Less Equal Than Others
On Tuesday 16th January the UK parliament put beyond doubt that their claims down the centuries that the UK is a respectful union of equals is, and always was, a lie.
This was the second time I’d brought my Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill before the house and there are various opinions floating around about the reasons for, and implications of, introducing the legislation as drafted. Wings kindly suggested I set out my reasons for bringing it forward for a second time, and why I consider Tuesday’s defeat in the chamber as a Pyrrhic victory for the union.
Private Members Bills are a parliamentary device that backbench members use to highlight a key issue that they have been campaigning for, or to bring forward a legislative remedy to a topical issue. As a determined independence campaigner I’ve tried to use every available parliamentary device, adjournment debate, Westminster Hall debate and Early Day Motion to make the case for independence, as has my Alba Party colleague Kenny MacAskill MP.
Whist we are formally addressing the UK Government in these initiatives, we are ostensibly speaking to the people of Scotland to communicate what is possible and necessary to keep the cause of independence alive, and to provide a clear signal that strategy, progress, and action has not completely stagnated at the hands of the SNP.
It’s my view that the independence movement has faced two principal challenges over the decade since the 2014 referendum. On one hand a succession of intransigent Tory PMs deaf to the democratic voice of Scotland, and on the other an SNP leadership obsessed with gender politics who have adopted a timid and unambitious attitude towards the central question on independence they were elected to address.
When I first introduced the Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill last February – with the support of some “renegade” then-SNP MPs including the now-expelled Angus MacNeil and Margaret Ferrier – I was genuinely surprised that it passed on the nod.
And while it was unlikely to get a formal second reading or become law, I tried everything I could to find a mechanism to force a vote, but standing orders and prorogation ultimately blocked those efforts. However, this week Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine finally challenged the Bill.
Ahead of its first reading this time around, Jardine referred to the Bill, in a comment in The National, as “divisive and unnecessary”. But the truth is the Bill is anything but. It merely replicates the provisions established by the Belfast Agreement and contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
What Christine Jardine and her supporters must confront is that it is in fact a modest, liberal and fundamentally democratic mechanism. It would merely have delivered constitutional parity to the people of Scotland, as it does not favour either side of the argument. It’s also in keeping with the commitments of the 2014 Smith Commission report, and in accordance with expert international legal opinion and the rights of peoples as enshrined in the UN Charter.
Whilst I gave Christine Jardine MP fair warning on each of these hurdles in advance of her opposition speech, she declined to address them in the chamber. What she delivered instead was a reprisal of the lame Better Together “you’ll have had your vote” sentiments we’ve endured since 2014, and then meandered off to attack the SNP’s recent track record in government, which is odd, given that I’m not in the SNP.
(Though it did amuse me when Christine opened her speech by commending me on my knowledge of Liberal political history, which immediately got me thinking, “well at least one of us understands it”.)
This week I pressed the issue, and in voting against Scotland’s right the English parties voted against the assurances that have been repeatedly given over decades by the likes of Lord Gladstone, Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major.
They subverted the rights established by Winston Churchill and now enshrined in the UN Charter, they voted against their international treaty obligations, and against the principle of equal treatment of all distinct peoples within a state.
This has pushed the issue back to the people, but a First Minister who chooses to do nothing about it and will never lead this country to independence.
We desperately need a constitutional convention to communicate, debate and agree a strategy for delivery. Country before party is the only way forward now. We must use every election, every initiative available to us in both parliaments.
I am tired of waiting. It’s time for action.
Thanks Neale,
Like skynet, Scotland must become self aware.
As Arnie might say – “you have been colonised”
By requesting permission from the British parliament for our right to self-determine Neale Hanvey is deferring to that place and compromising both that right and Scottish sovereignty.
Sovereignty:
The people of Scotland own this in perpetuity. This is specified in the Claim of Right (1689) upon which the Treaty of Union (1706) and the Act of Union (1707) rests. The people are the ‘Crown’. That is, they –not monarchs, presidents or parliaments – are sovereign. The boss.
Self-determination:
As a people, the Scots possess the right to choose the form of government best suited to the country’s needs. This right is founded on the principle of self-determination of peoples promoted by President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 during WW1, and subsequently enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The people can select the constitutional option they wish whenever, however, and as often, as they like.
Independence:
If the people of Scotland so prefer they can decide in favour of full self-government of, and independent statehood for, the country. Should the people so elect then Independence for the country is realised without the need for sanction or approval from an external government or foreign power.
The sovereignty, self-determination and Independence of Scotland is ours to have not Westminster’s to give.
Very well explained; kudos to you and thanks again to your host who has helped me not to completely despair that we may someday see an independent Scotland though probably not in my lifetime.
“By requesting permission from the British parliament for our right to self-determine Neale Hanvey is deferring to that place and compromising both that right and Scottish sovereignty.”
What he did, deliberately, was demonstrate beyond doubt that requesting permission is a futile strategy, and that acknowledging that proves that we need to take matters into our own hands using the powers already available to the Scottish Parliament.
The independence movement should form a single political party that unites the movement and thereafter use the regional list vote for every Holyrood election as a defacto referendum on independence. Worst case, this would displace lots of unionist list MSPs. Best case, we win our independence.
Unionists will bleat and moan that such tactics are antidemocratic but they have left us few, if any, democratic alternatives.
This tactic also allows those of us who want independence but cannot bring ourselves to vote for the SNP to express our democratic wishes.
If this tactic succeeds, it should be the pro-independence party list MSPs that lead negotiations for our independence, not the biggest party or coalition that subsequently runs Holyrood. Running the Scottish Government and negotiating the independence settlement are two completely separate tasks.
“a single political party that unites the movement “
While we’re dreaming, I’d like a castle and eyes that shoot deadly laser beams.
I guess Neale knew it would be defeated.However he has got the inequality shown clearly and a legal precedent to allow a people to claim the right to self determination.
The UN must now back any way forwards in this respect.
Well said!
Thanks Neale.
You, Kenny and Ash Regan have worked wonders.
It’s good the SNP MPs, with a couple of notable exceptions supported this bill.
I believe that something is afoot on both sides of the border and that the politicians are way, way behind the people. Revolution is coming on both sides, but, of course, it stems from different sources and roots.
The way that Brexit was done and the SNP’s utterly despicable lack of backbone on the issue (even acknowledging that around a million Scots, many of them independence supporters, wanted out of the EU) has led directly to an even deeper disconnect with the Union and a deep-seated feeling of resentment, present before Brexit, but much deeper now.
Those in England who voted for Brexit voted mainly to halt immigration, both legal and illegal, and they have been sorely disappointed in their politicians. In Scotland, we simply do not understand the levels of immigration into England, and the reactions to them. It is not enough to accuse people of being racists; we have to look at the problems on the ground where schools cannot cope, social services cannot cope, the DWP cannot cope, where services in some areas are crashing, etc. Realistic and humane solutions are required, but above all, an injection of truth and clarity.
Both north and south of the border, breakdown is happening before our eyes. A consistent majority of Scots want out of the Union and want our resources to be used for the people of Scotland, even as we watch them being redirected to England. In England, the old alliances between members and parties is dissolving rapidly, not least because the parasitical influx of the ‘woke’ has driven a wedge between leadership and members in every mainstream party: Labour, Lib Dem, and, now, the Greens, some of whose members are talking about a class action against their party. People have had enough in England, too.
In Scotland, a very real political and social disconnect has occurred in the past nine years or so, mainly down to the same parasitic invasions of the ‘woke’ and the brake they have put on independence. Change and upheaval are coming, but not on the Stonewall/hard left agenda. These changes and upheavals are going to pull the Union apart, and, in England, the repercussions of all of this will be a complete overhaul of the country from top to bottom, with demands for devolved government and a power move away from London and the south-east.
It is all long overdue and it could have been done with sensitivity and decency across the board, but the threat from the totalitarian ‘woke’ has caused everything to speed up and crash as divisions and differences have been exacerbated. The hard left and its Stonewall army of grievance monkeys will have brought about the kinds of revolutions they did not expect or want. Had they been paying attention to reality, they would have seen that placing explosives against an already shaky cliff face to bring us all down into abyss works best if you are not, yourself, standing at the foot of said cliff. Total burial is no less than they deserve – on both sides of the border.
The question is, do you believe that when the treaty of union was formed that England and Scotland ceased to exist?
IF you believe that what is written within the treaty of union has standing today, then you have to ask your myself, why would anyone except the Scotland Act or ask to seek Westminster approval for the power to be devolved unless you’re where admitting that Scotland no longer existed as a country.
I don’t except I’m British and I don’t believe that when the Union formed Scotland ceased to exist, its simple end the treaty and allow England to keep all the assets including the debt and be brunt and tell our neighbour to piss off.
The Alba Party and their daft ideas, this f*cking stunt, it’s made Scotland weaker and England stronger. I’m left to wondering what next from a party who under Salmond is heading nowhere and nowhere fast, the quicker he and his prodigy Nicola Sturgeon leave the theatre by the back door the better, I feel sure well start to see progress for Scotland, both of them and their ties to the Union is what’s holding Scotland back. All we need is someone to stand up and say this simple sentence “The Union is over” and then start sending representatives around the world to start trade talks, it wouldn’t be long before our neighbour wanted to talk on our terms.
All Alba was doing was confirming that the party policy was that Scotland didn’t exist and that Westminster has all the power and the Treaty of Union was dead and buried.
fine sentiment from a decent MP. If the Holyrood govt has the power to make this happen, then I genuinely think that what ever they tried to do they would make a complete mess of it, I would vote against the SNP being in power in a devolved or independent Scotland, Even if they rebrand or defect to another party the damage is done, IMO to win over No voters who must be be won over or all these powers and elections are meaningless. then at the very least show good governance of what you do control.
Well done Neil, a good move in activation of the journey towards independence. Now the Scottish Constitutional Convention needs to be set up without further delay.We need this boost to hope to continue so that we can regain the motivation and impetus towards Indy that we had up to, and for a time after, 2014 until a certain two parties put repeated dampers on our Yes movement.
please come back here again very soon to inform us that the SCC is established, and what steps come next!
I am tired of waiting. It’s time for action.
Me too, but nothing is going to happen. The SNP are a mess with their elected officials being more interested in self-preservations, grifting and mutilating children than independence, any form of social democracy or just being competent enough to convince no or undecided voters to vote for independence. The Greens are a freakshow and Alba are ringing off enough alarms that they’ll never amount to a dead end.
People can go ‘AYE BUT WESTMINSTER!!!!!’ all they like, but the bulk of the failures of the last decade fall firmly on the back of the SNP and large chunks of the independence movement. The fact is we’ve hit a dead end and we can all march til we’re blue in the face, but it isn’t going to bring a referendum let alone independence. We’re in a cost of living crisis making it even harder to convince people of independence.
I have no idea of the way forward. Politically we’re going nowhere and yes, support for independence is still good but it’s all ultimately useless without any mechanism for us to translate that support into actual independence instead of dreams. I do think we’re going to have to spend a decade or two at least flushing out all the grifters, crooks and lunatics, while at the same time hoping things overall improve economically but right now all that can be done is just wishing for the best which is depressing that in ten years Scotland have fallen to this.
I really hope ALBA stands plenty of candidates in the next General Election, because we really need a party that is willing to campaign for independence. I’d even support an abstentionist position, to be honest.
It’s heartbreaking to see how low the SNP have fallen in less than a decade. The SNP really did replace the Labour Party in Scotland – in all the worst ways.
All the Alba Party has done is acknowledge that English MPs have power over the Scottish electorate and the Scottish parliament. All I see from these so-called Indy parties is windows dressing and when it’s done nothing has changed we’re still in the Union and asking the same old question, how do we become Independent.
For me, there isn’t one of these parties who are rogue enough for my liking, I’ve done my waiting it’s time for action and for that action to have any meaning it means ignoring what the southerners tell us and for us to go it along and see what happens, were still thinking as if we live in the 1930 we don’t, and I’m pretty sure our neighbours wouldn’t bream of sending in tanks and the army and if they do then well be better prepared.
Brothers and sisters try and remember that all these so-called Indy parties are business who have only one interest keeping you on the drip, that’s how these little individuals obtain power and any self-importance for themselves it’s time to remove these ego individuals and replace them with individuals who seek what we seek before everything else.
@Colin Dawson 12:53
“a single independence party that unites the movement”
Yes, we gave that party 9 mandates and they did nothing with them. Time to build a movement from the grassroots, and only give our votes to individuals who deserve them, not a party that takes us for granted.
What has Neale Hanvey done, NOTHING not a single thing, Well done Mr Hanvey.
The only person in the Alba Party making sense is Yvonne Ridley by saying we need to get angry.
The UN must now back any way forwards in this respect.
The UN won’t, and can’t, do anything. It’s an internal UK matter, just like Catalonia is an internal Spanish matter. Nobody is going to come and save us from the mess we’re in.
Thank you, sincerely Neale. Your actions have formalised the colonial stasis that is the House of Commons.
Now can you please get Alex Salmond to drop the referendum formula which failed us so badly in 2014?
@AnneDon
Wants a single Independence party to do what exactly! I would presume to ask for another section 30 or maybe to go cap in hand again to Westminster for more powers.
Anne what we need is to DEFY our jailers and break ourselves free from these chains. Most country’s in the world have done it through peaceful means like marching, but the SNP leadership don’t acknowledge AUOB. Scotland’s voice could be heard without any political party what’s so ever, if these so-called leaders got behind our right to defy English rule but they won’t because its their bread and butter.
Another Indy party isn’t the answer, it’s every Individual living in Scotland that will bring about change, and it’ll never happen by the Alba or the SNP.
In my view the treatment of Scotland by Westminster on the Scottish voting result by our people on the matter of Brexit should be the lynchpin of our request to UN for our right to Independence and subsequent application for membership of EFTA to retain many of the benefits we enjoyed. We have many good and informed people who should get together and get it done. Now – this year is the time to do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FnOY86v390
I like the Ella Mae Bowen version.
It’s a romantic idea but you know what Ella girl I don’t think he’s coming.
We all gotta be our own superheros
All us heros have to do at the moment is be awake.
Just including this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4FT-JihkUA
it came on after Ella Mae and it’s a beautiful song. I heart Marc Cohn
As for Alba they might want to emphasis that in an iScotland we could decide to have no ‘gender recognition act’ and I’m pretty sure that would increase not only the YES vote but the Alba vote.
I know I have said this before but it’s hard to get my message across when I’m being ‘redacted’ ‘red boxered’ considered irrelevant.
Not to mention being accused of ruining it for ‘the boys’.
Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman
Sad to say that in the denouement of 2014, I think of Scotland and its relationship to England no more differently now, than the political and cultural relationship that Corsica has with France. I guess,that’s just how far the Scots have gone backwards.
A very clear article, with unarguable conclusions.
Some BTL comments see what has to be done, others don’t.
Ordinary Scots need to put themselves forwards for election. We’ll wait forever for the professional politicos, cos they’re not interested.
Ordinary Scots, saying vote for me for Indy.
I believe the deposit required is £500. Maybes Rev Stu should post an article outlining what has to be done to get on the WM and HR ballot papers.
All over Europe, the scunnered citizens are saying enough is enough, forming new parties, getting onto the ballots, and getting voted into power. It’s not taking them very long either.
Make it happen in Scotland too.
Scottish independence is never going to happen. Sorry folks! Better get used to it.
Meanwhile, Wales have declared that an independent Wales is viable. My advice: sit back and watch how they do it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-67949443
I’ve posted a comment that’s more suited to the gender discussion on the previous page than going off topic here.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/first-do-no-harm/comment-page-1/#comment-2817960
Alba might also want to say no man will ever be head of any rape crisis centre for women in an iScotland or any policeman will strip search a woman etc.
What is Wadhwa’s kink?
Does he get his rocks off listen to stories about women being raped. Does he then go home and play the *’sissie’ for this boyfriend and re-enact the rape scenes.
GRC or no GRC Wadhwa is a man.
Is it not suspicious that he applied for a job in a rape crisis centre for women?
*’sissie’ you might need to google that if you are not au fait with what a ‘sissie’ is.
Prepared to be shocked!
Christine Jardine From the Party of Jeremy Thorpe who tried to remove his secret boyfriend lover, of Cyril Smith who regularly visited boys homes for all the wrong reasons, of David Steel who said he was told about and then claimed amnesia, of Tim Fallow who resigned as party leader as he couldn’t condone gay relationships, of Liar Carmichael who wasted £1 million of public money on an enquiry before admitting he is a liar. Who Barron Rennard reported to be too touchy with lady party members but nothing so serious a large party donation couldn’t wipe away, the party who received £2.4 Million in donations from convicted fraudster Michael Brown and then refused to return it to the victims of the fraud.
Ed Davey the new leader and second chose to Jolly Hockey Sticks girl Jo Swinson who couldn’t be arsed to listen to victims of the Post Office scandal while in Government office.
Vote Lib Dem the parasite party happy to join Blue or Red Tory parties for a few ministerial posts once in a blue moon.
Should Scotland be gagged and shackled by these people who last had a majority over 100 years ago?
I don’t think they should be allowed to keep a dog.
Away you go you big British limp balloon!
If, (and it is A BIG IF) ALBA think they have proven beyond doubt that Westminster does not listen , or care, about the sovereign right of Scots to Independence, then surely it is incumbent on ALBA TO WITHDRAW from participation in what is ostensibly an ENGLISH Parliament in order that serious campaigning for INDEPENDENCE in Scotland can once more become a reality as opposed to an empty slogan .
#END THE UNION!!
@AnneDon at 12:53
@100%Yes at 2:03 pm
To clarify, I think the single pro-independence party that should use the regional list as a defacto referendum should definitely not be the SNP, not least because we need to maximise the pro-independence majority at Holyrood but also for a host of other reasons, some of which I allude to in my OP.
Whether that single party is Alba, ISP, AUOB, a new Scotland United party a new Scottish Constitutional Convention party or some other new or existing entity is something the independence movement needs to agree upon via a Scottish Constitutional Convention. Sadly, at the moment, the independence movement couldn’t agree on the colour of sh1te. The British State’s tactic of divide and rule is working perfectly.
Instead of talking about a Scottish Independence Convention and waiting for someone else to organise it, Alba and/or others need to kick off the initiative as a matter of urgency. We can then judge the various supposedly pro-independence organisations by their willingness to participate in a constructive manner.
@dasBlimp 2:36
I read your linked article.
I don’t see any evidence that the voters of Wales are being shown any money – they are actually being shown how it will decrease “in the short to medium term”. Viable – check – poorer – check.
So that’s not a formula that will work in Scotland, you’re right about that. Won’t work in Wales
either.
I’m not British. I’m not English. I am a citizen of an independent Mercia! … and we will achieve full and legal independence before Scotland does.
I am resigned that for the remaining couple of decade I have left on this earth, there will be a UK government primarily concerned with their own personal interests, and only otherwise for special interest groups that will help to entrench them, with little concern for what happens outside of London; and similarly a Scottish pretendy government, even more focused on their own self enrichment to make up for the lack of international organisation grifting opportunities on offer, substituting Edinburgh for London.
‘Professor Mini Windbag’
assumes all BTL commenters are independence supporters.
dasBlimp for example suggests we should just forget it. Independence will never happen.
dasBlimp might do what Prof Mini Windbag suggest and stands in Scotland for the New UKIP Party or ‘We’ll Show you the Money Party’ then big dilemma for Prof Mini Windbag.
What the heck is an ordinary Scot.
Students back to texting the two FF’s and a S.
Wee Andy in the front row shouting: “Well said Professor! Hip! Hip! Hip! Hoorah! Hoorah! Hoorah!’
I’m glad this vote happened and I’m glad it was in an election year. The unionist parties smell blood and will no doubt come knocking for our votes come the autumn, it might be an idea to ask them, each party having firmly rejected this perfectly reasonable proposal, what democratic mechanism would their party accept as a means for Scotland to choose to leave the Union of Kingdoms.
I see a lot of criticism of the SNP and even Alba in the comments above, and yes the SNP have lost the drive to pursue independence, and yes this bill looks a bit like a stunt, but it’s given us a clear picture of the reality of that Union. English parties and politicians think Scotland shouldn’t have the right to leave the union whether we want to or not, and even if every Scottish MP voted for something it can be resoundingly defeated by a fraction of England’s MPs. That is unforgivable and should be rammed in the face of every unionist representative begging for your support this year.
It’s hard to know where to start with that article, Neale. I am sick to the back teeth of our politicians playing the Westminster game to Westminster’s rules. I for one will never be voting for any of you, regardless of the colour of your rosette, in any Westminster election.
You also state towards the end of your article the following: “This has pushed the issue back to the people, but a First Minister who chooses to do nothing about it and will never lead this country to independence. We desperately need a constitutional convention to communicate, debate and agree a strategy for delivery.”
So how do you propose we obtain both a capable First Minister and a constitutional convention? We will not achieve any of them by voting to send seat-warmers to Westminster. You do say “Country before party is the only way forward now”. That, for me, means a focus on Holyrood and boycotting Westminster.
Feel free to correct me where i’m wrong. How does sending seat-warmers to London help us achieve our aims? Several so-called democratically achieved mandates (achieved under the Unionists very own system) have thus far been snubbed by a place that has history and form for not sticking to agreements or for not respecting democracy. And that will never change no matter who gets into No10.
It won’t work in Wales for the same reason it won’t work in Scotland: Luvverly-jubberly UK tax-payer funded subsidies and benefits.
Robert McAllan
Ignored says:
19 January, 2024 at 2:58 pm
If, (and it is A BIG IF) ALBA think they have proven beyond doubt that Westminster does not listen , or care, about the sovereign right of Scots to Independence, then surely it is incumbent on ALBA TO WITHDRAW from participation in what is ostensibly an ENGLISH Parliament in order that serious campaigning for INDEPENDENCE in Scotland can once more become a reality as opposed to an empty slogan .
#END THE UNION!!
I agree entirely, HOWEVER I do believe he has opened some eyes to the fact that NO matter what a majority of Scottish MPs vote for in that English Parliament, they will always get voted down.. There are still some people who believe we are in an Equal Union, surely after that vote some people have realised we are NOT in an Equal Union…After that vote, I agree Neale & Kenny should have walked & Alex should have come out with a statement highlighting the fact NO matter if the entire allowance of MPs from Scotland ALL 57 of them, put forward a bill/motionl it will be voted down. So therefore ALBA will be abstaining from WM elections….. Until that happens I shall be spoiling my paper with #ENDTHEUNION
Mr Hanvey,
thank you and Mr MacAskill for your indefatigable efforts to progress Scotland’s independence and for highlighting how toxic this union is to Scotland.
Looking at your actions in Westminster and listening to your passionate speeches puts the SNP benches to shame, to the point that one finds it now impossible to see any difference at all between what the current version of the SNP and labour pursue. It looks exactly the same thing.
I have a lot of respect for ALBA’s MPs and MSP and I appreciate their hard work. I am well aware that two Alba MPs and one MSP have done far more for Scotland’s independence than the entire contingent of SNP MPs and MSPs in 9 years.
However, I have to be honest. In this particular instance, I must admit I do not understand the reason behind this bill nor the purpose of bringing it to Westminster. I understand better the purpose of Ms Regan’s bill.
I appreciate I must be completely missing the point, but the way I see it, if Scotland has a legitimate right to self-determination, which is recognised under international law, Scotland’s own constitution and the Treaty of Union through the Claim of Right, then bringing that bill before England MPs surely creates the risk of undermining that legitimate right, because it is, at all practical effects, handing over to England MPs a sovereignty over Scotland they never had in the first place.
We can be certain that the opposite will never come to being: England MPs will never bring to Holyrood a bill to ask Scotland’s MSPs if England has a right to self determination.
So why are we humiliating Scotland like this? Why are we doing what England would never be prepared to do?
It is not for England MPs to decide how frequently Scotland can have a referendum on independence either. Scotland is not their property and no England MP has been backed by a single vote in Scotland, therefore they do not represent or speak for Scotland. When to hold a referendum on independence is a matter for Scotland and Scotland only to decide.
What I can see coming from this move is an unintended delay in the progress of independence through having Scotland officially declared as a colony.
But Scotland is not a colony. There is no doubt it is being treated and exploited as such, but, legally, it is not a colony. It can terminate this exploitation overnight by repealing the Treaty of Union.
There was never a need to ask permission to England MPs to hold a referendum on independence. Scotland’s MPs could have granted that consent by vacating their seats in Westminter and agreeing to transfer their powers to Holyrood. Just like Scotland’s MPs in 1706 agreed to transfer Scotland’s powers to the parliament of Great Britain, all by themselves. England MPs do not represent Scotland’s sovereignty in the UK parliament, therefore they have not business intervening.
Alternatively, Scotland’s representatives in Westminster could have taken the route of reconvening Scotland’s parliament and repealing the treaty of union at any point of their choosing, just like in 1706 a bunch of Scotland’s MPs chose to force the union through without consent of Scotland as a whole and against the will of the majority.
The UK is not a democracy but rather a parliamentary democracy.
As far as I recall, the UK government and UK MEPs never brought a bill to Brussels to ask the EU MPs if the UK had a right to self-determination and to hold the EU referendum. Consent for the EU referendum, progress and legislation for it were not made in Brussels. They were made in Westminster.
I do not understand why the same route is not being pursued in this case. The same as the UK was in the case of the EU union, Scotland is part of a political union whose base is an international political treaty.
Despite the abuses of our partner using the treaty as its excuse, Scotland remains one of the only 2 signatories in the treaty and therefore retains the legitimate right to terminate it whenever the fundamental conditions of the treaty are violated or there is a change in circumstances. Both of these have already happened more than once or twice.
Westminster is not the treaty. Westminster is not the original entity that give birth to the treaty either. Westminster is just a by-product of the treaty. If the treaty ends, so does Westminster as the UK of Great Britain parliament. This means the treaty is above Westminster and above anything emerging from Westminster (ie, the Scotland Act, the fabricated “parliamentary sovereignty” or the English court that calls itself “UK supreme court”).
But this also means that both, Scotland and England, are above the treaty itself, and therefore the only entities that can unilaterally repeal the treaty and with it all the byproducts generated by the treaty, including Westminster as the UK parliament.
It is not acceptable that England can repeal it whenever it wishes but not Scotland. It is not acceptable that England is the only partner dictating the rules and Scotland the only one having to follow them, as we have now seen some instances where England breaches its own rules.
So who can repeal the treaty on behalf of Scotland?
I see four possibilities:
1. Holyrood as a parliament
3. The SGov as the elected executive power representing Scotland.
4. The 59 MPs and whatever number of Scotland’s hereditary peers are left in the HoLs (Great Britain or UK of Great Britain lords and ladies are post-treaty by-products)
3. A recalled convention of the estates.
The common theme of those four above is that it is for the people of Scotland and not England MPs or the crown, to decide who repeals the treaty on Scotland’s behalf.
For as long as those sitting in Holyrood and in Bute House continue to hide behind the Scotland Act, which is in itself a byproduct of Westminster, nether the parliament of Holyrood nor Bute House are Scotland’s parliament or government respectively and never will be. They are just a working branch of Westminster.
That leaves the other two entities.
From the last session in 1707 of Scotland’s and England’s last independent parliaments, MPs were sent to Westminster to form the first parliament of Great Britain. There never was a general election, neither in Scotland or England, to select the MPs who would form the first parliament of Great Britain. This was by design. The sitting MPs in the last parliaments of Scotland and England were sent to that new parliament. It is clear, therefore, that Scotland’s and England’s parliaments did not simply ceased to exist. They continued in Westminster as the parliament of Great Britain.
We are often told that the parliament of Scotland was abolished, terminated, etc. But this is not credible. If that had been the case, all the MPs in the last parliament would have ceased to be MPs and would not be possible for them to send themselves to London to represent Scotland without being re-elected in a GE.
9 years of betrayal from the SNP has irreversibly formed in me the opinion that the only reason why this union survives is that, for one reason or another, Scotland’s MPs have refused to terminate that treaty. This is despite witnessing continuous violations of the treaty and Claim of Right, and despite continue to legitimise with their presence in that parliament the continuous abuse of Scotland by Westminster.
Handing to England MPs a veto on Scotland’s independence is convenient when Scotland’s MPs do not want to take the step of terminating the treaty for fear of repercussions. But continuing to blame Westminter in such scenario is, in my view, dishonest.
I appreciate that ALBA does not have a majority in Westminster, and I have also realised that the SNP is no longer an anti-union party. Although I am sure this was never the objective, this bill has been wonderfully convenient for the careerists and devolutionists in the SNP to hide behind. Knowing England MPs would vote it down, they could safely vote in favour of the bill without running the risk of losing their seats in the gravy train. Their vote in favour of the bill will help to whitewash their deliberate prevarication for the last 9 years and brush up their faux credentials as a pro-indy party in time for the upcoming GE.
For as long as our MSPs continue to hide behind the Scotland Act, Scotland’s MPs remain as the only custodians of Scotland’s old parliament. It is therefore in their power to repeal the treaty as it was in the power of Scotland’s MPs in 1706 to ratify it.
But 300 years and multitude examples of treaty violations have demonstrated to us that there is no appetite from our current political representatives to end that darn treaty.
So that leaves us one option: the convention of the estates. But this means bypassing a political class who, for 300 years, and with very few exceptions, has watched while Scotland has been abused, pillaged and purposely kept underdeveloped. Despite having in their hand the key for the way out, they have refused to use it and at times assisted with the abuse. This is what unionist parties have been doing for 300 years.
If the Treaty of Union ends, so does the UK of Great Britain and so does Scotland’s commitment to the same succession line to the crown as England’s. If the Treaty ends, so do other treaties, agreements, trade deals etc where Scotland and England entered as “the UK” or as “Great Britain”.
Declaring Scotland a colony means renouncing to its legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the treaty. It means undermining its status as an equal signatory to the treaty. This is, in my view, undermining Scotland’s rights and weakening Scotland’s negotiating position. I do not think this benefits Scotland at all. It benefits England and its crown.
The route of terminating the treaty is shorter than seeking decolonisation. It could be done tomorrow, should Scotland’s MPs suddenly find the will to do so. But also, during the negotiation process, it would give Scotland a better hand. Who becomes the successor of the UK state, treaties, seats in international organisations, embassies etc, etc, are common assets in themselves that should be part of the negotiation process between Scotland and England. If Scotland chooses the route of being declared a colony, then it automatically loses the right of claim to those assets and it is left to the mercy of whatever crumbs England wishes to regurgitate back at us after swallowing whole Scotland’s most valuable assets.
We also have to account for the overall damage that the SNP have inflicted on Scotland so far by refusing to terminate that treaty. So far, since 2015, the first time Scotland voted in a majority of anti-union MPs and therefore opened the possibility of terminating the treaty, we have had 9 years of continuous ransacking of Scotland’s assets by our partner, we have been dragged out of the EU and stripped off our rights as European citizens, we have had our powers stolen, we have had a downgrade in the quality of produce available in the shelves of supermarkets, we have been flooded with English produce at the expense of Scotland’s, we have been blinded with huge UJs in supermarket packaging, we have been left shaking with the brutal increase in food and energy prices and we are watching in despair how Scotland’s native population keep contracting in its own birth country after far too many years now of higher deaths than births where the population numbers are maintained by importing migrants from elsewhere. All those are byproducts of this toxic union.
Looking through Hansard, there are countless mentions from Scotland’s MPs claiming that Scotland will only become independent when a majority of its people chooses to do so. But this is also deceiving. There was never an opportunity for the people of Scotland to vote in order to enter this union. In fact that was avoided like the plague because the crown (and its useful idiots in the parliament of Scotland) knew that if it was put to vote the union would never happen.
Politicians cannot now decree that Scotland can only leave this union or end the treaty only if a majority of those voting in Scotland is in favour. This is a parliamentary democracy after all. A majority of MPs should have been more than enough to end the darn treaty, particularly when, despite a 62% voted against Brexit, in 2016, our representatives chose to force brexit down our throats anyway.
It is not credible to demand a majority of voters for independence when the vote is being given to those who arrived in Scotland five minutes ago, undermining the vote of the natives, and when the will of the majority in 2016 was disgracefully ignored like every mandate for a referendum ever since.
I do not understand why we are wasting so much time and energy, and why our representatives are putting so many unnecessary obstacles in front of ourselves by appealing to a byproduct of the treaty of union, which is below Scotland itself and that, because it depends on the Treaty of Union for its continuous existence, has a clear vested interest in Scotland not ending the union.
I do not understand why Scotland’s representatives insist in continue to give England MPs and a byproduct of the Treaty the legitimacy to undermine Scotland’s sovereignty and its constitutional rights under the Treaty and Scotland’s own constitution.
Some party should try candidate selection on the basis of random selection from all the members in the constituency, on the basis that most of those putting themselves forward, and liable to impress/influence a selection committee are the last people you want in politics.
It would be a chance to have normal people engaged in the system, not those with suspiciously much time on their hands.
Kate says on 19 January 2024 at 3:31 pm:
“I do believe he has opened some eyes to the fact that NO matter what a majority of Scottish MPs vote for in that English Parliament, they will always get voted down..”
Hi, Kate. I agree fully with the sentiments behind the majority of your original comment but i wonder at the part i’ve quoted above. Has he “opened some eyes”? And if so, how many? Unless he has some wider-reaching platform to announce to the public what took place then i fear this will go largely unnoticed by the wider public.
And if it goes unnoticed by the wider public, just as the “Power Grab” by Westminster did, then it hasn’t achieved very much in the grander scheme of things. Perhaps through time, via the voices on WOS etc, the message may get out eventually. But i don’t share the same confidence in the wider public getting informed any time soon.
I also note how the so-called indy-supporting newspaper, The National, has given a voice to the proven Unionist liar Christine Jardine. Do you think it will extend the same privilege to Neale Hanvey MP? Somehow i wouldn’t bet on it. But if it does i hope he puts across the points very strongly, as he has done in this article.
Thanks for the article Mr Hanvey however at best all you could hope to do was point out deficit in democracy at Westminster when it comes to Scotland.
If the shoe were on the other foot and England was in our position the newsrags such as the Daily Mail and the Express would have the headline sedition with the names of the Scottish MPs who voted it down below that headline. Yet in Scotland not much has been said about it except in certain indy spheres.
I’m of the opinion that there’s no route out of this union by pleading at Westminster, our MPs we send down there make no difference, basically you can’t achieve anything significant on the indyfront.
I’m all for abstention by going to Westminster Scottish elected MPs (elected in Scotland) only give this foreign parliament an aura of credibility over Scots and Scotland.
No our exit lies within our own parliament and people, however at present the right people are not in place to do so.
To make things worse I feel Scots are the most propagandised people in the world, which leads to the inevitable that many Scots still don’t realise what’s going on, and think that the SNP actually wants independence when the party is far too busy fulfilling its own often twisted agenda.
When discussing independence there’s little point in offering facts to those who are immune to them. It’s better to engage with those whose minds are open. I am therefore breaking a rule on this occasion only by responding to ‘das blimp’. Not with an expectation of that individual attending to it but perhaps others will find it useful.
So here goes: hark to the wisdom of Professor Murphy, eminent economist, expert on GERS, and with no axe to grind regarding the restoration of Scotland’s Self-Determination.
According to Professor Murphy it is far more likely that Scotland subsidises England than the reverse. (Of course there are additional reasons for England to grimly hang onto Scotland e.g.loss of military/ naval control of maritime north of Scotland and residual England having no place on NATO as a consequence. But anyway, Professor Murphy on Scotland’s economy and GERS in particular:
1. GERS comprises poor quality accounting intended by the U.K. Government to undermine Scotland’s economic performance.
2. Data on Scotland’s Income are inaccurate. Scotland should have its own statistical and tax authorities responsible for all taxes in Scotland and requiring separate tax return for Scottish activity. When a U.K. expense is recharged to Scotland there should be a deep justification why instead of doing a crude population proportion.
3. The data don’t withstand scrutiny.are unconvincing estimates and the method of calculation is bizarre. GERS takes two different sets of variables and inappropriately matches them: A = Govt income raised IN Scotland with B = Govt expenditure FOR Scotland. These are different.
A (INCOME) equals the amount of tax paid by Scottish taxpayers to Revenue Scotland and an estimate of tax paid to HM Revenue and Customs for the UK as a whole, which covers many variables all of which are rough estimates.
Failure of the income side is a FIX. Not all income raised in Scotland is subject to Scottish taxation. PFI income, fee, interest, service charge income is not recorded for Scotland. This income shows up as a surplus in England or Caman islands etc. depending upon where corporate profits go. Rents – if landlords in England have properties in Scotland, England is credit with the tax. Similarly companies registered in England but exporting Scottish goods have their tax credited as English income.
In summary, INCOME RAISED IN SCOTLAND IS UNDERSTATED.
B(EXPENDITURE): actual Scottish Government Spend is around 60% of what the U.K. Govt. decides has been spent on Scotland. The remaining 40% of ‘spend’ isn’t necessarily taking place in Scotland and Scotland doesn’t necessarily benefit. Examples include water and sewerage renewal for the South East of England, the new Elizabeth and Jubilee Lines in London and extensions to airports in London.
Even worse. The taxes raised by this work (the contractors paying tax etc) are not allocated towards overall Scottish income. Only the cost of the work is allocated as expenditure. A SCOTTISH DEFICIT BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM.
It is highly likely that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK, through its’Renewables’ industries and through the oil and gas income streams which continue to provide billions of tax revenues to the U.K. Government.) Neither does Scotland benefit in other ways. Example, the new off-shore East Lothian Wind farm electricity is cabled directly to England.
4. The Financial Crisis was not created in Scotland. By then, Halifax BOS was an English bank. Ditto RBS. The banking crisis was a London-created crisis. It created massive deficits in the whole UK, far more than in Scotland.
5. Scotland’s Choices Post Independence
£3.4 billon Defence Costs annually are allocated to Scotland but only half of this is spent within Scotland and that includes nuclear spend that an independent Scotland would be unlikely to incur. The remaining 50% is used to employ people, pay for goods and services in England, which creates a ‘positive ripple’ effect on the English economy. None of the additional benefits (taxation paid by local companies) is credited to Scotland. Scotland is only attributed responsibility for the debt.
6.Scotland’s Responsibility for U.K. Debt Post Independence?
Scotland has no legal responsibility for the U.K. ‘s debt. How much Debt Interest expenditure should be passed on to Scotland which did not incur the debt in the first place. Scotland ran an official annual surplus until 2010. How much debt was raised before that time? Anyway the UK has never paid any of its debt since 1690.
Finally, back when I was an SNP member I couldn’t understand why Sturgeon et al didn’t challenge GERS. Or why they didn’t focus on educating the Scottish people about the enormous latent wealth and potential of their country which was being asset-stripped by its colonial masters.
Well, ah ken noo!
I think I have seen something pretty similar before at Westminster a number of times.
I think it was Angus MacNeil who introduced the ‘Full Fiscal Automony’ bill ( Mia will know)
Westminster said NO. All the BritNat Branch Office party members said NO. One Tory was in favour but he was just being snide.
Alistair Carmichael said NO NO NO that would just introduce independence by the backdoor.
I think we all know that in Scotland we have English Votes for Scottish Laws.
English votes for the Prime Minister
English votes for Brexit
English votes for the Scottish Bill
English votes for NO FFA
English votes for NO referendum
English votes for bloody everything
That probably includes what football you see on TV
If you didn’t know all that I certainly did hence why I believe we are most definitely a colony.
Are you YES yet?
John C says “the UN won’t, and can’t, it’s an internal UK matter.
You don’t get it as many here say there I no UK now and JK is the Greater England project and has been since Canerons English votes Bill.
Effectively Westminster is an English parliament.
Nearest bill now proves that and makes a grave error.
The only way for Scotalnd to gain independence is by declaration after we have a majority of real Independence MSPs and/or MPs .
England will never grant as any route to secede its obvious now.
I’m going to repeat this in bold
Alistair Carmichael said NO NO NO that would just introduce independence by the backdoor.
What he is saying if we show them the money it’ll mean the end of our Precious Union and the Gravy Train will be cancelled. Ahhh Bisto!
Westminster will never show us the money.
You would think ‘Professor Mini Windbag’ would know that.
Is all his demands to be shown him the money just a wind-up.
Full Fiscal Autonomy would mean they would have to show us the money.
The ain’t showing us the money ever.
The argument that Hanvey in some way confirmed or bolstered Westminster’s authority over us with his self-determination bill might have rhetorical value but it falls apart almost immediately if you take it seriously; the fact is nothing has changed, Westminster’s authority over us is exactly as it was before, and nobody anywhere is celebrating or even referring to Westminster’s enhanced authority.
In short, no harm done.
Did it do any good? Probably very little but it might serve our interests some day to say we tried to achieve our ends through conventional constitutional channels and were repeatedly blocked.
The biggest barrier to progress on Indy remains the SNP, though, not Westminster.
@ Joan Savage
Aye, when did you ever see an SNP (or Alba for that matter) politician post the following info.
And you’d think a politician and their staffers would have better access to statistics to back this up than just a troll or pest (not sure which) on t’internet like me.
The Kingdom of Scotland has a much better resources to population figure than the Kingdom of England.
(Old stats so may not be 100% accurate but it gives the gist.)
KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND WITH ONLY 9% OF THE UK POPULATION HAS:
32% of the land area.
61% of the sea area.
90% of the fresh water.
65% of the natural gas production
96.5% of the crude oil production.
47% of the open cast coal production
81% of the untapped coal reserves
62% of the timber production
46% of the total forest area
92% of the hydro electric production
40% of the wind wave and solar energy production
60% of the fish landings
30% of the beef herd
20% of the sheep herd
9% of the dairy herd
10% of the pig herd
15% if the cereal holdings
20% of the potato holdings
90% of the whisky industry
70% of gin production
KINGDOM OF ENGLAND WITH 91% OF THE UK POPULATION ONLY HAS:
68% of the land area.
39% of the sea area.
10% of the fresh water.
35% of the natural gas production
3.5% of the crude oil production.
53% of the open cast coal production
19% of the untapped coal reserves
38% of the timber production
54% of the total forest area
8% of the hydro electric production
60% of the wind wave and solar energy production
40% of the fish landings
70% of the beef herd
80% of the sheep herd
91% of the dairy herd
90% of the pig herd
85% if the cereal holdings
80% of the potato holdings
10% of the whisky industry
30% of gin production
The revenue streams generated by the current UK government policies means the two Kingdoms’ combined resources help to serve the UK population of 67 million.
So if Scotland returned to self-governance we could even just emulate current UK policies and The Kingdom of Scotland’s much improved resources to population figures it would mean the larger proportional revenue stream generated by those Scottish resources would only have to serve 5.4 million.
———-
And I’ll tack on this.
Scotland is currently generating enough leccy for ourselves (4.2GW) and still exporting more than we are using (4.8GW) to England. This leccy is almost entirely through renewables.
https://extranet.nationalgrid.com/RealTime
And even then England is still having to burn gas in combined cycle gas turbines to generate nearly 50% of its leccy demand.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Scotland has around 10% of UK population and produces about 50% of UK domestic gas production supply.
https://data.nationalgas.com/gas-flows/latest
I see nothing wrong with what Kenny & Neale did.
Now if testing the ‘Self Id’ bill & the ‘right to a referendum bill’ in an English Parliament & the English Court then that’s a whole different story.
There also the bonkers SNP-Green alliance party’s bonkers bottle return scheme & probably lots of other mad stuff.
I’ve kinda switched off from politics lately.
It’s all too mental.
Ah there’s Humza returning to the supreme court with his self-id bill Emma’s Conversion Therapy Bill.
Well done Neale and Kenny. English MPs have stopped democracy in Scotland. Again.
P.S. Have any of Sturgeon’s nuSNP MPs died of shame, yet ?
Look nothing can be achieve at Westminster by Scottish MPs representing Scotland especially anything to advance the indy cause.
We have MPs from Scotland at Westminster who endorse the status quo, these MPs belong to branch offices in Scotland their HQ’s are in London, this MUST stop these parties need to register as Scottish parties and have no funding from their English counterparts.
Also those MPs that we elect in Scotland to go to Westminster must return back to Scotland, Scotland MUST NOT send any politicians to a foreign parliament.
If we want independence we must go low tech, by going back to knocking on doors and speaking to people and telling them the REAL benefits of an independent Scotland, we CAN’T compete with the UK media machine which all but blanks out anything positive to do with Scottish independence. No we need to get out their like it was before the internet and actually point out what’s going on, only by informing folk face to face can you answer their questions and allay their fears.
The big problem that we need to solve is the SNP at Holyrood which currently isn’t interested in independence and we’ve still got almost three years of their governance left, and it looks like they’ll get back in again with doing a deal with whoever keeps them in power.
Again only by speaking to people face to face can we explain the current situation and show how we can change it for the better, it will take years to get the messages out that independence will be good for Scots and that there’s absolutely no benefits to Scots by staying in the union.
We also must get it across between now and the next Holyrood elections that the SNP ARE NOT the indy movement, the people of Scotland are, the current SNP are doing their best to damage the indy cause, we MUST get out there and talk to the swithering and undecided and put their fears to rest, we have nearly three years to get round Scotland and talk to as many people as possible.
Ian McCubbin says,
Nearest bill now proves that and makes a grave error.
The error is in this sentence it should read:
Neale’s Bill now proves that and shows Westminster has made a grave error.
Here here.
Time to read out the vietnam whatsapp group messages and name the alphabet women. Let’s take our country back.
Sturgeon’s attitude to deleting the whatsapp messages is absolutely disgusting.
It’s time for the boys in Westminster to read out their messages.
Dorothy Bain is protecting Nicola. We need vigilante justice from our MPs in Westminister.
Save Scotland Neale. Bring down the vile Nicola Sturgeon.
The movement owes Neale a debt of gratitude for exposing British nationalist hypocrisy about when, how often and on what terms independence referendums are held. Following the recent Supreme Court decision, and the defeat of this proposed Bill, it is now quite clear that the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy means that Westminster will never willingly agree that the current devolutionary parliament in Holyrood is able to assert the rights of the Scottish people should prevail over what the union parliament decides.
Now that has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, we can give up any presumption that unionists, whether Scottish or English, can be trusted to honour the 2014 precedent and grant another Edinburgh Agreement.
The referendum route to independence is dead.
The alternative can only be plebiscitary elections, fought on an explicit platform that when the movement (i.e. all parties signed up to the plebiscitary platform). achieves 50% + 1 of the vote in any future General Election, it will be taken as an automatic mandate for independence.
If it makes Neale and others feel better, they can go ahead and start arranging for a new convention but that’s not what will deliver independence, however much it gives some a warm and fuzzy feeling. The days of Canon Kenyon Wright’s Scottish Constitutional Convention are far behind us: we have a parliament in Edinburgh now. What we don’t have is parties with the political balls to put achieving independence front and centre.
Plebiscitary elections are in the gift of those controlling Holyrood, who are elected by the Scottish people. If popular sovereignty means anything, then all we need is a party or coalition which makes such elections happen.
Cunning plans for indy, conventions, assemblies and endless angels dancing on constitutional pin heads are a pointless distraction. Actions, not words.
It is silly to pretend that the UK still exists in any form, bet it as an equal union of nations, or as master and subservient..etc
Hardly anyone on the island is British when we take the elderly out of the equation. The last 25 years of London immigration policy have destroyed the place, and the sooner that Scotland doesn’t need to deal with London, the better.
London is a hub of greed and pure disloyalty. Thanks to the shit bags who have filled that parliament since 1997, the Union is fucked. And that’s putting it mildly.
Thanks Neale, appreciated. Keep going.
Also just seen that Andrew Miller, the transexual child abductor on STV news is appealing his sentence. He was described as “dressed like a woman.”
We all know he was a tranny child abductor. Set the truth free wings.
I love the way the folk demanding that the whole movement come together as one are oftentimes the ones to the fore denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as *tractors. As if the current indy movement where still back in the sunlight uplands of 2012-14, rather than where it is today: the political equivalent of a bar room brawl.
The thing is, we don’t all need to be joined at the hip, or even like one another that much, or even at all. All we need to agree on is that a majority in plebiscitary elections is quite enough for de facto independence. The rest is, to use a Victorian phrase, pecksniffian.
Another thing there were British votes for was the franchise.
You can talk about the franchise until the cows come home and keep calling people nativistic fringe nutters & the rest but it wont make any difference.
It’s all a big waste of your wind.
I’ve said it was British votes that decided on the franchise for the 2014 IndyRef.
The reason I have said British not English is because can’t remember if was only the Scottish MPs who voted. But hey they did have English bosses telling them how to vote so I could have said English votes.
I think it was at that debate A. Sarwar (I’m not risking his first name)called Holyrood some nasty name. Something along lines of it being a nazi parliament.
Anyone remember.
Yer boy Sarwar seems happy to be in the nazty parliament now.
The gravy at Holyrood may not be as rich as the gravy at the 100% democratic parliament but still gravy is gravy.
Thanks Neale…….I only wish we had others in the SNP fighting as hard as you do. I wonder why so many of the TransCult Devolution Party give up on Independence the moment they arrive in London.
@ Mia
“It can terminate this exploitation overnight by repealing the Treaty of Union.”
I used to think so.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/albaparty/pages/659/attachments/original/1687279203/OPINION_ON_MATTERS_RELATING_TO_INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_ISSUES_CONCERNING_THE_RIGHT_TO_SELF-DETERMINATION_FOR_THE_PEOPLE_OF_SCOTLAND.pdf?1687279203
Legal opinion commissioned by ALBA.
Para 124
“There are no provisions in that treaty for a means to withdraw from it by either State or to allow for a vote by the people of those territories in the future.”
“135. There are two possible international legal routes available:
a. Seeking an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ. This requires a majority vote by States in the UN General Assembly to refer a legal question to the ICJ, and for the ICJ to determine the matter. It also requires a State to take this forward on behalf of the people of Scotland, which may prove difficult.
b. Make a unilateral declaration of independence. This requires a clear majority
of people representing Scotland to indicate their approval but it should not be
done by the Scottish Parliament, as the latter is within UK domestic law. This
could be done, for example, through a convention of elected and diverse
representatives from across Scotland with a clear majority in favour. This approach relies for its effectiveness on the recognition by States of the Statehood of Scotland.
136. There are no easy routes to find a remedy in international law for the people
of Scotland to exercise their right to self-determination by secession and so seek their
independence from the UK. However, as seen in the history of other peoples with the
right to self-determination seeking to become States, while this is challenging, it is by no means impossible.”
@Stoker 3:16
Stand yourself.
Or get somebody who thinks very much as you do, to stand for you.
It’s no more complicated than that.
Repeat in every constituency.
I’m conflicted over the reason this is such a cognitive hurdle to overcome.
Is it a manifestation of the Scottish cringe? Politicians are “special people”, and ordinary Scots aren’t worthy?
Is it a tacit, unacknowledged acceptance that us Scots are just not going to vote for anything other than the status quo? In which case, find yourself a new hobby – this one’s a waste of your life.
The ordinary, working Scots who built the Labour Party from nothing, and voted members of their local communities and industries into power weren’t hindered by these concerns. And that’s why I refuse to accept it can’t be done again.
“Aye, when did you ever see an SNP (or Alba for that matter) politician post the following info.
And you’d think a politician and their staffers would have better access to statistics to back this up than just a troll or pest (not sure which) on t’internet like me.”
Yes indeed Dan.
You see for most (not all) indy politicians independence is like turkey’s voting for Christmas they talk a lot about it but they really don’t want to achieve as they’d probably more than likely be out of a job.
I used shout at my tv screen when SNP politicians sat back and let unionist politicians and their media hacks put out false info such as the GERS figures, on debates shows such as Question Time, their timidity was embarrassing, even now most indy minded Scottish politicians daren’t come out and shootdown the GERS figures as false, its left to the likes of Professor Richard Murphy to do it.
Now I don’t know if our indy politicians are too afraid to rock the boat or spook the horses (indy voters) or been seen as quacks for taking a stance against so called UK established outlets but to me our real indy minded politicians are not radical enough, not bold enough to be considered as the right people to finally dissolve this union, none of them are lets say a Thomas Muir, or John McLean that’s for sure.
Its left to folk like you Dan to put out those figures and you have to ask yourself why that is, we’ve been sending MPs to Westminster for centuries now, all have made a good living out of it and most have done very little to benefit Scotland, taking in their self-interests first, on top of this the reality is that nothing significant can be achieved by sending Scottish politicians to was is in essence a English parliament.
The Rev has even put an article up on what Scotland contributes/has contributed and in we send far more to the English Chancellors coffers than we receive back, apparently they stopped producing or more likely hid the figures from the public gaze in the mid-fifties probably incase Scots cottoned on to the figures of how much is taken from our economy.
REV STU at 1252pm,
Exactly. Neale, from the ALBA party by his actions has clearly demonstrated (and had documented in Hansard) just what a shoddy piece of undemocratic, anti-Scotland, pro-England nonsense this so-called ‘union’ with England truly is.
So what will the SNP do about it now??? I’ll tell you, sweet f*** all. Excuse after excuse after excuse from the SNP, the do-nothing party.
Want independence? Vote ALBA.
Sam @6.27pm.
Really?
“Browsing, as you do, through the Westminster Privileges Committee’s second report from October 1999 reveals some quite astounding realities surrounding the constitution of the UK parliament and Scotland’s position in that regard. This also seems relevant given ongoing questions as to why none of Scotland’s three elected majorities of MPs since 2015 have pulled the plug on the mankit Union.
The Privileges Committee report confirms that the UK parliament primarily exists only so long as Scotland’s representatives turn up there. In other words Scotland has been de jure independent since the first of three majorities of SNP MPs were elected in 2015, as many in Scotland believed. Don’t the SNP know anything about the Articles of Union, or are they just another ‘parcel o rogues’, heavily infiltrated? Ignoring the Articles of Union, its conditions, and Scottish sovereignty, whilst playing fast and loose with Scotland’s liberation cause, suggests the latter.
Let’s consider in more detail what a Westminster committee and its legal advice is on Scotland’s status and how the Anglo-Scottish Alliance may be ended:
The treaty included Scotland’s right to representation, viz:
“7. (ii) The Parliament of Scotland did impose conditions when in 1707 it transferred power to the Parliament of Great Britain;
(iii) One condition imposed by the Parliament of Scotland was the right provided by Article XXII for Scotland to be represented in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons;
(iv) That right expresses a principle of representative Government that has the same force today that it had in 1707?
There is also confirmation, if needed, that this is an international treaty:
“8. The Acts give effect to the international Treaty of Union”
The Scottish Parliament limited the powers of the new (UK) parliament, confirming that supreme sovereignty over Scotland remains with the Scottish people and their representatives, viz:
“15. The Parliament of Scotland did qualify the authority that it was giving to the Parliament of Great Britain. This can be clearly discerned to have been the legislative intention of the Parliament of Scotland. It can be found in the Articles of Union. It has been acknowledged in the Parliament of Great Britain, and has been the subject of judicial and extra-judicial recognition.”
This is also confirmed by the following remarks, and that:
“16. The Articles disclose an intention that some provisions should be alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain, and that some provisions should not be alterable by the new Parliament”
That the UK parliament as a creature of the union remains subject to the two sovereign powers – the kingdoms of Scotland and England – who ratified the treaty creating it, viz:
“20. That the British Parliament were absolutely bound up by the stipulations of this treaty; that they being a subsequent power to the two respective Parliaments of either kingdom, had no other or farther power to act than was limited to them by the stipulations of both kingdoms . . . That the Parliament of Britain, being the creature of the Union, formed by express stipulations between the two separate Parliaments of England and Scotland, cannot but be unalterably bound by the conditions so stipulated, and upon which it received its being, name and authority.”
That the joint UK parliament only has power limited by the Treaty and is not therefore superior to the signatory parties who agreed to its creation:
” 25. affirmed by the House of Lords, 20 May, 1808 (Connell, Vol II, pages 122-123)), a Court of Thirteen Judges, sitting as the Court of Teinds, was satisfied that there were certain fundamental provisions of the Articles of Union which were not alterable by Parliament.”
That any breach to the Treaty would lead to fundamental consequences for the UK parliament, of which there is given numerous examples, and here is two, e.g.:
“25. (iii) In Earl of Kinnoull v Presbytery of Auchterarder (The Auchterarder Case) (1838) 16 S 661 Lord Moncrieff said that a breach of the ecclesiastical provisions of the Union would be a direct breach of what was fundamental and essential in the political state of the United Kingdom.”
“(v) In the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate, 1953 SC 396 (First Division), the Lord Advocate, Lord Clyde, on behalf of the Crown expressly acknowledged that there were fundamental and unalterable provisions of the Articles of Union which Parliament could not legally repeal.”
That the legislative power of the UK parliament is therefore restricted by the articles in the Treaty:
“27. The Union of Scotland and England was founded upon the agreement expressed in the Articles of Union. The agreement qualified the legislative power of the Parliament of Great Britain with respect to the Articles of Union.”
And a fundamental condition of the Treaty is that Scotland must be represented within the UK parliament:
“29. Article III of the Articles of Union transferred authority to legislate for Scotland from the Parliament of Scotland to the Parliament of Great Britain. Article XXII provided that, in the new Parliament, Scotland would be represented in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords.”
In order for the UK parliament to legislate and function it must therefore include Scottish representation:”
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2023/12/12/the-route-is-thereif-the-snp-use-it/
“There are no easy routes to find a remedy in international law for the people of Scotland to exercise their right to self-determination by secession and so seek their independence from the UK”
And that is precisely why I do not advocate “secession” of Scotland or for Scotland to seeking “independence from the UK”. What I think should be pursued is the direct repeal of the Treaty of union to END Great Britain and for Scotland to automatically recover it statehood.
Repealing the Treaty of Union will bring Scotland’s independence from the Kingdom of England, not from the UK. Repealing the treaty reverts the process of union in law. “Seceding” seeks to create a new route.
Seeking secession from the UK is effectively demoting Scotland to the status of what Catalonia is, a region, putting it at a huge disadvantage and at the mercy of the Kingdom of England.
Personally, I think that is silly. It only makes sense if you have a decent treaty partner and you wish at all costs to preserve the union and the UK as a state for political/economic reasons (retention of treaties, seats in international organisations, etc), and if there is a big advantage for Scotland if the Kingdom of England to remain as the continuator state of the UK.
I would have no problem whatsoever with that IF (if in capital letters) the representatives of the kingdom of England had acted as a partner rather than a self-entitled bully abusing power, just because they control the UK parliament and can continue siphoning from Scotland’s assets.
I would have been happy with that route if the sending of 56 anti-union to Westminster and our countless mandates for an indyref had been respected, and if our vote to remain in the EU had been respected rather than having brexit and its consequences forced down our throats against our will.
But that is all water down the bridge now. 9 years have passed since 2015 and things have not got better but worse. I do not see Scotland having much to lose by ending the treaty, to be frank. It stands to lose much more by remaining in this union a minute longer than it needs to be and certainly stands to lose it all by remaining until the self-entitled representatives of the Kingdom of England decide Scotland is no longer of use so they can spit it out. We all know when that is going to be: when they have ransacked and pillaged every valuable asset Scotland had and left Scotland as barren land.
Ending the treaty puts Scotland in control of its own destiny. Going cap in hand to Westminster like our representatives have been doing for the last 9 years to ask permission for secession, effectively treating Scotland as if it was a region of the UK of Great Britain, gives the legitimacy to Westminster to say no.
I appreciate the treaty does not have a defined exit route, but it is subjected to the fundamental principles of international law of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and Clausula rebus sic stantibus (a treaty becomes inapplicable due to a change in circumstances).
Those principles predate the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties and mean that every single breach of any of the fundamental conditions of the treaty is an exit door and therefore an opportunity. They also mean that any fundamental change in the circumstances gives also a door to exit the treaty. We have had those aplenty. What we have lacked is MPs with the backbone to end the darn treaty.
Recent examples:
1. sending 56 anti-union MPs to Westminster – that is the first time in 300 years of union history
2. the EU ref result proving Scotland and England were pursuing diametrically opposed political paths – Among the reasons for Czechoslovakia to break up in two were differences in economic development and political aspirations. The same applies to Scotland and England
3. every single time the majority of Scotland’s MPs vote against something in Westminster while the majority of England MPs vote in favour (or viceversa) demostrate a change in circumstances – the two nations are pursuing different outcomes.
4 Actually, the voting down of Mr Hanvey’s bill is another change in circumstances. Thatcher told us that if Scotland wanted to leave the UK no English political party would ever oppose. Well, the material circumstances have now changed. England parties have opposed.
There is a very good reason as to why the political fraud Sturgeon included the specific words “a material change in circumstances” in the SNP manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood election with regards a referendum, and also in the publication from 2019 “Scotland’s right to choose: putting Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands”.
This document starts with the subtitle “Material change of circumstances” and follows with “There are two aspects of events since 2014 that amount to the material change in circumstances that justifies the people of Scotland again considering their place in the UK”.
There is a good reason as to why she kept repeating them often in the aftermath of the EU referendum. Those specific words are recognised in international law as a reason to end a treaty.
The reason why indy groups can’t come together is perhaps because there may be infiltrators in the groups ensuring we don’t.
David Hannah
Am I the reason you don’t post links anymore? If you are struggling with the archive thingy just post the headline to the story and I’ll do the links for you. They are very much appreciated if they are behind a paywall.
Was is this one?
Paedophile who abducted girl bids to have ‘excessive’ sentence reduced
https://archive.is/t5fsI
Paedophilia that’s another one of the fetishes that make up the rainbow of kinks & fetishes that make up the transgender movement.
A lot of paedophiles are also into the furries. What better way to attract a child than to dress up as a cuddly toy.
The zoophiles also like being furries. What zooplile doesn’t fantasise about fucking a dog, a cow, a horse or even a unicorn.
Sorry adult language required to describe these deviants.
From here it’s all off topic info for your entertainment.
I believe Zoophilia is now legal in Spain. Scotland next? FFS!
Ah well it’s not the first Spaniard with his tight butt squeezed into *’a suit of lights’ who has been gored by a bull. Ojala!
*Traje de luces
Ojala is I wish.
A lot of Spanish comes from Arabic as you know.
Inch Allah is arabic. Sounds pretty similar to Ojala!
The ‘j’ is pronounced kinda like ch in loch.
Here is the French singer Salvatore Adamo singing ‘Inch Allah’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIkrsBOymAY
What is that song about? Anyone got their higher French?
I never thought about it before just thought it was a nice song by a good singer and the title was Arabic meaning
Allah willing.
It was made donkey years ago.
I think it might be about peace – God willing – Inch Allah.
I don’t know exactly when it was made was it before or after ‘Give Peace a chance.
‘plus ca change plus c’est la meme chanson.’
Inch’Allah” is a song composed and sung in French by Salvatore Adamo in 1967. The lyrics were written by Adamo as a peace song in the context of the Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab States. The song was banned in virtually all Arab countries for what they perceived as its pro-Israel sentiments and the mentioning of Jerusalem as a Jewish city after it fell under Israeli control during the war.
I never knew that!
I don’t even know who were the good guys back in 1967.
Ignorance is bliss.
Mia @ 4:07 pm
“But Scotland is not a colony. There is no doubt it is being treated and exploited as such, but, legally, it is not a colony. It can terminate this exploitation overnight by repealing the Treaty of Union.”
Yes, we know that a majority of Scotland’s MPs can end the ‘conditional’ power of a UK parliament to legislate for Scotland. But Scotland’s MPs are refusing to do so, too petrified of the outcome it seems. In such circumstances our own MP’s inaction and deceit serves to cement our colonial captive status and continued exploitation.
Under these circumstances, should Scotland be designated a colonial territory this may not necessarily be a bad thing. Aside from giving us the right to declare independence according to UN convention, it should also test the minds of ‘proud Scots’ and any other ‘No’ voters who still believe we are some sort of equal partner in a union; for with authoritative colonial designation no ‘union’ partnership would exist, therefore instead of ‘unionists’ they become ‘colonialists’ – i.e. doun-hauders o thair ain fowk.
“we know that a majority of Scotland’s MPs can end the ‘conditional’ power of a UK parliament to legislate for Scotland. But Scotland’s MPs are refusing to do so, too petrified of the outcome it seems. In such circumstances our own MP’s inaction and deceit serves to cement our colonial captive status and continued exploitation.”
Bang on Alf, basically that’s what it boils down to Scottish MPs putting their own self-interests ahead of that of an entire nations.
Catching up with Craig Murray at the Hague.
He had to fly in (through four countries) from Indonesia. (Was that to avoid arrest via the UK?)
For a man of his age to be doing this (sleeping on pavements etc) is commendable. Jeremy Corbyn there as well. Don’t agree with a lot of their personal politics but they are good men. And that I will always agree with. Gaun yerself Craig.
Breeks and Mia are both brilliant. Especially the first time you read them. But years later reading them you feel it is ineffectual rhetoric. And that is true of everything I have ever written and it seems this website.
Nothing changes for the better, it only gets worse. We have no power. Sorry for being gloomy but that is how it looks.
It is very sinister Ruby. I don’t know how you archive. Just like Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t know how to keep her WhatsApp messages on her phone.
Sturgeon is a mass murderer in my eyes. The dentist says, deleting the whatsapp messages is a “Pre-bedtime ritual.”
Under whos orders? Opengrupenfhurer Sturgeon. As she sent thousands of elderly people to their deaths by sending in the plague to the homes without testing.
Jean Freeman knows. So does Jason Leith. So does Dorothy Bain. It’s time to get MI5 on the phone and retrieve the data from Meta? Perhaps we can learn more if this has happened in the past?
She’s evil. And she’s going to hell for mass murder.
If it wasn’t already clear it surely must be now
Non recognition of Westminster by abstention is the only way forward
Alba if they are to mean anything, change anything need to divorce themselves from the idea that Scotland has a voice at Westminster and set up at home, a parliament in internal exile if you like.
Parliamentary democracy will not free Scotland
We will do it
How remains to be seen
Says who? The colonisers?
It’s all a bit similar to Carmichael saying FFA would be like independence by the backdoor.
“Confirming they are a colony would be independence by the front door.
We must emphasis that Scotland is not a colony.”
Where are people getting this info from is it from the same type of lawyers who told us Scotland ceased to exist in 1707 and became lesser England or maybe from Better Together, the Prime Minister of the UK himself or maybe the King of England.
Maybe they’ll be a vow on the front page of the papers. Can’t remember what ‘the vow’ said
This one will vow that Scotland is not a colony. We swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth ‘Scotland is not a colony’. Maybe they’ll call it an oath this time.
I think Alf’s suggested route sounds best. Time for folk to stop swallowing the colonisers legal opinion & all the rest.
They can tell me Scotland isn’t a colony and that transwoman are real women, that woman have penises until the cows come home but I ain’t buying it.
I learned my lesson in 2014. Our ‘Imperial Masters’ are liars.
Opengrupenfhurer Sturgeon’s Gold Command. Not do secret plan. Genocide of the elderly… We’ve all lost loved ones to the plague. That she sent into the homes. On her orders.
Opengrupenfhurer Sturgeon. Show us the whatsapp messages.
Read out the alphabetties WhatsApp Neale Hanvey. Liberate Scotland. We can’t have an Independent Scotland built on corruption now can we Neale?
We need the powers or parliamentary privilege devolved to Scotland before we get 5 years of labour.
Tell the truth Neale. Bring this house of cards down now. What a disgrace today that HERR Sturgeon has deleted every fucking secret gold command whatsapp message. She’s a disgrace Neale.
Where’s MI5 when you need them?
We have power. Power over our own minds. Sure it’s tricky to voice our thoughts but lots of movements in the past have had to set up an underground press.
So no I don’t think we are powerless.
Ah Craig Murray! It’s going to be very sad if he finds out all his efforts were in vain.
George Galloway hinted that could be a possibility being that he believed ‘international law’ was nothing more than ‘lipstick on a pig’
With regard to the Transgender butcher paedophile I got the impression from the article I read that he may be receiving ‘conversion therapy’ in prison.
They are exploring why he did it. It was all so out of the blue for this confused butcher, he’s never done anything like that before. Aye well apart from some indecent exposure Wayne Cousins had never murdered anyone before.
It’s all very simple. Are you on a phone?
I can’t help you if you are on a phone.
Take a chance and post direct links if you want. The worst that can happen to you is folk will ignore you and/or call you names and shout.
Ach it’s fine it happens to me all the time.
There are articles which are behind a paywall and then the archive thingy is handy cos it gets you behind the paywall.
This is it the old archive thingy:
https://archive.is/
go there put your link in the box and wait.
It’ll archive and and the link you see in the browser is the archived link.
Sorted!
Nae bother if you need more help. I can pontificate for Scotland on all sorts of issues.
Want any tips on how to make soup the easy way?
PS There are a lot more than you who can’t archive and not only that they can’t even post links.
Ever seen John Main post a link?
I agree with all Mia says as she puts it clearly we have had so many situations arising over the last 10 years which MPs with a backbone as independents would have walked out declaring the union is ended as a material change has happened which dissolves the so called partnership.
But we need rid of this SNP before we can move in any way towards achieving the change
I agree with all Mia says as she puts it clearly we have had so many situations arising over the last 10 years which MPs with a backbone as independents would have walked out declaring the union is ended as a material change has happened which dissolves the so called partnership.
But we need rid of this SNP before we can move in any way towards achieving the change.
I have never been happy with using the word “independence” in the context of Scotland seeking to rectify the position that it has been put into by the way the Union has been operated since 1707.
Scotland is merely seeking to restore the status quo ante. To say that we have to decide whether to be independent or not is making it appear to be a much bigger deal than it actually is. Such a big decision is off-putting for many voters so they either abstain or vote No when asked if Scotland should be an independent country.
Scotland is in an entirely false position and it is getting even worse as Westminster’s standards of probity have slumped into corruption and Scotland’s various parliamentarians nearly all lack the strength of character and intellect to understand the true position and assert it.
As others have said, the Alba Party Bill was no doubt intended to make it clear to every voter in Scotland that Scotland is being unfairly treated by Westminster BUT this message will not be seen by anyone other than those who already know that.
Alba Party probably also think it is a good idea to demonstrate that they have tried everything in order to get international opinion on Scotland’s side.
Isn’t the truth a strong enough argument?
Neale will probably think “No, it isn’t” and I suspect he is right given the powers in the hands of unscrupulous governments and their police, and the equally unscrupulous mass media etc.
Ideally our politicians would combine these parliamentary processes with actions in accordance with the true provisions of Scotland’s constitution e.g. state that Charles is NOT King of Scotland until he comes and goes through a coronation here. They should not allow anything that relies on the monarch’s position in Scotland to be promulgated [or whatever] until he has complied. It is an outrage that he and his mother got away without such – how insulting and unlawful is that.
So there are things that our parliamentarians in Scotland and Westminster could do to assert the truth and make it felt. BUT those in a position to do so effectively i.e. the SNP, have not and will not, judging by Yousaf being “unhappy” about the word “National”.
We all know that our greatest problem is our current political system and the current politicians. How do we the people tackle this? How do we get the sovereign people back in charge, and do it quickly enough?
I am afraid that I don’t know the answer. Certainly there doesn’t seem to be a quick answer. The Liberation.scot/Salvo route appears to have a chance and is correctly seeking to restore the Scottish Constitutional provisions that empower the people but it isn’t quick.
I’ve been looking at this name Mridul. Trying to figure out how to pronounce it.
How could I have missed it
It’s Mr Idul Wadhwa.
Count a typo have caused HR at the Rape Crisis Centre to think they were interviewing a woman.
Being sort of supernaturally gifted, and also a genius, I sense that many are naturally frustrated and angry right now about the lack of a plan and a route to Indy. But I think we are in a much better position now than we were say 2 or 3 years ago when nearly everybody was under the spell of Nicola and the SNP.
Not knowing how it’s all going to pan out doesn’t mean nothing will happen. It just means we don’t know. There are a bunch of possibilities, some we can guess at and some we can’t.
Reasons to be cheerful…
For one, politics is much more unpredictable and volatile today than it ever was; so, things could change very quickly.
The SNP are basically screwed unless some major transformation takes place, and it might. I’ll be happy to watch them go down and cheer when they lose their seats, and I’ll be happy if some sort of internal revolution takes place and the party weeds out the scumbags and rediscovers its purpose.
It is ultra-doubleplusgood that support for independence has remained constant, despite the ongoing meltdown of the SNP, and not enough has been said about that — it’s massive and represents a major kick in the balls for the British State and those who thought the collapse of one would lead to the collapse of the other.
Another hugely advantageous ingredient, of course, is the state of the UK and the unending sequence of blunders, scandals, and corrupt practices we hear about every day. It’s the gift of all gifts that keeps on giving. What a clusterfuck.
I guess what I’m saying is that everything is sort of fucked but you should be happy.
We knew all this already.
The SNP is uninterested in independence *check*
England will never allow Scotland to leave *check*
A sovereign nation doesn’t need permission. It doesn’t need debates. It certainly doesn’t need a section 30.
Heads up..
Holyrood will be closed.
That will come next because those Pesky Scots must not hold democratic elections or have opinions so don’t be shocked when it happens.
Holyrood is also a branch office. It has zero standing in the grand scheme of international laws. It’s the bastard Westminster that is the seat of power, the treaty resides there & the only way to break it is to do as Thatcher said, send a majority & then immediately remove Scotland from Westminster. Do not collect a seat, do not size up office space, do not look the agenda.
The moment you swear an oath to another sovereign & take your seat – you are not there for Scotland. You are there giving that place legitimacy & they know it.
Remove yourselves & there is no UK parliament.
A sovereign people return home & declare independence.
A democratic event has already taken place. It’s over.
This constant cap in hand & *asking* for what we already own is really jarring now. We don’t need trump cards & gotchas..we already own them. We just need the balls to use them.
We’ve tried asking nicely.
We’ve tried giving it time.
We’ve even tried 5 PMs.
We’ve been dragged out the EU & we’ve been denied democracy. That isn’t how democracy works.
The time for asking is over.
As an equal signatory to the Union, no one sought our permission to end our treaty with the EU so why are we continually asking our abusive neighbour like wer are serfs?
It is Scottish leaders who lack balls. They have mandates but lack the gumption to use them.
This is in danger now of just having people walk away.
10 years of bullshit & it looks like it’s just going to continue.
So what do Alba plan to do if you win a mandate? Just have the SNP pass the begging bowl?
Can someone tell me where the first (boxed) quotes come from & who said it? Was that Jardin or WM?
Thanks in advance…
Nice to have ALBA as a tonic to the rainbow warriors and troughing charlatans in the SNP.
While Yousless ponders dropping “National” from SNP, why not end the pretence once and for all and drop “Scottish” whilst he’s at it.
I’d like to propose North British Unionist as an alternative name for the Scottish National Party.
NBU could equally stand for No Bloody Use, which sums them up nicely.
I agree that it was wrong to give WM the chance to rule on anything to do with Scotland, BUT it has been done now and it has highlighted that there NEVER was any equal union
HOWEVER the bigger question now for Mr Neale Hanvey is WHAT NEXT,If you do not have an answer for us Neale ALL you are doing is what the scum snp have been doing for 10 years, broken promise after broken promise and that certainly won’t garner any trust
I have asked on numerous occasions for proof that Ash Regan’s proposal of every election being a plebiscitery election has been adopted by ALBA in their manifesto,people have said that they have but have never provided proof of confirmation
If ALBA have adopted that proposal they should be shouting it from the rooftops to ensure people can be informed of whether to give them their vote at ANY election
As others have commented if ALBA are serious about independence unlike the snp they NEED to be more RADICAL and OUTSPOKEN, their continuity to believe Scots MP’s can achieve anything in WM is naive to say the least or duplicitous
I personally will not support ALBA if they continue to ignore and isolate SALVO, SSRG and Liberation.Scot whose memberships are comprised of dedicated independence supporters from ALBA and ALL of the other political parties,these organisations officials MUST be included in ANY convention of the estates to represent the ordinary voter for we have seen the betrayal that the hierarchy of Scotland can inflict without concience
wathater
Ignored says:
20 January, 2024 at 3:54 am
I agree that it was wrong to give WM the chance to rule on anything to do with Scotland, BUT it has been done now and it has highlighted that there NEVER was any equal union
HOWEVER the bigger question now for Mr Neale Hanvey is WHAT NEXT,If you do not have an answer for us Neale ALL you are doing is what the scum snp have been doing for 10 years, broken promise after broken promise and that certainly won’t garner any trust…
To borrow a phrase from the Highlander movie; there can be only one. There is a fundamental incompatibility between Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, and London rule. What is more open to question, is how many of those espousing Scottish Independence do not actually believe in its legitimacy,.in law. This “hope” needs converted into belief.
Meanwhile, the longer our politicians play the “UK” game, but lose that game, the more precedents are set which bolster UK legitimacy, and then need to be reversed.
For example, Brexit was such a golden opportunity for us; Michel Barnier was telegraphing the benchmark requirement that Brexit had to be both lawful and constitutional before the final Brexit Agreement could be ratified. He put OUR sovereign Constitution front and centre before the whole of Europe, yet Scotland, via Sturgeon’s corrupt regime, didn’t utter a squeak. Our reward? Subjugation and Brexit.
Had the Claim of Right been cited as a constitutional anomaly in 2016, even without formal clarification ( clarification which could only have gone Scotland’s way), then it becomes very hard to see how Brexit could have been finalised. Ever.
That didn’t happen, as we all know. Brexit is now a precedent, where Scotland’s democratic and sovereign will was subjugated, yet riots and ructions, came there none… None whatsoever.
Scotland will NEVER again find itself blessed with such a golden opportunity to collapse this farce of a Union, and that profound and debilitating weakness in Scottish Government will sink Scotland’s interests again and again, and yet again until the Scottish people have constitutional leverage over our elected assemblies and representatives.
It’s a bit glib saying it, but it’s true. The First Nation which needs to recognise Scotland’s sovereign legitimacy is Scotland itself.
That being said however, by itself, it isn’t enough.
Before Scotland can end this Union, we need to have a “what next” proposal which is both cohesive and redoubtable, and recognised by our own and other nations as watertight and credible. What actually happens on Day 1 of Independence, what meaningful changes occur, and what happens if or when Westminster refuses to relinquish control? We need a new Wee Blue Book that’s a lot heavier than the last.
In other words, we still need to do all the things the SNP studiously hasn’t been doing these past 10 years… actually preparing for Independence.
Furthermore, we need to reconcile our differences across our Movement. Not withstanding the wreckage of the SNP, ardent Independentists such as Roddy McLeod Barrheadboy, ALBA, and indeed SALVO, indeed all of us, MUST be on the same page.
We must structure our Independence Movement like a fully integrated, combined forces Task Force. Where a Military strike force requires it’s Air Force, Navy, and Army to work together in coordinated mutual support, so we need our Independence Movement to have our Constitutional element working hand-in-glove with our political element, and our grassroots land-army fully committed to the plan and confident of victory.
For all that cry for unity, having the SNP on board gives me the dry heave.
The last vital component in that military metaphor by the way, is the fulsome support of Allies, and a diligent and just UN Resolution to deliver.
Independence is in tatters right now because we trusted our dream to imbeciles in the SNP who couldn’t secure Independence if it was handed to them on a plate, (as it was, in 2016). The word “imbecile” is a kindness, because I believe certain individuals are much, much, worse than merely incompetent.
That people like Neale Hanvey are engineering “problems” with Westminster rule is a good thing, because the time is approaching which ALL of Westminster rule must go, and a lot of people need to wake up and smell the coffee. “Their” political chicanery will never deliver benefit to Scotland. It will always deliver the reverse. It will NEVER deliver Independence, it will ALWAYS frustrate it.
Holyrood, and even a limp bus load of 56 SNP MP’s delivers precisely ZERO threat to Westminster rule. We, the Scottish people. need to wrestle control away from Whitehall, then engineer and codify an alternative manifestation of Scottish Government… COMPLETELY alternative.
Heads up people. This alternative manifestation of Scottish Government exists, but so far, only in rudimentary form… It is your Liberation Movement which yet needs to combine with a modern interpretation of a Convention of the Estates, and thereafter challenge Westminster’s professed sovereignty with a 2024 invocation of the Claim of Right; not to remove a King as in 1689, but to remove and expel a foreign government usurping Scottish Sovereignty and plundering Scotland’s wealth and resources.
We have so very much to do, such mechanisms to build, tools and friendships to forge, yet here we sit, idle and ncapacitated, and hostage to the vagrancies of a rogue Wokist agenda which commandeers all of our attention and shepherds Scotland further and further away from sovereign Independence.
We need leadership. We need structure. Those of trying to make progress need your support and encouragement. The path will become clearer, the further we step away from the catastrophic Sturgeon era. Take comfort too that Yousaf won’t last a decade, but we must be better focussed. Yousaf is a small bit player in a Mickey Mouse Assembly, ensnared and codified by Westminster and the colonial Scotland Act.
Income Tax and Corporation Tax must be renewed by legislation annually but seems to slip through on the nod every time.
Scottish MPs should get busy.
Blocking the budget in the US every few years seems to concentrate minds.
The best parallel I can come up with is the French Provisional Consultative Assembly of 1944, which set itself up as the alternative and indeed legitimate Government of France. It was the mechanism and process used to depose the former Vichy Government. To quote Wiki it was …” a governmental organ of Free France that operated under the aegis of the French Committee of National Liberation (CFLN) and that represented the resistance movements, political parties, and territories that were engaged against Germany in the Second World War alongside the Allies.
Hmmm…. representation assembled from resistance movements, political parties, and territories engaged against Germany.
Ok. Let’s call these interest groups “Estates”, and suddenly the Provisional Consultative Assembly of 1944 setting itself up as an alternative to the collaborationist Vichy Government sounds quite a lot like a Scottish style Convention of the Estates setting itself up as the alternative to the collaborationist Holyrood Assembly which espouses the fallacy of Westminster parliamentary sovereignty in Scotland.
What was their mandate? What was their franchise? Well, in a state of constitutional emergency, they chose Legitimacy over illegitimacy as their starting point. That is why the Claim of Right and precedence of Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty is absolutely vital. Prove and establish in law the illegitimacy of London rule, and we have both our trigger and our justification to act.
How many ‘yoons’ were there in France back in 1944?
I’ve heard of the ‘Horizontal collaboration’ but that’s about it.
I thought it was a bit harsh to drag them out into the street and shave their heads just because they had a bit of nookie with another human being. What harm?
What happened to the male collaborators?
Is the situation in Scotland not much more complicated due to the vast number of collaborators?
I like the Scotland as colony route. It sounds pretty straight forward & no problem with collaborators.
It seems incredible that we are stuck not knowing what kind of country we live in. Is it a dead parrot country, a country that ceased to exist in 1707, are we a colony, are we just a region of England, are we a democracy?
Two lawyers were paid mega-bucks by the UK Gov to tell us there is no such country as Scotland everyone just dismissed that as rubbish yet when a lawyer tells us Scotland is a colony we accept that as fact. I find that very weird.
It’s as if people don’t want the easy route to independence.
Westminster’s English establishment has never ever treated the two kingdoms of the Union as equals!
The two sovereign kingdoms that negotiated, agreed, signed, and ratified the Treaty of Union were and still are exactly equal in sovereign authority, because nothing in the Treaty demoted, abolished, or transferred either of those sovereignties. Both being sovereign means neither is obliged to submit to any authority of the other, and that makes their authorities within the Union exactly equal.
That’s a given; there is NO valid argument against it.
But the English establishment that runs Westminster has always insisted that England’s far more numerous MPs are fully entitled to outvote Scotland’s MPs on any matter of the joint governance of the Union, despite the equality of their authorities, because obviously that’s just simple straightforward democracy in action, and what could be fairer? And they did so on no better basis than;
A, well, it’s a vote, so obviously it’s democratic, init, and,
B, it’s democratic so obviously it’s fair, init, so the Scots shouldn’t be complaining about it, they should just accept it, because it’s democracy, init, after all. Obviously.
But it isn’t fair, it isn’t democratic, it isn’t legitimate, and it isn’t even relevant, because it doesn’t reflect the actual constitutional basis of the Union, and thus the Union has never been what Westminster claims it to be.
Westminster’s voting system presumes that the two bodies of MPs,
(that represent the two entirely different sovereign kingdoms, countries, nations, territories, and peoples in the Union, with both kingdoms being foreign to each other, and neither being subservient to any authority of the other because of those two separate and equal sovereignties, AND where one of those two bodies of MPs outnumbers the other ten times over),
can, despite all of the above, be treated perfectly legitimately, democratically and fairly, as a single body in a simple flat majority vote for the purpose of deciding what their ‘joint’ decision was on any matter debated in their shared parliament.
Westminster’s presumption is obviously entirely bogus! The Treaty says nothing about how the Union’s joint decisions should be made by the two bodies of MPs within its new shared parliament, and presumptions of simple flat majority voting are only presumptions; not being stated in either the Treaty itself nor either Act of ratification, then no such presumptions can have any legal or constitutional standing. Non-existent clauses in a Treaty cannot be deemed agreed and cannot be empowered by any ratification that doesn’t include those clauses.
If it wasn’t in the fine print, it can’t apply!
As currently in use, the system above is nothing more than a majoritarian scam by England’s establishment. The scam ignores both kingdoms’ sovereignties altogether by falsely claiming that democratic authority is superior to sovereign authority, effectively substituting England’s sovereignty, which is exactly equal with Scotland’s, with England’s huge numerical superiority of MPs instead, thereby enabling them to ‘legitimately’ outvote Scotland’s far smaller number of MPs, and the acceptance of this scam by Scotland’s MPs thus provides England with far greater power in the Union’s shared parliament than its equal sovereignty would ever have entitled it to.
England’s half of the Union can always outvote the Scottish half of the Union, but Scotland’s half of the Union can almost never outvote the English half of the Union, and never on their own. They may only do so if almost a full half of England’s MPs vote with them!
This is how Scotland’s democratic deficit is imposed, and it is imposed, not agreed, and it fundamentally and systemically deprives Scotland’s representation of the ability to carry out their formal purpose, which is to promote and defend the interests of the entire Scottish half of the Union within the Union’s shared parliament. England’s representation suffers no such deprivation; their ability to promote and defend England’s interests are greatly enhanced, to Scotland’s great and obvious detriment.
But that deficit isn’t the only one;
Scotland’s MPs can never form the government of the United Kingdom. Only England’s MPs can do that. Why? Because only they can acheive an absolute seat majority in the House of Commons, while Scotland’s MPs will never be able to do so. Even within a coalition government with another party, they’d still be completely outnumbered by the English MPs in that coalition! And that is undoubtedly a major deficit that applies only to the Scottish half of the Union.
And yet another deficit arises from this;
The MPs representing the Scottish half of the Union have great difficulty in introducing and passing legislation in the Union’s parliament, compared to the English half of the Union.
Private Members Bills and Ten-minute-rule Bills are a poor substitute for not being the party of government in the Union. This is because by far the most reliable way to introduce and pass new legislation in Westminster is to BE the party of government.
This is yet another deficit that never applies to England’s MPs. They can outvote the MPs of the other half of the Union, but will almost never be outvoted themselves unless they mostly do it to themselves; they can pass legislation over the Union by themselves, needing no approval by the other half of the Union; and they are the only half of the Union that can form a Union government; and the only half of the Union that can fairly reliably make new Union legislation.
Sovereign Scotland is the other half of the Union, and it’s been more than 316 years;
When does Scotland’s half of the Union get to govern the UK?
When does Scotland’s half of the Union get to pass Union legislation on their own?
When does Scotland’s half of the Union even get to shout ‘Thou shalt not!’ to the other half of the Union and have it mean something?
When does Scotland’s half of the Union even get to shout anything to the other half of the Union and have it mean something?
When is England’s half of the Union going to recognise the actual sovereignty of Scotland’s half of the Union?
When is Scotland’s half of the Union going to understand it doesn’t have to put up with the constant abuse and damage it suffers from England’s half of the Union?
When is Scotland’s half of the Union going to end the Union?
Warning! It’s Bonkers
I’m having fun with the ‘Dead Parrot Sketch.’ Replacing the Norwegian Blue with a country called Scotland.
O: Well, o’course it was nailed there! If I hadn’t nailed that country down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent ’em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Freeweeweewee!
C: “VOOM”?!? Mate, this country wouldn’t “voom” if you put four million volts through it! ‘It’s bleedin’ demised!
O: No no! ‘It’s pining!
C: ‘It’s not pinin’! ‘It’s passed on! This country is no more! It has ceased to be! ‘It’s expired and gone to meet ‘it’s maker!
Ooops error
Two lawyers were paid mega-bucks by the UK Gov to tell us there is no such country as Scotland everyone just dismissed that as rubbish yet when a lawyer tells us Scotland is not a colony we accept that as fact. I find that very weird.
Ruby
The easy route to Independence is to sit on yer fat erse and wait for somebody else to organise it on your behalf.
Maybes spend hours posting on here, with an infrequent outing for a wee walk with some banner waving.
Not taking a dig at you Ruby (for once), cos as I see it, that description applies to every regular poster on here.
Of course, you won’t be prepared to hear it from me, so enjoy the next decade of more of the same.
Brilliant Xaracen.
They have been clever in making this colony look like a free & equal country within a Union.
No idea what they were thinking when they announced that Scotland was no longer a country that it ceased to exist in 1707 and became Lesser England
They must have been really desperate back then in 2014.
Oh feck
Professor Mini Windbag is in the lecture hall today.
He’s taking a dig all right. That along with his ‘supercreepy’ nudge nudge wink wink comments is all he ever does.
All students again texting two F’s and a S except
Wee Andy sitting in the front row nodding along like ‘a good boy’ and congratulating Professor Mini Windbag for a very fine lecture.
Student’s have all nodded off.
Next lecture will be from the Professor Le Windbag.
@Ruby;
“Xaracen
NotIgnored”
😀
How in the feck does ‘Professor Mini Windbag’ know what we are doing?
Nobody is going to ask him to our underground meetings.
Students texting “Jean has a long mustache”
As an exile I read this blog a lot.
Scotland walked into the independence referendum without a plan in much the same way The UK had no plan to deal with the Brexit result. I did read the SNP report cover to cover. It touched on many topics but there was no substance, no concrete and workable plan of action. So maybe it was just as well that the nation voted against.
I look at the way the Scottish Government has been ruining my beloved country and weep. I can no longer imagine returning.
The Scottish Government has unbelievable power. During Covid I used to look at Sturgeon on TV and think- it’s already a separate country, they can do anything they want. There is even a separate income tax rate.
The power given to the Scottish Government has been wasted. Is there a single thing they have improved?
If only the Scottish Government had focused on using the powers they have to improve the lot of the Scottish people. What if they had done that? Imagine an improved Scotland compared to England. Surely that would not have been difficult given the total incompetence of Westminster?
The people of Scotland would be crying out for independence if they had a Government that was superior to that in Westminster. Instead they have something worse so I imagine that the independence issue has slid further down the scale.
I get it that it’s an emotive topic and why wouldn’t Scot’s want to be proud of their own independent country? But I think you are going about it in the wrong way. Stop asking stupid questions in Westminster . I resent my taxpayer money being spent on Scottish MPs who just make a fool of themselves in Westminster. Although I enjoy Penny Mordant’s role as hammer of the Scots, I’d still rather my country was not ridiculed in that way.
Instead of spending so much time and energy on arguing about Independence use the huge powers you already have and start sorting out the problems. Prove to the people that you are better at running the country than Westminster is and that should not be difficult given the state of that place. Do that and you will gain and deserve the independence you crave. And I might be tempted to return.
God bless Scotland the place of my birth and may you unite and demonstrate to the world that Scotland is a great example of a caring democracy full of intelligent and hardworking people. Show the way Scotland and stop fighting among yourselves.
Alf Baird.
Apologies for not replying sooner regards collecting the evidence to prove that Scotland is a Colony rather than a union, as you will be well aware we going through some difficult times at home at present.
So one or two missing (day) gaps in my comment postings,
However we need to start looking at the historical records that are a available to us all to be able to ascertain and prove that Scotland as a Colony is a reality and not a theoretical purposal.
As with any problem, it must be approached from a point of logic.
Secondly we must be able to dis-prove the foundations and basis of the first idea for yours to become the alternative reality.
So the first issue is wether we (Scotland) had a shared Monarchy with England in 1706 / 1707.
If Scotland did not officially share a monarch with England many of the proceedings that followed to enter a authorised union with Commmissioner’s for both sides being chosen by the same monarch are not valid.
During the full Coronation of Queen Anne in the Abbey in England, she swore an “Oath” to rule as the Queen of England.
The important factor missing.
Is that she did NOT swear or take the “Scottish Oath” during her Coronation in 1702 to coronate her as queen of Scots or Britain.
Her Coronation was recorded by the Gazette, among other news outlets.
WWW , thegazette. 1702,
thegazette.co. uk 3rd August 2022.
The full Coronation of Queen Anne in England can also be found recorded in the book of Courts in great detail,
There is no official record of Queen Anne ” becoming” coronated queen of Scots or taking the Scottish Oath, and England cannot and could not make her queen of the kingdom of Scots from a separate political kingdom of England.
This is your first and much needed evidence to keep and record, that the Queen of England, France and Ireland was not ever Coronated the Queen of Scots in 1702, that there was no union of Crowns or a shared kingdom of Britain under crown of Queen Anne.
I will be able to confirm this by other records in my next post.
lol @ Ruby
Not only does he know what you’ve been doing, he purports to know the shape of your “erse”.
Be very afraid.
Professor A. Scot got a new moniker?
How many people on here can’t do links far less archived links?
Alf Baird.
The issue regarding Queen Anne is really important to Scots today as it was then.
As she never partook to swearing the “Scottish Oath” during her Coronation in 1702 and was never under any ceremony or coronated by any Scots in Scotland,
As she had no official authority to use the “replica Great Seal of Scotland”
that England made, for Scotland, as King James had thrown the original Great Seal of Scotland into the Thames river when he was fleeing.
The kingdom of England had no authority to coronate Her as the Queen of Scots or their territory, and legally they had no hold over the “Great Seal of Scotland”
The replica Great Seal of Scotland, ordered by the Queen of England.was not the Great Seal of Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry gave a invented and false idea of touching the Scottish regalia on Behalf of the Queen of England and applying Royal assent to the treaty of union from Scotland,
In fact the very “Commissioner’s” chosen by Queen Anne of England, ( as she was coronated) on behalf of Scotland was based on the lie that she had supposedly to have taken the “Scottish Oath” during her Coronation in 1702,
Records of her coronation do not record her as having done this.
I won’t be pontificating on links or archived links.
I know how to do them.
Someone very smart on here even taught me how to access the comments on The Times, Telegraph etc but I’ve lost my notes.
I know it involved downloading a browser I think it was ‘Brave’ but the rest has gone no doubt been shredded by ‘CleanMyMac’ That ‘CleanMyMac’ doesn’t like the clutter I on the other hand feel insecure without it.
This is an appeal to the very clever clogs to re-up the info.
Thanks in advance. Not sure how much I want to read the comments on The Times & Telegraph but it’s always good to know I can.
Alf Baird.
I will post some further evidence to support the lack of foundations for a union between Scotland and and England after I get back home tonight.
Got to go pick up antibiotics and dressings from chemist just now,
Cheers for the advice.
Don’t worry Hatuey the women’s intuition thingy protects me.
It never fails!
My ‘supercreepdar’ is in good working order.
What isn’t in good working order is my time management plan.
I’m in one of those situations where I’ve got such an overwhelming amount of stuff to do I’ve frozen and I’m stuck in my Herman Miller chair.
Any tips?
Still I’m having fun and learning lots.
Sometimes I feel tempted to get myself back on the naughty step although I think it’s almost impossible now that we’ve got the ignore button.
Aye man!
‘Foutu mais content!’
@Rob 11.42am
That simply isn’t true. There was a plan: from memory it ran to 600 pages or more. True, a lot of British nationalists and Scottish unionists rubbished it, but you didn’t have to believe in independence to see that there were concrete plans. What there wasn’t, and never could be, was any guarantee that every i would be dotted and every t crossed.
What many unionists demanded were absolute guarantees that they would be no worse off economically, or even would be better off if we became independent. Obviously that was impossible. Some of those may have been sincere and could have been swayed, but many were never persuadable, and never will be.
Of course the Yes campaign could and should have done better on providing information on and plausible alternatives in relation to certain things, particularly the currency, pensions and EU membership.
However, as we now see with the benefit of hindsight, it would be a brave person who would argue that given all that has happened since Scots would be worse off today if they’d voted for independence in 2014. There’s little doubt that we’d be in the EU, or at the very least in the single market, and have be well down the road of establishing the kind of society most Scots would be proud of, rather than being shackled to the decaying corpse of Empire v0.2 as at present.
Yes and no. The oft heard demand from unionists that the Scottish government “do something” with the powers it has is a trap. Without power over all – or virtually all – the economic levers available, the Scottish government can’t do what it really wants because it only controls a small part of its expenditure and is still in hoc to a deeply dysfunctional Westminster system, and to macro economic policies, priorities and spending that it has little of no influence over.
The total incompetence of Westminster parties, the fact New Nu Labour present little real change to the Tories, and the fact that brexit and Trussonomics have holed the argument of westminster’s economic competence / broad shoulders below the water line, don’t suggest that the “Better Together” arguments are stronger now than in 2014: rather the reverse surely?
If you’re not going to return, your views, whilst interesting don’t amount to much. You are of course entitled to them and to publicise them, but in the end only those who are here get a say (and even then there are plenty who would limit who does get a say to those they regard as “pure” enough).
I didn’t get a vote in 2014 because I was still in England. Part of my decision to come home was in hope that things would change for the better, and that we wouldn’t fail next time. It may not be happening fast enough, but I’m still hopeful it will happen>
I don’t want a Scottish Government that tries to make the current system work better, or which tries to leverage more powers from the unwilling grasp of the failing British nationalist experiment: I want a government that prioritises real independence, not devolution, dev-max, home rule or any other variety of milquetoast nationalism.
We don’t all have to get on, or stand shoulder to shoulder and agree on a plethora of detailed policy positions. Independence will be hard: there are no guarantees everything will be better, just as there are no guarantees staying in the union is risk free.
@Rob 11:42
Great post.
Perhaps distance lends perspective?
Then how come I can see what you see, when I’m slap bang in the middle of the clusterfuck?
To add my tuppenceworth, Rev Stu spelled something out yonks ago that resonates with me. He observed that the Indy movement set out to expel big tranches of the electorate and if it wasn’t by design, then the only other explanation is crass stupidity.
For example, iScotland is to be a socialist nirvana and a conservative free zone. A republic when a sizeable minority wants the monarchy. Embedded in the EU without a democratic mandate when a sizeable minority voted Leave. A disarmed pushover nation of peaceniks when Scotland has a military tradition of world repute.
In short, considering the iScotland on offer, right of centre voters, monarchists, true Indy supporters and hard-headed believers in realpolitik have no reason to vote for it.
And thus they don’t, and so Indy support, forever teetering at the tip over point, never actually tips.
@Andy Ellis 3:07
You can’t logically argue that Scotland needs control of all, or nearly all, the economic levers available, when you are claiming there’s little doubt we would be in the EU.
Ask the Greeks to explain.
If iScotland ever does join the EU, we’ll be trussed up like a turkey, simply because the calibre of people who fecked over the bottle deposit scheme, and gave away our wind revenues, are congenitally incapable of negotiating anything like an advantageous accession agreement with the bureaucratic Brussels behemoth.
How can you not see that by telling Brussels straight that we are joining anyway, with no further democratic input or decision from us so-called Sovereign Scots, that the SNP/Greens have preauthorised and empowered Brussels to give us the worst possible deal?
Think it through.
@John Main 6.02pm
That’s a deeply disingenuous response. However much the two poles of opinion – which in this context I’d say would be yours and the coterie of fringe left moonhowlers infesting BTL here – might disagree, “ordinary” Scots post indy are overwhelmingly likely to opt for a broadly left of centre approach, and to be pro EU and pro NATO.
Inchoate screeching that it’s wrong from either extreme is just so much noise. Support for the monarchy is on a distinctly shoogly peg even in England these days, but is a matter that can safely be left until after indy to decide. I certainly wouldn’t be betting the farm on anything other than a Scottish republic given the current incumbent.
Of course there’s a sizeable minority of Yes voters who also voted Leave, just as there is a sizeable minority of Scottish Labour voters who support independence. A minority of right of centre voters even support independence.
The very fact that current support for indy has stayed solid at around 50%, while support for the SNP as a party has plummeted is instructive. Given the direction of travel of the British nationalist project, it isn’t going to take much for things to change, particularly when Scots realise that a Starmer government will be functionally indistinguishable from a Sunak one.
You of all people shouldn’t fall in to the trap of assuming the hard of thinking unsavoury cabal of vatniks, bar room Bolsheviki and blood and soil nationalists are representative of anything but a small minority. In truth ordinary Scots have much more in common with the ordinary Germans pouring on to their streets today to face down blood and soil nationalists in the AfD than they do with some of the usual suspects in here.
@John Main 6.19pm
Of course I can, because it’s what all the members of the EU believe, and the hundreds of millions of people in the member states who support it. There’s no real comparison between the position of Scotland within the UK and an independent Scotland in the EU.
I doubt you’ll ever be persuaded otherwise, but in any case, it’s an argument you and those like you have comprehensively lost with respect to the Scottish electorate. Evidence suggests that Scots are even more in favour of the EU now than at the time of the Leave vote.
As for Greece, although I agree they were shabbily treated, Scotland isn’t Greece.
I’m not, and that’s not what will happen. We will have to apply, be accepted and then join. There’s absolutely no reason to think it will be a difficult process: the EU have zero reason to do anything else but make it as easy as possible. Scots voters will decide, either via a referendum, or by voting for parties which have it as part of their platform.
No party interested in power will be anti-EU: it’ll be the domain of the cranks at either extreme of the political spectrum. Good luck with that!
James Che said;
“The issue regarding Queen Anne is really important to Scots today as it was then.
As she never partook to swearing the “Scottish Oath” during her Coronation in 1702”
James, it is documented in the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland website that she did indeed take the Scottish coronation oath; it was administered to her in London by her Privy Council, which attested, ie formally declared, that this had happened in conformance with Scots law and with Scotland’s 1689 Claim of Right. The RPS site is now functioning properly again.
“and was never under any ceremony or coronated by any Scots in Scotland,”
Irrelevant, a coronation is not constitutionally or legally significant. It is the taking of the relevant Oaths that actually matter.
“As she had no official authority to use the “replica Great Seal of Scotland”
that England made, for Scotland, as King James had thrown the original Great Seal of Scotland into the Thames river when he was fleeing.”
Yes, she did, because she met all the relevant formal prerequisites.
“The kingdom of England had no authority to coronate Her as the Queen of Scots or their territory, and legally they had no hold over the “Great Seal of Scotland””
Agreed, but irrelevant, too, because England didn’t do either of these things.
“The replica Great Seal of Scotland, ordered by the Queen of England was not the Great Seal of Scotland”
James, it was only a replica in the sense of not being the original one, but that has no significance because the original one had gone forever and another needed to be made to replace it. It didn’t have be identical, in fact it was probably better for it not to be in case the old one was ever recovered and retained for illicit purposes.
It just needed to be unique enough to be recognisable as the new official one and distinguishable from the defunct lost one. It didn’t need any Scottish pixie dust to consecrate it, it’s just a unique stamp to be applied to official documents to authenticate them as being official documents. What else was she going to use?
“the Duke of Queensberry gave a invented and false idea of touching the Scottish regalia on Behalf of the Queen of England and applying Royal assent to the treaty of union from Scotland,” So what? She was perfectly entitled to delegate whatever powers suited her to do. What exactly was ‘invented’ about it?
“In fact the very “Commissioner’s” chosen by Queen Anne of England, (as she was
coronatedcrowned) on behalf of Scotland was based on the lie that she had supposedly to have taken the “Scottish Oath” during her Coronation in 1702,Records of her coronation do not record her as having done this.”
She didn’t have a Scottish coronation, it wasn’t obligatory, and the lie wasn’t a lie if she did take the Scottish Coronation Oath as formally carried out, witnessed and attested by her London Privy Council. Witnesses of high standing don’t stand much higher than that! ‘Attested’ means a formal and legal statement. There was no particular necessity that she take the Scottish Coronation Oath at her English coronation.
Do you have any actual evidence that she did not take the Scottish Coronation Oath?
For your perusal;
Act recognizeing her majesties’ royal authority (June 12th 1702)
The estates of parliament, considering that by the decease of the late King William, of ever glorious memory, the crown and royal dignity of this kingdom is, according to the Claim of Right and by undoubted right of succession, devolved upon Queen Anne, our present gracious soveraign, and that her majestie hath duely sworn the coronation oath conform to the said Claime of Right; therefore the estates of parliament, for themselves and in name and behalfe of the whole subjects of this kingdom, do hereby assert, recognize and acknowledge her majesties’ royal power and authority over the said kingdom, and her undoubted right and title to the imperial crown thereof, ratifieing and approveing, likeas they hereby ratifie and approve the administrating the said coronation oath to her majestie upon the decease of the late king by the lords of privy council that were then at London and their attestation made thereupon, with the proclamation of her majesties’ privy council here in Scotland for proclaiming her majesties’ said right and title. And her majestie, with advice and consent of the said estates of parliament, doth declare that it is and shall be high treason in any of the subjects of this kingdom, by writing, speaking or any other manner of way, to disown, quarrell or impugne her majesties’ royal power and authority or right and title to the crown; and farder, her majestie, with advice and consent forsaid, statutes and ordains that the oath of alleadgeance hereto subjoined shall be sworn, and the same with the assureance added to it subscribed by all persons of publict trust, civil, ecclesiastick and military, who have not yet sworn and subscribed the same to her majestie, according to the tenor of the sixth act of the fourth session of this present parliament, intituled, act for takeing the oath of alleadgeance and assureance, and recommends it to the lords of her majesties’ privy council to cause the said oath of alleadgeance and assureance be farder taken in manner foresaid, at such times and in such methods as they shall appoint.
At the heart of our problems are the ‘troughers’, the MSPs and WM lot who are not interested, in any way, in the lives of us proles. They are the Animal Farm pigs, resplendent in their perceived status, and determined to keep collecting their fat salaries, along with golden pensions, as long as they are able.
Without a clear out, and replacement with honest, truly patriotic, folk to represent us, independence is just away with the fairies.
Andy Ellis
ScotGov policy is to join the EU following Indy. No referendum.
This isn’t a difficult idea to understand. It’s happening, we’re not going to be asked.
Soz, but those who post on here claiming otherwise are not posting in good faith.
As for the claim we Scots want, more than ever, to be in the EU. I suspect that’s a lie, put about as plausible justification for the no-consultation EU membership punters.
Ultimately though, it’s the final vindication of the too wee, too poor trope.
Aye, it’s true, but that doesn’t matter, cos Brussels will see us right.
300+ years of yearning to be free for that sell out?
No fecking way.
@John Main 7.40pm
What the current Scottish Government thinks and what happens post independence are two very different things. If the Scottish people in their wisdom think joining the EU is a bad idea, then doubtless they will ensure it doesn’t happen. You being butt hurt that your eurosceptic views are about as popular of those of the usual suspects about Country 404 and their hard ons for Uncle Vlad doesn’t help.
You asserting that something there is clear polling evidence to support just makes it pretty clear who is the one arguing in bad faith.
Your personal euroscepticism is just wish fulfillment on your part.
Andy Ellis
I have absolutely no idea if my eurosceptic ideas are unpopular. I care even less.
The EU is a constantly moving target, as the War comes up to its third year. I am not ruling out that a majority of Scots voters have yet to twig that today’s EU is radically different from the EU we left, and that the EU we could eventually join will be more different again. Heck, that same majority have yet to twig the SNP has changed too.
But the EU is different, so it makes no sense to be unquestionably in favour of joining an unknown quantity.
Then too, Scots voters are a constantly moving target. Who knows what Yousaf’s one million New Scots will think of the EU.
In short then, to be blindly in favour of EU membership is folly for any individual Scot, and to have a policy that voting for Indy de facto votes us back into the EU is folly for ScotGov and Scotland too.
Ah ken we’re good at folly, both individually and institutionally, but even so, to repeat again, to spend 300+ years striving for FREEDOM, only to immediately enter into a New Colonialism with Brussels in the driving seat would be to set the Scottish folly bar unreachably high for all time.
Someone tell those who depend on The Daily Mail for their information that being in the biggest free market in the world makes a lot of sense when you have vast energy and other resources to sell, not to mention a potentially massive tourism sector, whisky, and other produce.
at least you have a say in what rules and regulations you have to abide by unlike us over here in Northern Ireland who are truly second class citizens thanks to the sell out Windsor framework