One Just Man
David Davis may be the last of his kind – a libertarian Tory from a council-scheme and grammar-school background, and also one of the few remaining big beasts occupying the political jungle of the back benches.
(He could in fact have been Tory leader, and would have been if David Cameron and George Osborne hadn’t teamed up to defeat him in 2005 after he won the first ballot.)
He resigned from Cameron’s shadow cabinet in June 2008 on a principled issue of civil liberties (winning the subsequent by-election with a massive 72% of the vote) and from Theresa May’s Cabinet over Brexit, and he was one of a tiny handful of MPs prepared to defend Julian Assange from extradition.
And in 2022 it was Davis who rose from the back benches to tell Boris Johnson to “in the name of God, go”.
So on the rare occasions when he leads a Commons adjournment debate, as he did last Thursday evening, those with an educated eye for politics sit up and take notice.
Instead of playing to the normally empty House that witnesses an adjournment debate, a good part of the Parliamentary Labour Party turned up to listen, although none of the SNP’s dramatically-reduced cohort bothered. Which is a shame, as it was, in some senses, about them.
Davis’s latest evisceration of the Scottish Government’s unlawful persecution of Alex Salmond resulted in both Sturgeon and Salmond trending all day on social media. (The mainstream media, as we’ve noted, mostly cowered in silence.)
Three years ago, when Davis first raised the Scottish Government’s hounding of Salmond, the political temperature was entirely different. To most independence supporters Nicola Sturgeon could do no wrong, even after it became painfully apparent that her government couldn’t run a tap without flooding an orphanage, and that their commitment to the SNP’s historic goal of independence was purely ceremonial.
Now things are different. Most sane nationalists and even many of her formerly-loyal former MPs now think Sturgeon’s feet of clay extend right up to her neck, but Davis’s approach didn’t change.
The headline reports from Thursday centred on his revelation that he had spoken to a witness with evidence that Sturgeon’s right-hand woman Liz Lloyd was the source of the damaging criminal leak to the Daily Record.
Davis is well-versed in the arcane rules around parliamentary privilege and does his research. When he cites a witness or a source he’s met them in person, when he quotes a document he’s seen it with his own eyes.
(He notes with justified pride that no whistleblower has ever been outed in any of his many campaigns defending civil liberties.)
But a detailed assessment of the Davis speech shows his targets go wider and deeper. He believes that the Scottish Government colluded with the civil service to fit up their ex-leader and drive him from public life.
It’s an established fact that they made a mockery of their duty of candour to the Court of Session, hence the award of exemplary costs to Salmond over his judicial review, but Davis also has the evidence to show that they’ve continued their campaign of redaction and cover-up on the same industrial scale of their WhatsApp deletions.
When the plot failed in the Court Of Session they enrolled the Crown Office to make matters criminal, and when that crashed on the rock of a Scottish jury, all three actors – the Scottish Government, civil service and criminal authorities – combined to prevent the truth emerging.
To this end they have stopped at nothing as Davis – alongside Wings, Craig Murray and pretty much nobody else – has continued to painstakingly detail the commission, and the increasingly desperate concealment, of perjury.
One journalist has been jailed, another hauled into the Sheriff Court on trumped-up charges, a Parliamentary inquiry committee has been undermined, threatened and compromised, and court battles have been fought to prevent disclosure of compromising information – all for the sake of protecting a queen bee who’s already (at least officially) left the hive.
In a devastating and detailed aside during the debate, Davis turned on former Crown Agent, David Harvie, for his boasts under oath to the Parliamentary committee that he had never discussed the Salmond issue with his then line manger Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government. Presumably Harvie’s intent was to emphasise the “independence” of the prosecution service.
However, Davis has now revealed that documents prove beyond any dispute that Harvie HAD indeed discussed the case with Leslie Evans’ private secretary, her “representative on Earth”, in the days before his own involvement, and the notion that the PS would not have immediately communicated that to Evans is farcical. It is, at the very best, a deeply cynical piece of misdirection.
Readers may feel that’s a poor example to set, under oath, from the man then in charge of criminal justice in Scotland. (Harvie was, of course, the man who authorised the proceedings against journalists attempting to lift the lid on the whole rancid affair.)
Davis now has a number of such people in his crosshairs, and as their activities are increasingly exposed to the light of day the pressure on them to crack will be considerable. A civil servant or Crown Office official suppressing evidence of perjury is a very grave matter indeed, and the first to assist the police with their enquiries will be the likeliest to avoid taking an extended holiday in a room with barred windows.
At the end of his first debate on the issue three years ago the Tory government minister replying accepted Davis’s case for constitutional separation of the prosecution service from government legal advice from its law officers.
At the end of last Thursday’s debate, the new Labour minister replying accepted the case for Scottish Parliamentarians having rights of privilege to enable them to stand up to Government injustice and overreach. With the SNP facing the likelihood of losing office, and with it the ability to conceal evidence and obstruct investigations, that too will be generating sweat on a number of brows.
These, and the also-promised imposition of the duty of candour, would be highly significant profound constitutional gains for the Scottish Parliament arising from this sorry affair. But alert readers may be wondering why Davis, a Tory, would seek to make the Scottish Parliament stronger and more fit for purpose. Might that not make independence more attractive?
It’s doubtful that Davis cares that much. His deep involvement with the Leave campaign, while it won’t win him many fans among Wings readers, reveals him as someone who’s in fact more of an English nationalist that a die-in-a-ditch unionist.
But more to the point, one can disagree with someone’s principles while still admiring their adherence to them, and Davis’s track record shows that whatever else he may be, he IS a politician of genuine principle, a rare and dying breed.
And for as long as the Scottish Parliament remains an entity of the UK he appears to be more concerned with it being a good Parliament than whether it’s independent or devolved. Indeed, it could be convincingly argued that he’s done more to genuinely enhance its powers all by himself than the entire combined might of the SNP has managed in the last decade.
Davis is playing a serious game, and to paraphrase Leslie Evans, clearly intends to win both the battle AND the war for justice. For that, at least, all Yes supporters should thank him. But in the view of this site he is an honourable ally in the eternal fight for truth, as well as – although he may not intend such a thing – the fight for a Scotland worthy and capable of independence too.
Gordon Dangerfield
https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/08/12/liz-lloyds-interference-in-the-salmond-investigation-what-it-means-for-the-bigger-picture/
Agreed. Well said, Rev.
The pressure slowly increases on those who would lie.
It only takes one person to tell the truth, perhaps in an effort to avoid imprisonment, then it all comes tumbling down.
I believe the truth will come out in due course particularly as the SNP are on their last legs and will likely be finished come the Scottish elections.
Only a fool cannot see that there is something very wrong about the Salmond affair.
The correct action for anyone involved with an ounce of decency is to step forward and speak the truth.
In politics David Davis is one of a very few and dwindling number of good men
Absolutely, and it is to the eternal discredit of Scotland’s establishment that not a single MP, MSP, mainstream journalist or legal official has stood up to the flood of lies and obfuscation in this seedy banana republic saga. Despite the fact than many of them full well the chicanery and serious abuse of power which went on, and which has damaged the reputation of Scotland’s parliament and constitution. It is also a textbook case how corruption at the highest level is possible and how it relies on chains of people whose job dependency and material comforts are the price they pay for their silence.
We only know that thanks to small cadre of bloggers, like Wings and Craig Murray as well as a few others, and David Davis. Nowhere will you find a serious analysis of the crimes in a book, documentary or ‘serious’ newspaper which would make it impossible to ignore or not act upon. After all these years it is still restricted, by design, to independent outlets where it can be ignored, or threatened, by all these comfy professional classes whose job it is to defend our constitutional arrangements and state functions from such perverse and corrupt actions.
The aim seems to be to smother it forever, with the passive acceptance of those who know about it but will not act. Scotland and independence absolutely needs this boil to be lanced and, as Davis, advocates, the necessary changes made so that it cannot happen again.
Totally agree and always have done. They are indeed a rare breed , the lesser spotted principled, grown up politician.
I like David Davis. He’s a truth teller. And I can’t wait for him to tell more truths around the Salmond conspiracy.
He’s for the British. That’s fine with me.
And I’m for the Scottish. And Independence.
Set the truth free.
“The correct action for anyone involved with an ounce of decency is to step forward and speak the truth”
I’ve long since lost faith anyone involved in either the core of the conspiracy or the political and media class enabling and covering it up has so much as a micro-ounce of decency.
The media were paid £2 million by Sturgeon in a tax break weren’t they?
She’s bought and paid for all of those weak men, like James Cook.
Sarah Smith has fled to the USA.
Dani Garavelli – horrible woman – we know she participated in the Salmond retrial.
Kirsty Wark defamed Salmond in the retrial with demented smears and innuendos interviewing the alphabetties.
They all know it was a conspiracy. They are going to look like complete tossers when this all comes out.
Davis will set the truth free. Will they tell the truth before that happens? And save their reputations? Who knows but Wings Over Scotland will always tell the truth!
Is the A Salmond conspiracy case stalled (sister ?) until the Branchform seemingly endless saga either has the fiscal or whatever the correct title is announces that iit is not taking any potential charge to court or alternatively also until if it does get to court, there is a verdict ?
I am nearly 75 and I have never voted Tory. However, if the David Davis was the candidate in my constituency, I would give serious thought to voting for him.
Sturgeon was a woke Tyrant. She’s fallen like Jacinda Arden. She’s fallen like leo Varadka.
You look around the world at former leaders ending up in jail. Like Imran Khan.
And Myanmarr Ms Suu Kyi – 33 years in jail for corruption.
Nicolas Sarkozy – France – sentenced to jail for corruption.
STURGEON YOURE NEXT
A spot on analysis.
If I was involved in the plot in any way, I’d be extremely worried.
And those nuSNP MSPs (who turned a blind eye) seeking re-election must be worrying about ex-MPs closer to Sturgeon being parachuted in to stand in their seats.
I simply cannot see a top place on the list for those not close to Sturgeon (and therefore de facto transcultists).
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.
Yep Davis is one of the good guys. Becoming rare these days.
If he is reading, thank you.
The new Labour government might act on this, not because they care about honesty, but because it’s in their perceived self-interest to do so.
The immediate beneficiaries of an indicted SNP government would, for purposes of the next Holyrood election, be the Labour opposition in Holyrood. Or so they might perceive. Hence the presumed self-interest in pursuing this.
Without self-interest motivating the politicians, we’d all die of old age before the perps were punished.
Well covered Stu and fine analysis. Let’s hope more revelations come about as D. Davis investigates further.
I have no great hopes that we’ll be in a better place come the 2026 election. If the SNP haven’t sorted themselves out by then I suspect in the words of wonderful Private Fraser, ‘We’re doomed!’
You can count on the unionists to bring it to. Ahead on the run up to the scottish elections.
The the snp us facing the salmond case
The unionists establishment outing them
One brave soul claiming whistle blower protection
No time for tories or their allies of various colours, but Davis’s speech was cogent and convincing, I’m sorry to say. Some enemas and emetics need applying to those involved over this, inter alia.
What a country we live in…
Truly a depressing state of affairs, particularly when so many in the SNP and the MSM stick a finger in each ear and sing at volume “La-la-la not listening”.
Which is proof, if it were needed, that the British Establishment consider Salmond and NOT the SNP to be the primary threat to their Union.
Hence the conspiracy and collusion to “get Salmond” and the complicity of the players in the SNP who one can only assume through personal gain or fear of kompromat have and continue to be willing participants in this sorry affair. We here know all the relevant names.
Gaelstorm
24 July, 2024 at 3:47 pm
No time for tories or their allies of various colours, but Davis’s speech was cogent and convincing, I’m sorry to say.
If you’re for Indy, you should be willing to cooperate with any party that might help your cause. Especially the Conservatives.
Since politicians act according to their own self-interest, which national party is more likely to allow an Indy referendum–Labour, which would lose a lot of their Scottish MPs if Indy happened, or the Conservatives, who have very few such MPs to lose?
If Indy happens, it will be because the one or both of the major national parties perceive it to be in their self-interest to do allow it. Not because their politicians are convinced that the “principle” behind Indy is good (or bad).
Interesting that men of honour like Davies stand out like lighthouses. Maybe that’s because there’s so few of them in the midden of politics today.
As you mention Assange, and the idea of him being “free”, I’ll take the opportunity to chime in on that.
He isn’t free until he is free to speak for himself.
He arrived here (Australia) 4 weeks ago and has not been heard from or seen publicly since.
On Monday a picture appeared of him at a beach somewhere. It was obviously not a random holiday snap, but rather a posed photograph taken by a skilled photographer. There is no evidence of when or where the photo was taken, or who took it. Three weeks ago another photo appeared of him grinning and gazing up a tree (no suggestion of what was so interesting or amusing up the tree).
If you ask: “Where is Julian Assange? When will we hear directly from him?” You will instantly be inundated with a swarm of talking points along the lines of: “Leave him alone” or “He needs time to rest and recover and will speak when he is ready”, or my favourite “He has been through a lot, I wouldn’t be surprised if he never appears publicly again, he deserves to be left alone to enjoy a quiet life”.
Which would all be absolutely fine if the man himself could just spare a minute or two to post a video of him saying these things, personally, in his own voice – rather than having these ideas projected about him, in the third person, by others.
You can hear the audio of him speaking in the US Court in Saipan (he sounds just like his old self from the last time he could speak publicly six years ago). Everyone saw the videos of him getting on and off the jet from UK-Bankok-Saipan-Australia and he was obviously in good health (e.g. the defiant raised fist). The observable evidence is that he can speak for himself, he is not incapacitated. The “plea deal” documents are public and there are no restrictions on him. He is free.
But for some unexplained reason he does not appear to really be free to speak for himself in the first person.
I’m concerned by that, but I’m also concerned that whenever I raise these valid questions (based on observed facts) it seems to elicit angry responses based on nothing but speculation.
I can’t see what is wrong with reserving judgment on the matter of whether Assange is free or not until we can actually hear from the man himself.
Double D is a top man and a rare individual of integrity in the cesspit world of UK politics.
It has occurred to me that there is a new hate crime. This hate crime is called Salmondry. It refers to people who have a pathological hatred of Alex Salmond. Those afflicted with this mentally unstable condition are called Salmondrists.
Known and proven Salmondrists are Peter Murrell, Nikita Stalin, John Swinney, Leslie Evans, Liz Lloyd, Judith MacKinnon, Andy Wightman, David Harvie, Lord Wolfe and every former and current SNP MP and MSP since 2014 not named Joanna Cherry, Neil Hanvey, Ian MacAskill and Angus MacNeill.
As the Romans once said of Carthage. The SNP must be destroyed.
I have yet to read a tolerable justification for the anonymity of Mr Salmond’s accusers.
A man of principle and true to his word what’s not to like
IT’S truly agreable to see as many seeing through She/her as I do.
I saw immediately the devolution-queen had put indy into the bin from the moment indyref1 was stolen from the Scots (pathetically open to Brit-fraud thanks to a dumbfk SNP gov).
Deeply positive seeing so many realising what a self-serving, messianic, paranoid, control-monkey She/her IS.
We have no intelligence in our movement other than a worn Salmond: maybe we’ll see a new indy fire-in-belly generation in 7 – 10 years if we can sort our sht.
Why did you resign Salmond ?
Always liked DD even if he is a Tory. He was always his own man. He is a good friend of Mr Salmond’s and used to appear on his Russia Today programme. Even if you didn’t agree with him, what he said was always worth listening to, nevertheless. If he brings more to light, the pressure will build. Some truly horrible people took part in this, those who knew perfectly well what they were doing, but there were others who were far less keen and were, probably, used by the bad actors. It is those who will feel the pressure most.
On David Harvie, Craig Murray said that he (Harvie) entered the court room just before Murray was to be sentenced for Jigsaw Identification (the only person ever to go to prison for it, even though Murray’s kangaroo court conviction saw Murray unable to present all the evidence in his defence) and had a good chat with the sentencing judge.
Like others I applaud David Davis for his public EXPOSURES of the egregious actions of who can only be described as despicable sub human scum , who DELIBERATELY and WITHOUT CONSCIENCE eagerly participated in an attempt to malign and imprison an elderly man who would possibly never live to see freedom again for crimes he was innocent of
That these CORRUPT LIARS still continue in their positions despite the overwhelming evidence exposed by David Davis and others just highlights how disgustingly weak the Scottish public are
There are ones who are calling for a truth and reconciliation event, I vehemently oppose that, if anything I want a truth and REVENGE punishment event , these people had no consideration for their despicable actions and the wider effects it would have for the future and trust of our governance
The ONLY positive thing to come out of this putrid corruption is to highlight how weak the actions the people can take to avoid and correct the determined actions of evil people
“A civil servant or Crown Office official suppressing evidence of perjury is a very grave matter indeed, and the first to assist the police with their enquiries will be the likeliest to avoid taking an extended holiday in a room with barred windows”
You can almost smell their sweat.
So what happens next? Just wait another 3 years until Davis gives another speech in the Commons?
Of course as it breaks every SNP MP and MSP will face the questions:
What did you know.
What did you say.
Were you involved in the cover up
Why did you not speak up for an innocent man.
Who asked the BBC to hide the defence evidence.
Were you involved in the redaction of evidence.
Yes indeed they will all be thoroughly tarred and well deserved
Joanna Cherry, the one person who should have been carrying the torch of justice, a spineless fearty.
Like many here (I’m Irish) I’m disappointed and puzzled by Joanna Cherry’s passivity concerning the SNP treatment of Alex Salmond.
Is it perhaps a misdirected perception that he was abusive to women?
I hope that she hasn’t been bullied or blackmailed?
Well put. A few good men and woman.
Anyone want to guess how the psychophants address this?
brilliant man, crusader for truth
– and he was also magic on World of Sport on saturday afternoons
As Wullie Halliday says, “Joanna Cherry, the one person who should have been carrying the torch of justice, a spineless fearty”.
I live in her constituency and did NOT vote for her. She has already stood up for real women. Why didn’t she “carry the torch of justice” in Westminster? She has ruined her reputation although her KC will certainly allow her to make a decent livin!.
Three cheers for Sir David Davis -a thoroughly decent man.
Oh, a disgraceful omission on my part.
Ash Regan is not a Salmondrist either.
Come to think of it, Ash Regan is rarely mentioned anywhere in WOS.
I wonder why?
“For that, at least, all Yes supporters should thank him”
Yes, indeed, I sincerely thank him, although numerous posters here who would rather let a rotten SNP candidate win instead of tactically voting for a Tory candidate to oust him/her would refuse to.
How fake the workers’ leader Sir Keir looks compared to David Davis.
Isn’t it incredible that an English Tory MP might succeed where the SNP and ALBA MPs failed miserably?
Although I am still very doubtful that the conspirators will ever get what they fully deserve – “an extended holiday in a room with barred windows”.
Zander Tait
24 July, 2024 at 4:33 pm
“As the Romans once said of Carthage. The SNP must be destroyed.”
I agree with that 100%.
Kcor: “numerous posters here who would rather let a rotten SNP candidate win instead of tactically voting for a Tory candidate…”
Yip. They’re quieter now than they were before the election but we could probably have gotten rid of a few more SNP MPs, if not all.
Note that no newspaper or anyone took the time to recite the words of protest scribbled on the “repurposed” ballot papers, just as I predicted. Nobody gives a fuck. All they amounted to was a bunch of completely wasted votes.
Party politics was invented in response to the extension of the franchise (democracy) as a means of controlling and manipulating the masses. Sturgeon demonstrated how stupid party loyalty as a guiding principle is, and how stupid those people are who bought into it.
For what it’s worth, I don’t have the confidence others here have in DD’s influence and I suspect all this will go quiet again until Salmond’s court case gets underway, if it ever does.
While I’m being a depressing prick, I also don’t expect the COPFS to press ahead with the Branchform stuff. The term “public interest” will be deployed in the usual fashion and the general public will put on a display of outrage until Strictly or some such crap grabs their attention again…
If there’s enough of them, stupid people can undermine everything in democratic systems; and in Scotland there’s more than enough.
The day after his speech I sent the following letter to David Davis:
Dear David Davis,
I am not a Tory (to put it mildly). I am a long-term supporter of Scottish Independence – and (sadly) a former member of the SNP – having been a member for nearly 40 years.
I resigned from that party three years ago mainly (but not exclusively) over the appalling stitch-up of Alex Salmond, and the grossly criminal behaviour involved – some of which you aired publicly yesterday in Parliament.
As both you and I know, there is much, much more to be told, and I hope that when the time is ripe, you will do us the service of speaking about it in the English Parliament. Sadly, the Scottish Parliament is not yet capable of rendering us such a service, having been captured by a parcel of rogues in the guise of Scottish patriots.
I would not normally welcome the intervention of an English MP on Scottish matters, but in this case I am bound to make an exception. I not only welcome your intervention, I rejoice in it.
I know from other matters on which you have spoken, that you speak from the highest principles in respect of freedom, justice and integrity in public life. I therefore know that you speak from the best of motives.
In so doing you have rendered a great service both to truth and to my country.
For that I thank you.
Garavelli Princip 8.21am
Excellent.
Garavelli Princip – Well said.
Twathater , I am with you on that – to hell with forgiveness and reconciliation ,I want revenge and blood on the carpet.
Apologies for going off topic – though I do applaud David Davis. Sad there are so few like him.
Anyway, though it doesn’t exactly return me to optimism, Robin MacAlpine’s “How To Stage A Coup” series is kind of enjoyable. Treating it a bit like fantasy football, wondering who could be Coup Leader, or Insurrectionist In Chief is lightening my mood a little.
If it got me into the upcoming SNP conference, the membership fee would be worth it to join a slow hand-clap of a Swinney speach. But yes, fantasy.
twathater @ 6:14 pm
“The ONLY positive thing to come out of this putrid corruption is to highlight how weak the actions the people can take to avoid and correct the determined actions of evil people”
Correct, for in a colonial society the people are essentially ‘out of the game’ and unable to halt ‘the evil work’ of the ‘watchdogs of colonialism’ (Cesaire) who manage the country’s institutions ‘in the interest of the colonizer’.
Which brings us back to the realisation that the only remedy for colonialism is liberation. Failing which, more and more of this ‘evil work’ will undoubtedly continue; for ‘between colonization and civilization there is an infinite distance’.
“Correct, for in a colonial society the people are essentially ‘out of the game’ and unable to halt ‘the evil work’ of the ‘watchdogs of colonialism’ (Cesaire)”
Right up to the point where the people have had enough of it and decide to ‘play a game’ of their own making – and then…
Other colonised peoples throughout history have liberated themselves from the scourge of colonialism. But will the Scots eventually wake up to their own condition, shake off their induced lethargy, and choose to follow the path cleared and signposted by those other peoples?
ALF BAIRD.
Also there is the matter of «temperament». Some societies are conformist. The nail sticking up must be hammered down. Such societies view change with trepidation.
Post union Scotland, barring the turbulent 18c, tended to conformity and conservatism.
Fleeing the country was the option for those with drive and imagination. The British empire provided an escape route
Not an especially Scottish phenomenon, even today. Some countries still fail to appreciate «talent», perceiving it as a threat to internal stability.
Article from ‘CSW: Civil Service World’ online newsletter (21 Nov 2014) —
HM TREASURY TEAM WINS SPECIAL CIVIL SERVICE AWARD
« The team was tasked with producing analysis in the lead-up to the Scottish referendum of how both Scotland and the rest of the UK benefit from being part of one country.
« The award, which is aimed at “an individual or team who deserves particular recognition for their outstanding achievement in making a difference on an issue of national significance”, was handed to the winners at the awards ceremony held on Wednesday, 19 November, at Lancaster House.
« Cabinet Secretary and civil service head Sir Jeremy Heywood presented the award to team members Paul Doyle, Will MacFarlane, Shannon Cochrane, and Mario Pisani.
« Pisani said: “In the Treasury, everyone hates you. We don’t get thanks for anything. This is one occasion where we’ve worked with the rest of Whitehall. We all had something in common, we’re trying to save the Union here, and it came so close. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award.”
« He added: “As civil servants you don’t get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognised [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”
« Cochrane said: “we’ve learned that it is possible for civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult, and you’re very close to the line of what is appropriate, but it’s possible to find your way through and to make a difference.”
?And Doyle added: “This award is not just for the Treasury, it’s for all the hard work that was done by all government departments on the Scotland agenda. The reality was in all my experience of the civil service, I have never seen the civil service pull together in the way they did behind supporting the UK government in maintaining the United Kingdom. It was a very special event for all of us.”
« MacFarlane also gave credit to their Scottish Government counterparts, “in particular the government economic service there, who did their jobs for their ministers. I think over the currency debate in particular both governments put forward their economic analysis, which framed where their governments were coming from in the debate.” »
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/hm-treasury-team-wins-special-civil-service-award
« At times of war, the enemy city could be conquered and destroyed by force (kata kratos) and its inhabitants killed or enslaved. But, on the other hand, what could also happen was that the weaker city could take recourse to the institution of the ‘Deditio in fidem’ [‘Surrender in trust’], meaning that they could unconditionally surrender themselves to the hands of the enemy, making the victor hold to a more benevolent conduct. In this instance, the city could be saved and its inhabitants granted a personal freedom, while not being completely free. They comprised a special group, called the ‘dediticii’ [‘prisoners of war, captives, the surrendered’], who ‘gave themselves over’ as what we would nowadays call stateless people. We should perhaps keep this particular group of non-slaves who were not completely free in mind… »
(Giorgio Agamben, ‘The Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans’, Stanford University Press, English translation 2005)
Turabdin: “Post union Scotland, barring the turbulent 18c, tended to conformity and conservatism.”
Hmmmmm. I know we here in Scotland tend to see Culloden as a sort of fight for Scottish independence or something, but in the British context it’s seen as an attempt to restore the Stuarts to the English throne.
I’m not sure how far you can take generalisations that compare Scottish temperament in the 18th Century with that of the 20th Century, given the demographic changes that took place (Irish immigration, etc.).
It’s complicated.
For what it’s worth, I think Scots with Irish backgrounds have much healthier levels of scepticism with regards to the machinations of the British Government, and are generally much less conformist than those with purely Scots ancestry. it’s another unsatisfactory generalisation though…
I’m pretty sure I remember Joanna Cherry explain why she didn’t want to join Alba and suggest that the Sinn Fein approach wouldn’t work in Scotland… something like that anyway. That’s probably true, but it worked in Ireland and countless others.
That sums the situation up, I think… most Scots, for one reason or another, aren’t too keen on the Sinn Fein approach right now. Until that changes, all you really have to rely on is Blackford-styled bluster and the hope of being “granted” a referendum.
The sort of independence you get seems to depend on the route you take to get there. Is Australia, for example, really independent? On paper, yes, but it seems more of a notional thing. Is that the sort of independence Scotland would want?
@Northcode 12.09 pm & @TURABDIN 12.20 pm
Doubtless in many societies the drive towards independence sometimes becomes so strong, as in when a people have “had enough of it and decide to ‘play a game’ of their own making” as Northcode puts it, that little if anything will stand in the way of revolutionary change.
Whether that is accompanied with violence depends on the circumstances of course, and whether the “metropolitan” state has the political will, and the military, financial and ideological resources to face down any overt challenge to the status quo.
Many people don’t accept that Scotland qualifies as a colonial situation of course, even if there are some aspects of our history and experience which are at least quasi colonial. I doubt most real colonies of the British or other empires would accept the claims of those who assert Scotland’s colonial status at face value. I don’t know many (in fact any) Irish people for example who accept that Scotland’s situation – either now or in the recent past – was analogous to that of Ireland pre 1921.
Many of the peoples who gained their independence post WW1 did so not as a result of the inevitability of their cause being seen as just or right, or because they had overwhelming numbers on their side to outweigh their rulers, but due to the opportunities presented to them by the war.
Few people before 1914 would have foreseen the likely independence of all the “new” states which emerged post 1918. Many of those nationalities – even those who had dreamed of independence for centuries or became swept up in the resurgence of “romantic nationalism” post 1848 probably thought the best they could achieve was greater autonomy within their existing structures, whether Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Muscovite or German (or indeed British, French, Dutch, Belgian, Portuguese or American).
There was nothing inevitable about the surge in independent states post 1918 or post 1990, just as there is nothing inevitable about Scottish, Catalan or Quebecois independence now.
Perhaps Turabdin is right: Fleeing the country was the option for those with drive and imagination.
Maybe all those with the get up and go got up and went? I know quite a lot of American and Canadians in particular who are quite convinced that’s the case for Scotland and Ireland, and doubtless people say the same in Scandinavia, Germany and Italy which all contributed millions to the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” who pitched up in North America.
Perhaps things have to get worse not just before they get better, but before enough Scots decide enough is enough?
If independence is seen as either too risky (which doubtless contributed to the defeat in 2014) or just on balance not something that enough Scots think will make them appreciably better off, then they’re unlikely to bet the farm on the result, still less take to the streets or do something radical to end the current flabby and unsatisfying status quo.
I’d love to think Scots had it in them to stage “La Diada” scale events to vent their righteous anger at our current crap situation and propel us down a new path, but frankly I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
@Hatuey 1.27 pm
I suspect that most independence supporters – perhaps even most Scots – would bite your hand off to be independent like Australia (however limited that might be in relation to some ideal) rather than saddled with our current system of governance.
An independent Scotland – even if initially subject to some kind of Dominion status – could easily “do an Ireland” once the threshold had been crossed.
Although it’s just my gut feel, I don’t imagine Scots post-independence would take much time to declare themselves a republic. Until that happy day however, I’d be more than happy for the perfect not to get in the way of the good.
Peter A Bell suggests that a new and RADICAL party is needed in order to rouse people from lethargy/disillusionment and draw support from all strands of the independence movement. His idea is that it should have as its unique identity a commitment, after the first one of a manifesto for independence, to a republic.
I’ve not seen any response to this idea here. Thoughts?
My first thoughts are that the ISP could be a radical alternative themselves. They seem more open than Alba to fire-in-the-belly policies.
I see Leaky Liz is doing a turn at the Embra International Book Festival.
Perhaps she will be open to answering some questions.
She’s invited us all to come along so I recon we should take her up on her invite!
sarah
Ignored
says:
25 July, 2024 at 2:00 pm
Peter A Bell suggests that a new and RADICAL party is needed in order to rouse people from lethargy/disillusionment and draw support from all strands of the independence movement.
ISP are the template for it I’d say. If we could combine all the honest pro Independence people, punters and politicians into this it would be a goer.
@sarah 2:00pm
If Salmond had joined the ISP and had assumed a position of influence within in it maybe the ISP could have amassed a meaningful amount of money to campaign with, and put candidates in most seats and put its policy of abstentionism in the forefront of Scottish politics. At the moment Alba, in rejecting abstentionism, is just as ineffective as the SNP on independence.
PAB is right about the need for a radical party on independence.
It’s early days but the SNP seems to be unable to comes to terms with the fact that hundreds of thousands of independence supporters refused to vote for them because of the SNP’s lack of fire on independence. The same thing will happen in 2026 unless the SNP suddenly changes its tune or a new [or ISP max] party emerges. The 2026 election will be about independence no matter if established parties in Scotland believe otherwise.
Rob
Ignored
says:
25 July, 2024 at 9:27 am
Apologies for going off topic – though I do applaud David Davis. Sad there are so few like him.
I was speaking to a few SNP members and more than a few voters at a funeral in my home town. Folk I know well, including close pals. They are not sure what to make of it or convinced that the SNP leadership (and the many hingers on) are ("Tractor" - Ed)s or are in various forms of denial. It was a complicated web they wove after all and takes a long time to go through it all to clear the mind. I think we need a court case Rob before the mists clear.
If you look at the SNP’s behaviour since 2015 in terms of total destuction of independence it all makes sense, and their behaviour since Swinney’s elevation is the final nail being thoroughly hammered into the coffin
The ALBA PARTY is republican:
“A written constitution starts from the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign, in keeping with the Scottish constitutional tradition and as such we propose to the consultation that Scotland should move to an elected head of state with similar powers to that of the Uachtarán na hÉireann (The President of Ireland).”
https://www.albaparty.org/scotlands_constitution
My understanding is that SALVO is ultimately republican, but meanwhile its case is necessarily (in its view) premised on monarchical issues, ie on highlighting the radical historic constitutional differences between the “CROWN” in Scotland and in England (which latter outlook of course absolutely prevails).
GM/Ignored, The idea of honest people weaving such complicated webs, obstructing and redacting as they go no longer flies with me. Myself and friends who’ll talk about this are more in sympathy with the less charitable of your friends. There’s the schenanigans we’ve seen going on for too long already. David Davis’s summary of just one aspect is pretty damning on its own, isn’t it?
Is there any evidence the continuity faction’s going to drop their blocking of Salmond’s case? Will we hear of Branchform anytime soon? To me, the only clear thing is the need to remove the current leader and hingers on. They’ll never “do a Biden” and take one for the cause. At least, not the cause of Independence.
gm @ 2:51 pm
“Peter A Bell suggests that a new and RADICAL party is needed in order to rouse people from lethargy”
I’m not sure about the need for another national party, but Peter is right about the need ‘to rouse the people from their lethargy’.
Postcolonial theory confirms that in the the third and final phase of decolonization the people ‘must finally awaken and shake themselves from their lethargy’ (Freire) in the face of the forces of colonial occupation, economic exploitation, and political and cultural domination.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/05/25/the-three-phases-of-decolonization-lessons-for-scotland/
If you look at the SNP’s behaviour since 2015 in terms of total destruction of independence it all makes sense, and their behaviour since Swinney’s elevation is the final nail being thoroughly hammered into the coffin
@ Fearghas 3.24pm You wrote, Alba believes
“A written constitution starts from the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign,”
I wonder then WHY is Alex Salmond’s approach MIRRORING the repeatedly FAILED Scum Nonce Party approach of BEGGING the WM establishment for PERMISSION to hold a referendum, HE was the one who secured a sect 30 agreement that the WM establishment will accept the outcome of said referendum, which is ALL that a sect 30 means, a sect 30 is NOT PERMISSION to hold a ref it is only an agreement to accept and adhere to the outcome if the vote is for independence , YET when it was apparent that YES would win, the WM establishment shit themselves and launched every bit of illegality including breaching purdah that they could use to LIE and SCARE people into submission
YET AGAIN Alex Salmond ACCEPTED the LIES,SCAREMONGERING,DUPLICITY,PRESIDENTIAL and CIVIL SERVICE INTERVENTIONS , the VOW by a reviled incompetent ex PM
ALL, without any fightback or outrage
Alex Salmond believes
“A written constitution starts from the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign,”
YET the same Alex Salmond at the first ALBA conference where Sara Salyers was regaled and heralded by the MEMBERSHIP for her PASSION , FORCEFULNESS AND DEDICATION to independence created a situation of division and rancour
SO much for the people of Scotland are SOVEREIGN , as long as Alex Salmond is sovereign FIRST
Re twathater@ 5.41 pm
________________
While agreeing that Alex Salmond ought to have been far more constructive regarding Sara Salyer’s invigorating non-party political vision for moving us forward, you would seem to be in error concerning ALBA’s policy on referendums. The following is from their website:
Scotland’s Democracy: 1. An Effective Electoral Strategy
« The ALBA Party believe that every single election should be used to seek a mandate to begin negotiations for Independence, not yet another mandate for a referendum. The referendum boat has sailed, the Westminster Government have continued to refuse a Section 30 order and the recent ruling by the UK Supreme Court has made holding a referendum without a Section 30 order a much more difficult task.
« This position is not new, the time has come to revert to what was the position of the national movement prior to devolution. The threshold would be a simple majority of votes cast for all pro-independence parties. ALBA has committed to having an explicit declaration of our intent to begin negotiations for independence, if that threshold is met, on the first line of our manifesto. All pro-independence parties should do the same.
« We believe that the next UK General Election should be fought under a “Scotland United for Independence” banner. The key to winning is to attract a substantial cadre of Labour independence supporters who would be unlikely to switch to the SNP in a straight-party contest.
« Thus, preparations need to be done on what to do when an election is won. The focus should then be on how the Westminster Government can be forced into independence negotiations. As we have seen from the last seven years, winning elections does not guarantee independence progress without the political strategy to enforce the people’s mandate.
« […] The ALBA Party have commissioned legal opinions from international authorities on the prospects of getting Scotland’s case before international tribunals as part of this process. »
https://www.albaparty.org/scotlands_strategy
Personally, I wish SALVO well (to say the least) with their painstaking retrieval and robust re-assertion of our long suppressed constitutional validities, but I also agree with ALBA that in terms of mainstream politics we are finished with kowtowing to insidious and sinister Westminster, and that a regained “Scotland United” Holyrood must be our Alamo.
I probably agree, Ellis, and would take what Australia has over what we have… for now at least.
I think at some point in the future those we call unionists today will come around to the indy argument if we pitch an Australian-styled setup to them.
There’s really no reason why you couldn’t still hold on to your Britishness if Scotland had the sort of independence that Australia had, giving you the best of all worlds since, as we all know, Scotland would be a much more prosperous country than it is now if it had that sort of control.
The key thing, of course, is that the Australian model also lets the British/English hold on to their assets in Scotland and wouldn’t necessarily hurt corporations who had holdings here either.
I’ve always thought that is how things will go.
Anyway, well done keeping it civil… no need to mention Taiwan or anything like that.
@ Fearghas 9.36pm Thanks for your response and the information re Alba’s proposals, unfortunately I am not convinced that Alex Salmond has the necessary aggression or passion to FORCE WM to do anything , he WASTED years begging the perverts and deviants to align with a Scotland united banner, as a supposed genius tactician he advised people in the 2021 election to vote Scum Nonce Party 1 and Alba 2 which many because of his popularity did
Whilst the perverts and deviants insisted on snp 1 and 2 which resulted in many unionist seats and another 5 years of abject misery and incompetence from the CLOWNS
IMO the mandate with the intent that negotiations begin on independence is just another hill climbing appeal, HOW is he going to FORCE wm to agree to negotiations, OH he will go to the international court, I think I heard SALVO say something similar that STUEY’s sycophant rubbished and tore asunder but maybe Alex’s idea is different because
Thus, preparations need to be done on what to do when an election is won
Alex Salmond was elected in 2007 this is now 2024 can you point out the information and educational material refuting WM constant claims of bankrupcy or refuting the yearly GERS LIES
While “line manger” is a perfectly reasonable description of Ms Evans am not sure it’s what the author intended…
Alex Salmond regards him as a good friend and has interviewed him at least once on his show.
Another good Tory friend to liberty and also to Alex is Peter Oborne who seems freed now he writes for a Middle East news source. I watch his videos and read his stuff with interest.
After Indy if it ever comes we will need and hopefully value such English people of good will regardless of their politics.
I said Swinney will be the first to crack & start singing. I still think it’ll be him cause he’s the weakest link & a coward.
The truth never stays hidden for very long & he’s been in the thick of it all.
As stated in yer article, it’s usually the first one that’ll cut a deal. They’ll all be sweating buckets on who that will be. Good!
This should be taken all the way cause this could have ended up very differently for Alex Salmond. Thanks to Davis the truth is seeing some daylight but it needs to go further than changes to parliament – ppl need to be held to account & in a court for perjury, interference & obstructing justice. Learning lessons won’t cut it. The stakes were far too high for that.
Thanks, Mr Davis, for all you are doing in giving this matter the full attention it deserves when no one else would.