ck about Nicolson, but as Chris says this is interesting.

    “Interesting that 28 SNP MPs failed to vote in favour of their own MP.”

    Also watch that treacherous turd Wishart kowtow to the Speaker of the House.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMcEleny/status/1597618394517622784?cxt=HHwWgMDSvePd8KssAAAA

  79. Republicofscotland says:

    Alba’s Neale Hanvey does something that Sturgeon the Judas and her treacherous SNP MSPs won’t do, and stands up for Scotland, here he schools a GB news dipshit.

    https://twitter.com/AlbaParty/status/1597549092317847554?cxt=HHwWhIDT7e2b0assAAAA

  80. Another_Ian_Blackford_Speech says:

    There are no arguments in favour of using WM election over HR. The careerist do-nothing SNP are now backed into a corner. There are no serious demerits to the above strategy, the Scot Gov could announce their intention to pursue this route if they wanted a long period of public debate a la 2012-14. The real kick in the teeth is that none of the work on prospectus’ of indepdence have been done, and instead of having a vision and a plan ready to promote here and now, there is fuck all. I think that’s moot though, the comments from the Supreme Court case that Scotland has no right to self determination is enough of a factor to get an election on the above terms over the line. The votes of EU citizens and young folk will be an important boon.

  81. stuart mctavish says:

    @Ross
    Apologies if link doesnt last but to get you up to speed on the day to day*

    Alyn Smith proposed sending China innefective vaccines @12:50
    David Davis expanded on last weeks pre prepared defamation @13:58
    Hoyle was absent by this time, leaving his deputy to deny Nicolson the right; to reply with a statement approved by the culture committee at centre of the handbaggery, to refer to the pathetic collusion between Holye and Davis to get to that point, or even to allow much in the way of intervention in his support, that particularly viscous section beginning @14:04
    Some quick witted wag intervened around 14:11 to get a laugh with a stop digging reference whilst another (a considerably more stupid one it would appear) intervened around 14 :14 to catch himself lying about the correspondence between Hoyle and Nicolson being stamped confidential

    Peter Bottomley stuck his oar in in defence of a change of rules, that nobody else seemed to have been aware of, occurring at some unspecified time during his tenure to encourage opacity for just this sort of occasion @14:20 and it didnt get any better from there.

    Hence the suggestion to bring them home pronto or, failing which, a serious request for severe reprimand from Holyrood (ie a vote sanctioning Westminster for its institutionalised bullying – where Mr Nicolson’s side of the stitch up can be heard in full – might be appropriate if my original suggestion is considered to be too unfair or self defeating)

    * https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/613cc8e8-0595-494b-833f-ea91023c2816

  82. Merganser says:

    Suffragette Colours.

    Had a pop-up advert from ‘Red Bubble’ for a throw blanket in Suffragette colours 60″ x 50″. It’s fabulous. Would make a great shawl to wear in certain public Gallerys. Seems they’re in America. If anyone sees you can buy them in Scotland or (holds nose) the UK I would love to know.

  83. ross says:

    @Andy

    Certainty of now/Chance of later
    The movement is a bin fire. We know this. We don’t know it would be a bin fire in 2 years time. I’d rather take the chance of improvement this time gives, than the certain failure of now.

    16 year olds
    I don’t understand what you’re not getting about the 16 year old point. We are talking about a DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME i.e. between now and 2024 therefore effectively a defined electorate. A Westminster vote in 2024 means the same 16 year olds in this defined period will be 18. You’re not gaining anything. They will be 18 in 2024. It’s therefore zero sum. In fact, 2024 has an advantage because there will be fewer old people. I don’t know how to explain this more clearly in the context of a defined period of time. If you are talking about ANY time in the future then you’re point would make sense. It’s not the case. Do you get it now?

    EU voters
    In other words, there is no evidence EU voters would provide a net lift for Yes. Please look through previous polling; they poll NO. They’ve just shifted a bit to Yes.

    International exposure
    Okay, I accept Holyrood would gain exposure. My point is the issues would get more international exposure in UK election. I think this is obvious but youre entitled to your opinion.

  84. ross says:

    16 year old point
    more clearly with example. 16 year old Lucy can vote in your holyrood election on Burns night next year 2023.

    18 year old Lucy can vote in the defacto referendum in 2024.

    So you’re not winning anything by going early within the defined period.

    Ironically, the only way you would gain anything is calling a Holyrood vote later than the UK election. But you’re all desperate for an early vote so that’s a non starter.

  85. Delight says:

    Funny it’s all here, where anyone can see, clear route to a plebiscite election and independence, yet it’s supposedly too tough for the SNP to grasp or pull off? If you’re pro-indy and you can’t see you’re being conned, then you’re pro-stupid too.

  86. Joe says:

    ross says:29 November, 2022 at 5:00 pm
    That’s not the current position Geri. It’s a defacto referendum that is being proposed. If that changes, i’ll be the first to criticise. I am no fan of many in the SNP and agree there are troughers there. I don’t think the article above even suggests that the current official plan is not a defacto ref. It’s the legislature and timing which is being questioned.
    ============================================================
    At least one person with Legal background disagrees with you.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nicola-sturgeon-s-plans-are-simply-nuts-says-her-former-law-professor/ar-AA14yQca?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2717902b20834c21a74ec6912f3530a0&fbclid=IwAR34vlHB8-lEL6ESl1ZB_Z71iGN0xGgfysf3PvcSggI7AErdNsWQBOQuXbQ

  87. Geri says:

    Ross 5pm

    She sent her minions out to clarify that a Plebiscite result would still need to be subject to WM approval. That’s not how Plebiscites work. Her version is to just rehash another mandate for another 5 yrs power & to maybees ask at some stage never.

    She did the exact same at the supreme court – telling them any referendum they may grant, & in the event Yes won, they can refuse to accept the result. So one big pointless exercise then & that utter stupidity has cost us time, money & further rulings we’re the only country in the whole wide world where *the right to self determination* doesn’t apply.

    She’s a Grade A weapon! She has zero interest in relinquishing her Murrell empire. Two years is a century in politics. She’d only use it flip flop & razzle dazzle flim flam flommox until the UK government bolts us into a new Act.

    She’s had her day. She squandered it & missed every single golden opportunity along the way. She is causing the division. She should’ve been forced to walk when she mishandled the complaints procedure where even scathing words from a judge didn’t wind her neck in & take stock.

    Sturgeon has her own language & interpretation of what repeated mandates mean. No better example of that than *vote SNP for Independence* to somehow translating that to mean *everybody loves Self-ID! I have a mandate!* Lolz

  88. Andy Ellis says:

    @ross

    Sheesh you’re hard work. I feel a Father Ted and Dougal meme coming on……

    Certainty of now/Chance of later

    Things could be worse later. Who knows? I’d rather take a punt on the near future than endure 2 more years only to have it fall over because we’re fighting the fight in the wrong arena. The economic situation might be worse in 2 years time. The global political situation might be worse. Neither of those will necessarily help the case for indy, and may make it harder if “soft No” voters take fright and opt for the cosy bromides of the status quo.

    16 year olds

    You’re the one that’s not getting it. The electorate for a Holyrood plebiscitary election includes 16 & 17 year olds. The electorate for a Westminster franchise excludes them. The date it happens is immaterial. The procession / succession of each cadre as they become eligible to vote is also irrelevant in terms of the debate, because we’re comparing 2 DIFFERENT franchises.

    EU voters

    It’s arguable. I doubt there’s definitive polling that is that current. I reckon things will have shifted given the recent omnishambles.

  89. Joe says:

    Liz says:29 November, 2022 at 5:02 pm
    Sorry but anything that pricks that pompous ass’s balloon is fine by me. Nicolson was nearly crying, poor me, the speaker doesn’t like me, boo hoo hoo.
    This is just him showing his true arrogant colours.
    He’s blocked everyone who dares to question his motives.
    I’m so sorry I caused a pile on, weep, weep.
    Why, he does it all the time to women.
    ———————————————
    Nicolson isn’t nicknamed the Peacock for nothing , its always all about “Him” , trying to mislead the public on another member of the House’s correspondence is well out of order and he knew very well what he was doing , sleekit is what sleekit does.

  90. twathater says:

    BTW I claim my prize Rev, ross is nicla the panic in her breesty is palpable either that or he is keich brown, great exposure as always rev now ALL we have to do is FORCE sturgeon tae fuckin dae it , ALBA and every other indy party should be using this post and the fanzine should publish it verbatim , all the other blog sites should be pushing it and REAL indy supporters should be pushing it on FB and Twatter

    HOW’S about a pro forma that everyone can download and sign demanding sturgeon do this , with a counter to collate downloads

  91. John Main says:

    @ross says:29 November, 2022 at 3:23 pm

    This 16 year old thing needs nipped in the bud.

    And the idea EU voters are actually a Yes demographic is debatable

    1000 times, yes!

    Adult Scots only to vote, but otherwise, I like the plan lots.

    [Don’t lets start off iScotland owing debts to a demographic fully sold on genderwoowoo. Don’t lets start off iScotland with the presumption that EU statelessness is the way of the future.

    In time, we will come to regret both. Meantime, we are gifting ammunition to those who will say “ah, but the vote is not a fair one, due to those who should never have been allowed to vote in the first place.

    Believe me, people will be saying that regardless of the result.]

  92. Shug says:

    Only Salmond has the balls to lead us. Nicola is a failure

  93. Dan says:

    Certainly lots of factors to weigh up with using the more open franchise, and how a wider voter base offers the powers that be more opportunities to use their numerous tools to exert influence towards a desired vote outcome.
    It’s almost like it should have had some in depth discussion and polling to thrash it out…

    There are many types of EU citizen here for various different reasons, they all still have freedom of movement though so have the safety net of being able to escape as and when they feel the need. No such luck for us Scots though.
    Some EU citizens are purely economic migrants, but with the pound weakening it may reach the point where they are reach parity with their homeland, or are better off elsewhere in the EU.
    I’d ask a few local EU folk what they think but they have either sold up and left, or have fled the Scottish winter to head to either warmer climates or cheaper leccy to heat more efficient and less damp housing.
    My experience with young EU citizens is that their priorities were more about the global environment issues and had very little clue about Scotland’s constitutional and political predicaments, or the complexity of voting systems.

    Regarding younger voters. I understood Wings highlighted polling in an article maybe a year back that showed it was the young ones that were 16 & 17 years old in 2014 that were strongly for YES, but that wasn’t the same for the current 16 & 17 year olds, though iirc the stats showed they were still slightly for YES.
    Maybe this is a result of Scotland’s poor birth rate and those younger ones were born into the more affluent or NuScots’ families that had a tendency to vote No.
    Possibly something Mia has touched on with regard to past census data.

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-last-ten-seconds-of-life/comment-page-1/#comment-2673159

  94. Andy Ellis says:

    @Joe

    I tink I see the problem here:

    Admitting that he and his fellow law professors “failed miserably in making our classes on democracy understood”, Mr Bonnington concluded: “I fear we must accept our failure to teach our student Nicola Sturgeon much about democracy.

    Someone who admits they were a second rate teacher who turned out third rate lawyers like Sturgeon probably isn’t the slam dunk legal source you think they are. 🙂

  95. robbo says:

    Aye, but Lucy is a yoon.

  96. John Main says:

    @Dave S says:29 November, 2022 at 5:20 pm

    would be gutting if we won the election but then lost the vote.

    The way I see it, the immediate election is giving Scots politicians the green light to prepare for Indy.

    Seriously prepare. Something they have not done up to now.

    The vote is for us to decide if what is on the table, when all questions have been considered and answered, is fit for purpose.

    There is a finite chance it won’t be, of course. If our politicians really are not up to running an iScotland, we might be wise not to drop them, and ourselves, in the deep doodoo.

    If our politicians intend to hand the entire problem off to Brussels, with multiple “key” posts abroad to be occupied by them at stupendous salaries, so that they can “fight our corner”, I won’t be voting for it.

  97. Big Jock says:

    They deliberately delayed the Section 30 court case. In order to get through the 2021 election, without having to use it as a referendum. That much is so obvious to anyone with half a brain.

    One more mandate….

  98. John Main says:

    @Dan says:29 November, 2022 at 6:25 pm

    Some EU citizens are purely economic migrants, but with the pound weakening

    Pound has been strengthening for a month now.

    Market stability, interest rate rises, energy price shocks, grown ups calling the shots, all baked in.

    Dare I say it, all that will change when NS resigns and Rev Stu’s plan kicks off. But we all know and accept that, right?

    We are all confident that the immediate market turmoil, pound plunging, mortgage rates rocketing, as realists wake up to the impact of Scotland’s departure from the UK, will have no effects on the plebiscitary election vote, right again?

  99. Republicofscotland says:

    “This 16 year old thing needs nipped in the bud.”

    I almost feel sorry for the Rev, having to continually spell it out to dumb f*cks over and over. He’s already explained that 16 and 17 year old’s are more inclined to vote for an independent Scotland than against. Yet we have the braindead in here proposing to stop them from voting in a snap Holyrood election.

  100. Scott says:

    Sorry* to piss on your cornflakes, but the conduct of elections must adhere to provisions of Scotland Act insofar as legislative competence of the Parliament.

    [Scotland Act 2016 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/part/1/crossheading/elections-etc/enacted ]

    ie Parties can promise what they want in their manifesto, but for ‘elected UDI’ to be lawful, it has to be backed by a law.

    The union between Scotland & England is not something Holyrood has power over unless the King & PC say otherwise.

    Petition the King.

    Petition the Court.

    Don’t petition politicians – they don’t represent you, only their Party [See 3 line Whip etc which is not working for the common good, it’s the opposite of that]

    Scotland’s status is a matter of law.

    *Not sorry.

  101. sarah says:

    @ Rev at 2.50: “there’s a print button …or save it as a PDF and email it to them..”

    Thank you, Rev. I will try some of that!

    Meanwhile I have some email replies to read from MSPs concerning the information I have given them about Scotland’s constitutional rights and the “how to trigger a Holyrood election” guidance. I hope they are quick learners…

  102. Dan says:

    John Main says: at 6:50 pm

    Pound has been strengthening for a month now.

    One lot sold up in summer, and the other family left a couple of months back.
    I’ll whatsapp them and tell them all is now great here in Scotland and the pound has been strengthening for a month. I’m sure they’ll be ecstatic and jump at the chance of returning and buying another overpriced Scottish home and burning tenners to try to heat it…

  103. Betsy says:

    The only flaw I can see with the above plan is the strong possibility of the SNP and the Greens somehow fucking it up in ways we can’t even imagine. Nevertheless, they should be put under relentless pressure to explain why they’re not adopting the above because on the evidence we’v e seen so far, they don’t have anything even approaching a credible plan.

  104. PacMan says:

    Al-Stuart says: 29 November, 2022 at 1:15 pm

    .

    Jeezo Stuart,

    Please don’t lead with a hound photo,

    I thought this was PayPal Paul at Wee Ginger Dug.

    Wee Ginger dug has a paw sticking out guilt shaming you into giving him money 🙂

  105. PacMan says:

    Liz says: 29 November, 2022 at 5:02 pm

    Sturgeon at the Zero tolerance event, M Wadhaw there also.
    A woman in the audience calling Sturgeon out, and she replies by talking about TIMS.

    They cancelled the on line debate because- they couldn’t ensure everyones ‘safety’.
    If words scare you, youre not fot to be in a position of authority.
    I swear they’re trying to stir people up.

    Shame she didn’t have a sermon on the mound moment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mound#Reception

    When Thatcher finished speaking, the Moderator, James Whyte, formally presented her with church reports on homelessness, poverty and social security, which was interpreted in the press as a polite rebuke. One of these, entitled Just Sharing: a Christian Approach to the Distribution of Wealth, Income and Benefits, advocated heavy taxation on the rich and a revived Beveridge Report for the poor.The house broke into both laughter and applause as Whyte read out the titles of the reports

  106. Joe says:

    Republicofscotland says:29 November, 2022 at 6:55 pm
    “This 16 year old thing needs nipped in the bud.”

    I almost feel sorry for the Rev, having to continually spell it out to dumb f*cks over and over. He’s already explained that 16 and 17 year old’s are more inclined to vote for an independent Scotland than against. Yet we have the braindead in here proposing to stop them from voting in a snap Holyrood election.
    —————————————————————
    Well, explain why then ? https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13181487.full-indyref-survey-reveals-young-voters-voted-no-25-39-age-group-said-yes/

  107. Dan says:

    Joe’s 7:08 pm direct link to 2014 Herald article archived.

    https://archive.ph/ZRqch

  108. Rab Davis says:

    Rev

    What’s the chances of you arranging a one to one interview with our great leader Nicola Sturgeon?

    Live stream the Interview for all to see.

    Put all the above to her and let her explain her reasons for not going ahead with your proposals.

    Would be rivetting viewing.

    Interview could be carried out at her place (Bute House),,,so not even any travelling involved for her.

    Worth asking her, is it not?

    Would be up there with the Nixon-Frost interview.

  109. SaorsaCat says:

    I think Ross, could be Angus McNeil. I originally thought it was Nicola but, mmmm no sure! Definitely an SNPer

  110. PacMan says:

    Vivian O’Blivion says: 29 November, 2022 at 2:14 pm

    All msm attention at the next Westminster election will be caught up in the impending “Starmageddon”.
    Scottish constitutional debate will be denied oxygen.
    The Labour manifesto will promise “radical constitutional change” including abolition of the House of Lords (which they first promised in their 1910 manifesto!).

    Herein lies the problem.

    The SNP are all over the place in the aftermath of the SC ruling. They seem to be driven by the rhetoric of opposition politicians, the media and even Police Scotland with their cries of rioting in the street (nothing like whipping up fear to get more money to attempt to fill the impending financial black hole they area facing).

    Labour just needs to sit back, say a few encouraging things about strengthening devolution and if the current chaotic response of the SNP is anything to go by, they will soak up the votes up here and possibly take quite a few seats from the SNP.

    Would this actually happen in the event of the next UK election? Lets be honest, Labour with a fresh set of faces are more believable in what the they than the SNP will ever be who look tired and as I have said lost direction.

  111. Joe says:

    Andy Ellis says:29 November, 2022 at 6:27 pm
    I think I see the problem here:

    Someone who admits they were a second rate teacher who turned out third rate lawyers like Sturgeon probably isn’t the slam dunk legal source you think they are. ?
    ————————————————————-Admitting He and “others” couldn’t teach Sturgeon doesn’t prove himself a personal failure unless none of other Students He and the rest of his team taught couldn’t understand Democracy either , do we know if he taught say Dorothy Bain or not too ? Not like you not to think things through so poorly Andy. Dot Bain Seems to have been extremely successful in Her Career.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Bain

  112. Geri says:

    2014

    We were in the EU.
    Young ppl probably fell for the last gasp Devo max trick.
    Stay & have the best of both worlds & all that ting.

    Now they’re out of the EU permanently & with that thier wings have been clipped.

  113. Republicofscotland says:

    “Well, explain why then ?”

    Firstly Joe if your going to put a link up try and make sure we can access it, to read it.

    Secondly and more importantly.

    From the ultra unionist state broadcaster, which you CAN read.

    “A survey, commissioned by Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft, said 71% of 16 to 17-year-olds voted for Scotland to be independent and 29% voted against.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-29279384

  114. Dan says:

    Hey Joe, for such a high end stats guy your post look like you typed them and sent them from a tattie.

  115. Republicofscotland says:

    Dan @7.12pm.

    Thanks for the link Dan.

  116. ross says:

    @Andy

    okay last try,,, Assuming you are talking about having a referendum between now and 2024, it is the same cohort of 16 year olds being asked to participate either early or later. I do not understand how you can not understand this.

    If you are considering a vote after 2024, then the issue of the franchise does have an impact. However, as it is 2 years away and 18 minus 16 is 2, it’s impact is negligible. Even Dougal might be able to do that sum.

    Are you unable to engage with this logic? I know it’s a different franchise! that’s missing the point.

  117. ross says:

    @Joe

    what a way to miss the point hahah. I presume arithmetic isn’t your strong point.

    It’s amazing how some get angry on here when it’s simply a debate.

  118. Geri says:

    Dot Bain seems to think Sovereign scots relinquished thier sovereignty on signing the treaty. Weird that, after her King just swore an oath to the contrary less than a month before.

    I wouldn’t place her as a model student. Nor the teacher crawing about democracy. We’ve tried that method. Where was he then to bleat about democracy?

  119. ross says:

    @republicofscotland

    “This 16 year old thing needs nipped in the bud.”

    I almost feel sorry for the Rev, having to continually spell it out to dumb f*cks over and over. He’s already explained that 16 and 17 year old’s are more inclined to vote for an independent Scotland than against. Yet we have the braindead in here proposing to stop them from voting in a snap Holyrood election

    ehhhh…

    tell me where i’ve proposed this? You call other people thick yet cannot understand basic logic of two franchises, two years apart. hilarious.

  120. Republicofscotland says:

    “tell me where i’ve proposed this?”

    Ross.

    Where did I mention your name? a bit paranoid are we.

  121. ross says:

    @stuartmctavish

    I don’t mean it in a bad way but next to nobody really cares about stuff like the speaker having a hissy fit at a minor issue.

    The SNP bods have flaws but the proposal is a defacto ref in 2024. We either get behind it or we lose independence possibly forever. Even a win doesnt really gaurantee us anything, truth be told. I sincerely hope bridgebuilding occurs in the next few months. it’s the only hope we have.

  122. Andy Ellis says:

    @Joe

    Those who can, do.
    Those who can’t, teach.
    Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.

    Seriously however, as I’ve been endeavouring to point out to some of the “cunning plan” snake oil vendors in here, if they’re really going to try and stand up a case for moving public opinion away from referendums and plebiscitary elections you need to show that you have at least some credible subject matter experts on side.

    Of course one swallow doesn’t make a summer, but it does seem passing strange that none of these cunning plans ever seem to attract any appreciable support from respected figures, or have any academic hinterland or peer reviewed articles in journals backing up their hot takes on how independence will arrive via petition, Convention, or clicking our heels together while reciting the Claim of Right backwards or whatever the latest wizard wheeze is.

  123. ross says:

    @republicsofscotland

    it’s my quote you’re using, you loon haha. Who else are you insulting? You’ve just managed to miss the logical point entirely but all to the good.

  124. Dan says:

    Ach, I’m minded of a tune…

    Time Stands Still – Rush

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMSFqXGZ5TQ

  125. Republicofscotland says:

    “The SNP bods have flaws”

    Ross.

    F*ck me that’s the under statement of the year, they’re a bunch of treacherous backstabbing b*stards that have strung along the indy masses for years. They’ve magically disappeared the 600K, aided and abetted in the prosecution of indy bloggers and attempted to fit up a real indy ex-FM, and this is just the tip of one huge iceberg of BS from the Judas Sturgeon and her spineless and gutless MSPs.

  126. 100%Yes says:

    I thank Salvo and all those involved. I hear what you’re saying and I agree and support it 100% but!

    People you have to forget about the actual parties who call themselves unionist simply because we already have them defeated, the problem is SNP and its leader. Nicola Sturgeon isn’t waiting 6 months to try and pull the wool over the UKG eyes, simply because Sara and people working in Salvo have already defeated the UK’s right to class Scotland as Scotlandshire.

    I can’t enforce enough how important it is to waken up to Sturgeon and the NUSNP. This woman is waiting 6 months to be able to deny Alba, ISP and every other organisation that wants to see Scottish Independence any voice or involving in the up coming plebiscite for Westminster. Then she’ll be able to kill Independence dead for good.
    The biggest threat to Scotland isn’t Westminster, PM, England’s MPs, the Royals, the Supreme court or any other Unionist organization you can think of. The most dangerous person in Scotland is the woman we have running the charge for Independence, Nicola Sturgeon. She is the dam holding back the water for the Union. She’s big on saying every two minutes “DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE DENIED” but she’s the one that is denying democracy. Sturgeon never utters the words, claim of right, why is that? She’ll hold a conference in 6 months or more, where she’ll rig it to deny any other political party’s involvement in the plebiscite election, other than the SNP, and its’ll be done in a way to ensure that the up and coming plebiscite will fail. Then Sturgeon and the UKG will be able and will say, Scotland has had its democracy and once again the people have chosen to remain in the UK. Trust me this will be the end of the Independence cause for a generation. she’ll see to that.

    Sturgeon has been denying our right to be Independent from the UK since taking over from AS and just because of the Supreme court ruling In my opinion Sturgeon got the result she wanted and she going to use it to deny us ever being Independent, she using Keith Brown but to what end.

    Starling said its not people who vote that counts, its the people who count the votes.

  127. Republicofscotland says:

    “it’s my quote you’re using, you loon haha”

    Ross.

    Yes it is (and I’m the loon) how and ever others have replied to it, if you care to check, maybe that’s where it’s aimed at.

  128. stuart mctavish says:

    Ross @7:48

    Its a lot worse than the speaker taking a hissy fit.

    So much so I’d be inclined to disagree that SNP can dissolve Holyrood until such time as suitable retribution has been assured.

    That could be as simple as SNP forwarding a motion of solidarity with their MP, or better yet a cross party motion of censure against all who conspired to speak against him.

    If they wanted to really match the example set by Westminster they could even go so far as agreeing to randomly suspend unionists on a tit for tat basis until enough MPs/MSPs are evicted from the respective parliaments as to provide that 2/3 majority without needing to convince FM to resign at all.

  129. Izzie says:

    Do you really think that the Westminster government will sit back and allow this to happen. They could for example set a goal of 80per cent for. They could rush legislation through Parliament the Tories won’t have to relay on their majority for this one

  130. Geoff Anderson says:

    I’m in tears reading all the theories on here. It is bloody obvious we will win elections be it WM or Holyrood. It is a certainty we will not win 50% at a WM election and it would be just possible at a Holyrood election.

    BUT

    Sturgeon is going for Westminster so we are fucked.

  131. Ross says:

    @geoff

    If we can’t get pro-indy parties can’t get over 50% at WM we don’t deserve to be independent. The people don’t want to be Indy, sad but true.

  132. Geoff Anderson says:

    Ross

    My wife and daughter are big Indy supporters but they will not vote for Indy while Sturgeon is out to destroy Women’s Rights and I don’t blame them. I think Sturgeons TransCult madness will be a factor.

  133. Ross says:

    Well that’s upto them. Not sure what odds that makes to the question of HR v WM.

    If anything it’s HR where domestic policy should be judged.

    Also there’s every chance votes for all Indy parties will be counted.

  134. McDuff says:

    Rev you have spelled it out and exposed the SNP for what they are.
    Is there not a danger though in winning a GE and Scotland rescinds the Treaty of Union but then bows to a request from UK to hold a referendum. I can just imagine in the intervening 3 months the MSM and Westminster throwing every scare and horror story at a wobbly Scottish public with an intensity never seen before and thus the risk of losing a referendum after winning the GE. ?

  135. Geri says:

    Scott 6:55pm

    That’s what I suspect & that councils & returning officers would be instructed not to play ball by WM.

    The Supreme court ruling needs challenged. Otherwise it will be yet another myth that suddenly becomes law eternal. Forever & ever.

  136. Andy Ellis says:

    @Geoff

    Why are you so convinced we can’t win 50% at Westminster?

    I’d admit it’s not an easy task and I’d advocate for Holyrood as a plebiscite election any day, but given the SNP got 49.9% in 2015 and the Scottish Greens 1.35% it’s hardly outlandish to think that we could achieve higher after all that has happened since. The Scottish turnout in 2015 was 71%, compared with low 80’s % for indyref1.

  137. Pipinghot says:

    Ross, I think a good way of healing the indy movement would be to have words with your friend Nicola and tell her that she is the problem and time to go.

  138. Geri says:

    Hark at Tories demanding £600,000 be returned.

    How can they keep a straight face after thier £100 billion cash giveaway to thier Tory mates?

  139. Mark Smith says:

    You call people thickos for not accepting your plan as the way forward. But how does declaring the election to be a plebiscitary one make it so? It is a term with no legal force and there is no mechanism whereby the result of said election can be lawfully declared to have this supposed effect. Not only that, but what does this wonder plan do when the UK Government refuses to accept that Scotland is an independent country? Going to the UN is a fool’s errand and this so called plan is every bit as pie in the sky as Sturgeon’s.

    Anyone who thinks that 50% plus 1 vote is a reasonable basis to declare independence is delusional.

    And the elephant in the room with this cunning plan is the people – a majority do not want independence and will vote accordingly. So your plan guarantees defeat forthwith and the end of the campaign.

  140. Thomas Potter says:

    Great article again Rev.
    As you said the SNP and the Great Leader seem as usual trying to kick the Indy can down the road eternally.
    I’ve just joined a group called liberation.scot set up by Siobhan Blaschek.
    Her idea is to get the International Court to look at the theft of Scotlands resources as a criminal act and because WM are the Colonial oppressors ANY of their Supreme Court judgements can be ignored.
    Please check it out asap.
    If it’s a goer it’s a hell of a game changer which bypasses WM and indeed ALL politicians.
    Best regards

    Thomas Potter

  141. Scott says:

    Andy Ellis says:
    29 November, 2022 at 9:15 pm

    @Geoff

    Why are you so convinced we can’t win 50% at Westminster?

    I’d admit it’s not an easy task and I’d advocate for Holyrood as a plebiscite election any day,

    You can advocate until the coos come home, Andy, but the Scotland Act 2016 expressly states that the conduct of elections to the Scottish Parliament must fall within the legislative competence of the Parliament itself. Without approval of the King & Privy Council, the union between Scotland & England remains outwith the lawmaking powers of Holyrood at any level.

    4 Power to make provision about elections

    (1)For sections 12 and 12A of the Scotland Act 1998 (power of Scottish Ministers and Secretary of State to make provision about elections) substitute—

    12 Power of the Scottish Ministers to make provision about elections

    (1)The Scottish Ministers may by order make any provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament, if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, as to—

    (a)the conduct of elections for membership of the Parliament,

    (b)the questioning of such an election and the consequences of irregularities, and

    (c)the return of members of the Parliament otherwise than at an election.

    (2)…”

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/part/1/crossheading/elections-etc/enacted

    Plebiscitary elections for Holyrood will have no legal effect, as there’s no provision in domestic law for them.

    What part of the process is so difficult to understand here? Your vote does not decide who the Scottish Ministers are or matter beyond its sole purpose, which is to elect individual members only. Scottish Government derives its mandate from the chamber, not the electorate. We don’t elect the players to office at any stage. Manifestos aren’t contracts – they don’t bind.

    That’s the law as it stands.

    And Scotland’s status is a matter of law – and the law in dispute is Union with England Act 1707, and no other.

    Now get to your bed Andy or the birthday fairy won’t come through the keyhole.

  142. Merganser says:

    Geri ‘ 6.16 and 6.39

    Thanks for the link to the Suffragette Tartans which are very good. The throw I have seen is more dramatic -three plain bands of green, white and purple 5 feet long by four feet two inches wide. Sorry I can’t work out how to provide a link.

    Your comment about sending her minions out has also intrigued me for some time. It started with Mhairi Hunter a few months ago, and was re-enforced by Toni Giugliano a few days ago. Being suspicious, it crossed my mind that something had gone on between Westminster and Sturgeon, along the lines of:

    ‘Water down the effect of what a win means to make it the same as you said it would be in the court case, and go ahead with your plebiscitary election’

    That would be a win win for both sides whatever the result, namely:

    A yes vote gets Sturgeon off the hook and back in power because she’ll claim victory and she has fulfilled her promise; whilst Westminster says it doesn’t mean anything. Cue begging bowl, and blaming Westminster for all Scotland’s problems.

    A no vote suits Sturgeon even more. She and her pals are back in power and don’t have to do any hard thinking about what to do next. Cue blaming the people, 5 more years troughing for Sturgeon and pals, or an honourable way out for her – she had done what she promised and had been let down by the voters

    Such a no risk strategy suits both sides.

    It looks like Sturgeon is teeing it up to lose by the lack of action or urgency, and choice of election, indication of what is needed and what it would mean et.c, but she is hedging her bets against the possibility of an unlikely win.

    Westminster can’t afford to lose a meaningful vote. Sturgeon can’t afford to win one, because that means having to do some hard work and having no-one to blame for failure which she always needs.

    This would explain the ‘ no need for urgency’ approach by the SNP. Whatever they do won’t make a blind bit of difference.

  143. George Ferguson says:

    @Mark Smith 9:30pm
    True to a certain extent but not the whole truth. Anybody who thinks 50% plus 1 vote in favour of the Union is also delusional. We have a Scot Gov that couldn’t run a village hall fayre. Meanwhile hundreds of millions wasted on eccentric projects and we have a special request for foodbank contributions. And that is just for early December. We bought stuff today to fill the gaps that the food bank requested. Tinned potatoes and tinned fruit? But I have no idea how to contribute to the Christmas gap? Maybe Mone will give back the 29 million?.

  144. Ebok says:

    I realise that the SC ruling has been the focus of attention recently, and Independence is our no1 priority, but another surge in energy prices is just over 4 weeks away.

    The above average temperatures over the past two months have been a blessing for low-income families. That, and a sixty-seven quid per month energy rebate has postponed the inevitable, but there has been no rebate to ease the 11% hike in prices, and with temperatures sure to plummet soon, the crisis has merely been delayed.

    In January, the cost of energy is expected to rise by a further 54%, at the coldest time of the year. While the price cap, as I understand it, has been announced, worryingly the unit cost and standing charges has not.

    Usage of £200 per month now, minus the rebate is £133 net.
    January’s increase, if 54%, takes it to £308; minus the rebate = £241 net. So, the whole of the increase will be on the gross figure of £200, not the net of £133.

    The consequence of this rise, and an increase in heating costs from Dec -April, is that net bills will nearly double in the New Year, with further increases set for April 2023.

    And when the north wind blows and it becomes bitterly cold, these increases will be simply unaffordable for many. The elderly, the poorest, and the very young will be most at risk of course, but this ruthless attack on living standards is just about to unleash its full fury and will go a fair bit up the income scale, particularly on working families just above the working tax credit threshold.

    It is truly mindboggling that citizens queuing in foodbanks are somehow expected to ‘find’ over £100 per month, while Scotadmin focus next month is on kicking cans and GRR.

    This energy watershed is likely to have more impact on docile electors than anything they hear from HR or MSM, or read on tweets, blogs, or leaflets, and any anger that has been expressed so far will surely pale into insignificance of what is to come.

  145. Skip_NC says:

    Geoff Anderson, in an independent Scotland, the constitutional issue takes a back seat. With luck it’ll even get locked up in the boot. So, in an independent Scotland, your wife & daughter (and you) get to vote for whomever best represents their views.

    Heck, in an independent Scotland, the Tories might even win power and put a stop to this gender nonsense. That might be unpalatable, but I trust you see my point.

  146. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    Given some of the responses in this thread, it seems safe to say that the best way to get rich in Scotland over the next few years will be to become a carrot farmer.

  147. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Plebiscitary elections for Holyrood will have no legal effect, as there’s no provision in domestic law for them.”

    What on Earth are you wittering about? Did you have a point? Would you like to share it with us?

  148. Hatuey says:

    Mark Smith: “It is a term with no legal force and there is no mechanism whereby the result of said election can be lawfully declared to have this supposed effect.”

    Listen, kiddo, if there’s 10 people in a room and 7 of them decide they’re going to manage the room themselves instead of leaving it to the wanker next door, there’s not an argument on earth that can beat them.

    Go get a nap and see if it helps.

  149. Scott says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    29 November, 2022 at 10:08 pm

    “Plebiscitary elections for Holyrood will have no legal effect, as there’s no provision in domestic law for them.”

    What on Earth are you wittering about? Did you have a point? Would you like to share it with us?

    Read the Scotland Act 2016 – the bit about conduct of elections adhering to the legislative competence of Parliament itself.

    Without on Order in Council via King & Privy Council, the union between Scotland & England remains reserved to Westminster. This is a matter of law, not politics. ‘Scotland Act’ is the law in question. Laws have specific purposes and effects. There is no mechanism within Scotland Act that allows for independene to be the outcome.

    Then we come to how the Scottish Ministers come into being – only the chamber has any say here. We only vote for individual members, not for Government. Any mandate for legislation comes from within the chamber only, not the electorate. Political sophistry doesn’t trump what the law actually states. Nowhere in the Scotland Act is there provision for most seats or votes meaning mandate for Government or anything else beyond the election of individual members.

    yw,hth

  150. Joe says:

    Andy Ellis says:29 November, 2022 at 7:50 pm
    @Joe

    Those who can, do.
    Those who can’t, teach.
    Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.

    Seriously however, as I’ve been endeavouring to point out to some of the “cunning plan” snake oil vendors in here, if they’re really going to try and stand up a case for moving public opinion away from referendums and plebiscitary elections you need to show that you have at least some credible subject matter experts on side.

    Of course one swallow doesn’t make a summer, but it does seem passing strange that none of these cunning plans ever seem to attract any appreciable support from respected figures, or have any academic hinterland or peer reviewed articles in journals backing up their hot takes on how independence will arrive via petition, Convention, or clicking our heels together while reciting the Claim of Right backwards or whatever the latest wizard wheeze is.
    ===============================================================
    Bonnington was a professor in law at Glasgow Uni i beleive , hardly the level of “teacher” and there aren’t exactly lines of people queuing up to say he doesn’t understand what he is talking about, if that were the case i’d think the likes of Roddy Dunlop would be quick enough to say it.
    I don’t get involved with those who pursue claim of right and think they are still living in the mid 1600’s or any of the other new fads replace the old ones that got nowhere, it would be like trying to hold a discussion with a Mackerel with most of those involved with them anyway.

  151. ScottieDog says:

    The perfect litmus test for those MPs, MSPs who claim they are pro-independence. Forget the FM.

  152. Geri says:

    Stu,

    My concerns

    1. If shenanigans ensue regards voting a new FM – WM could step in & appoint a FM for us instead?

    2. If we’re holding a Plebiscite election on your manifesto WM could instruct councils to boycott the event because due to SC ruling it’s now deemed unlawful to hold refs on constitutional matters? Police Scotland Wade’s in, just as they were instructed by Mayhem to *uphold the rule of law*

    I’m up for your route but my concern is it won’t even get that far?

  153. Ruby says:

    This sounds like a good plan but SNP say ‘now is not the time.’

  154. Geri says:

    Merganser
    Have you thought about a suffragette flag? It’d be the size but you could hem it if it has brass eyelets?

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/122465226119

    Re Sturgeon, I don’t think WM give her much thought. They’ve always stated the Secretary of State for Scotland is top dawg – they deal with him direct.
    Tho I’ve no doubt they’ve something on her to keep her in check. Something huge like AS that would leave her career in tatters that she’d never recover from. She’s always been a baby step gradualist & has zero forward thinking & strategy & why she’s always outfoxed. I think she went to the SC to try outdo Alex out of spite & lost.
    Regards her minions, I think, just like BoJo did, they send out an eejit to test public reaction to thier latest half arsed idea. If public say yay – it’s good to go. If it’s GYTF it’s a group hug for the messenger lost in action & a rethink over some vegan pastries. LOLZ..

  155. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “1. If shenanigans ensue regards voting a new FM – WM could step in & appoint a FM for us instead?”

    Technically they can do anything, including abolishing the entire Parliament with the stroke of a pen and returning Scotland to direct Westminster rule. But if they impose an FM, what then? That FM still can’t form a government or survive a confidence vote. It’d be politically insane.

    “2. If we’re holding a Plebiscite election on your manifesto WM could instruct councils to boycott the event because due to SC ruling it’s now deemed unlawful to hold refs on constitutional matters?”

    No. Parties can put whatever they want in their manifestos.

  156. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Without on Order in Council via King & Privy Council, the union between Scotland & England remains reserved to Westminster. This is a matter of law, not politics. ‘Scotland Act’ is the law in question. Laws have specific purposes and effects. There is no mechanism within Scotland Act that allows for independene to be the outcome.”

    Nobody’s suggesting there is. The vote only provides measurable empirical evidence supporting the declaration of independence.

  157. Scott says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    29 November, 2022 at 11:46 pm

    “Without on Order in Council via King & Privy Council, the union between Scotland & England remains reserved to Westminster. This is a matter of law, not politics. ‘Scotland Act’ is the law in question. Laws have specific purposes and effects. There is no mechanism within Scotland Act that allows for independene to be the outcome.”

    Nobody’s suggesting there is. The vote only provides measurable empirical evidence supporting the declaration of independence.

    I’ll say this again.

    We only elect individual members to the Scottish Parliament, the sole purpose of elections, and the elections themselves have to be conducted within the legislative competence of the Parliament. The union isn’t as it stands, so even if 100% voted for individuals in favour of independence it would have fuck-all legal effect. Zilch. Hee-haw. Nada. All the nones.

    Manifestos aren’t legally binding or a mandate for anything. The Scottish Ministers derive their mandate to govern only from the chamber that elects them, not the electorate itself. The chamber elects the real players, not the electorate at any stage. Saying otherwise is akin to promoting Stonewall law ie what you want it to say.

    And finally,

    Scotland’s status is a matter of law governed only by Union with England Act 1707.

    That’s where the focus should be and only there.

    yw,hth

  158. Buck Stradler says:

    But would you win a general election under the circumstances you describe?

    I doubt it.

  159. Geri says:

    Sturgeon telt!
    Well done that lady. Truth in the face of a room full of Stepford wives.
    Someone’s head will roll she got past Sturgeons enforcers.

  160. Robert Hughes says:

    @ Robbo

    The Sturge so horrified to be challenged – and no doubt her inner rage flickering on **INCANDESCENT** a dissident managed to breach security – to even blink : that must be a first .

    Instead – praise where due n’all – she gave a quite brilliant impersonation of a plank of wood caught in headlights .

    Ah , there she was ready for another round of nourishing idolatry from a hand-picked selection of nice obedient females : the time was right , her magic filled the room her hair so red and suit so blue ……..

    And then a WOMAN spoiled it all by saying something truthful like

    ” WE SEE YOU ” .

    Big applause to that person . That took guts- and was long overdue . Brilliant

    It really does appear it’s all starting to unravel for the Fraud of Bute House . And this is before the MSM unleash the hounds . She’d be advised to cut n run while she ( maybe ) still has a chance . It’s getting dark out there

  161. Wally Jumblatt says:

    51% won’t cut it. You need 2/3.
    The only way you get 2/3 of the people voting for independence, is if they see a competent, effective & successful Scottish government.
    Everyone, including the diehards, can see the Sturgeon administration is worse than incompetent.
    And it will only get worse.
    Sturgeon’s only tactic is to wail at the ‘injustice’ -and she’s not the type of weeping maiden who attracts much sympathy.

    Step 1, get rid of all the dead wood and placement sycophants and form a government with talented people.
    Step 2, everything will fall into place.

  162. Karen says:

    At least we would get 2 bites at the cherry, 3 including salvo. Hell, put a sunset clause in – “We will give the Scottish people a referendum to rejoin fUK in 10 years time” ha ha.

    Enough pussy-footing and playing by the rules, attack on all fronts. And boo Nicla whoever possible – childish but satisfying and effective.

  163. Andy Ellis says:

    @Wally Jumblatt

    No, we don’t need 2/3. There is virtually no precedent for a super majority requirement in self determination votes. The Montenegrin vote had a requirement of a minimum 55% vote in favour of independence, but none of the other recent ones I’ve looked at have.

    However incompetent and captured by TRA activism the current baleful Scottish government is, they can hardly be judged by any reasonable observer as objectively worse than any recent UK administration, which are usually elected on around a third to 40% of the vote if they’re lucky.

    We can’t afford to wait decades hoping the SNP can be reinvented or for the membership to grow a pair and get rid of Sturgeon and her acolytes. It is for the movement as a whole to bring independence about.

    Of course it’d be great to think Scots had the self confidence to vote for their independence in the numbers Norwegians did in 1905, but in the end no true democrat could or should be proposing super majority hurdles. 52% was enough for brexit, and 55% for No in 2014.

    Close results are part of democracy, and deciding which results you abide by isn’t a pick and mix buffet.

  164. Andy Ellis says:

    @robbo

    I hope that Sturgeon faces this everywhere she goes. More power to the elbow of the brave woman who did this: I hope many more will take her lead and that every time Sturgeon shows her face in public or makes a speech she gets called to account. It’s the only way she and the TRA and extremists are going to be faced down.

  165. Midge says:

    Is the claiming that the GE is a defacto referendum a way of spending or planning to claim to have spent the £600K on that election if it is branded as a ref?

    The problem with the above plan from Rev is if the international community are interested after a GE win then Westminster will take up the S30 referendum offer and I fear chuck enough at it to win 51v49

  166. stuart mctavish says:

    Rev Stuart Campbell @ 11:46 pm, Scott @12:08 am

    Privy council eh ?
    Begs question as to who Scotland’s equivalent of Janice Charette (the Canadian lady Trudeau claims told him to invoke emergency measures act against truckers in respect of allegations of mischief) might be and what hand they played in the Salmond affair (it being inconceivable for anyone like janice to remain silent on such matters)..

    mischief reference*
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKnUDyXLlac&t=10220s

    Janice testimony
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_j8xou3rq0&t=30360s

    *NB Get well/ stay well Gabriel Poliquin, the senior council for the commission who collapsed soon after beginning lead evidence from deputy solicitor general Mario Di Tommasso

  167. Iain Forbes says:

    In ‘Step 1’ outlined above, you include only paragraph 5 of Rule 11.10 of the ‘Standing Orders’.

    Paragraph 5 only refers to the situation where there is ONE candidate. Paragraphs 7 and 8 refer to the situation where more than one candidate stands. If only one candidate stands, then paragraph 5 is used with votes ‘against’ counted along with votes ‘for'(and abstentions) BUT crucially, if TWO or more candidates stand (i.e. Tory, Labour and Lib Dem candidates could all stand), under paragraphs 7 and 8, it’s votes ‘FOR’ that count and a simple majority suffices. Abstentions are simple used to ensure that the minimum threshold of 25% of members voting is reached in these situations.

    Votes ‘against’ are not counted when two or more candidates stand. So if the unionists put up two candidates they can elect the FM – although of course this would be ultimately unworkable, but it is extremely important to get the facts right. So please revisit the rules yourself and amend the post if I am correct on this.

    If the unionists elected as FM, as I understand is possible under the Standing Orders, but could not form a workable government then we enter the same territory as the NI Assembly, with Holyrood potentially being suspended by Westminster, holding what they would think would be all the cards and with the unionists and the unionist media blaming the SNP / Greens for the ensuing chaos.

    However – this may well backfire on them if we had direct rule of the SG from Tories at Westminster – which most sensible Scots would deeply resent. This situation may therefore in itself be a legitimate tactic to galvanise a ‘Yes’ majority at an ensuing GE ‘de facto’ referendum.

  168. Andy says:

    Scott: We only elect individual members to the Scottish Parliament, the sole purpose of elections, and the elections themselves have to be conducted within the legislative competence of the Parliament. The union isn’t as it stands, so even if 100% voted for individuals in favour of independence it would have fuck-all legal effect. Zilch. Hee-haw. Nada. All the nones.

    But it doesn’t have to have “legal effect”. Did you not listen to what Lord Reed said? Here:

    Lord Reed: “Secondly, he submits that nothing in the Scotland Act, which is the only relevant statutory scheme on this reference, breaches the right to self-determination. . .

    Fourthly, as to the effect of the Bill, although the referendum would not be selfexecuting – that is to say, a majority vote in favour of independence would not automatically result in legal change to give effect to that outcome – its practical effect
    would be politically significant. A “yes” vote would, in the Lord Advocate’s submission, support the Scottish Government’s case for negotiating independence with the United Kingdom Government, and would place political pressure on the United Kingdom Government and Parliament to respect the result by agreeing to independence for Scotland. It would be difficult for the United Kingdom Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion. . .”

  169. Imbecile Heureux says:

    The flaw, as I see it, is that the thought that the international community will recognise a UDI – however strong the democratic mandate – is just magical thinking. All states have extremely strong interests in protecting a very robust principle of territorial integrity.

    If Scotland declares independence unilaterally, we have to be prepared to be completely isolated internationally (apart from a few rogue states whose recognition is likely to do more harm than good), with a government that is unrecognised by the vast majority of our trading partners. Perhaps that is the best way forward; but we have to confront it frankly, and it’s not going to be an easy argument to make.

  170. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The flaw, as I see it, is that the thought that the international community will recognise a UDI – however strong the democratic mandate – is just magical thinking. All states have extremely strong interests in protecting a very robust principle of territorial integrity.”

    And yet it’s what they’ve repeatedly done. It’s all about the circumstances. UDI was a terrible idea before every other route had been exhausted. But every other route HAS now been exhausted, and we’re not really talking about UDI in the traditional sense anyway. We’re talking about doing it after a clear and measurable democratic vote.

  171. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “BUT crucially, if TWO or more candidates stand (i.e. Tory, Labour and Lib Dem candidates could all stand), under paragraphs 7 and 8, it’s votes ‘FOR’ that count and a simple majority suffices. Abstentions are simple used to ensure that the minimum threshold of 25% of members voting is reached in these situations.”

    Fucksake, I get tired repeating myself. We already dealt extensively with that point. If that interpretation of the rules is correct – and it’s highly questionable that it is – there are two other options.

  172. Scott says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    1 December, 2022 at 1:53 pm

    “BUT crucially, if TWO or more candidates stand (i.e. Tory, Labour and Lib Dem candidates could all stand), under paragraphs 7 and 8, it’s votes ‘FOR’ that count and a simple majority suffices. Abstentions are simple used to ensure that the minimum threshold of 25% of members voting is reached in these situations.”

    Fucksake, I get tired repeating myself. We already dealt extensively with that point. If that interpretation of the rules is correct – and it’s highly questionable that it is – there are two other options.

    You haven’t addressed the fact that elections to the Scottish Parliament only serve a single purpose, which is to elect individual members, and the conduct of them must be within the legislative competence of the Parliament itself.

    Elections to Holyrood cannot be repurposed to mean something they don’t without a change to the Scotland Act.

    As it stands the ‘de-facto referendum’ will not happen because it cannot happen.

    The Scottish Ministers only derive their mandate from the chamber, not the electorate at large – because FM et al are ONLY CHOSEN BY THE CHAMBER.

    You’ve really backed the wrong horse in this debate.



Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top