To Save Your Time
Let us not be ungracious about the use of the term “leading figures” here.
But equally, let’s not waste too much attention.
The University Of Glasgow’s Centre For Public Policy yesterday put out a 56-page report discussing Scotland’s constitutional future.
It purports, reasonably enough, to address the glaring democratic weakness in the Unionist policy position regarding Scottish independence.
Because of course, the Union as it stands is NOT voluntary. Scotland is a prisoner – or as John Smith, the Speaker of the Commons, put it at the time of the Act Of Union: “We have catch’d Scotland and we will bind her fast”.
Regardless of whether or not a majority of its people are currently happy with their imprisonment, prisoners is still what they are. There are no officially-sanctioned means, other than by the grace of the UK government, by which they can extricate themselves from the Union should their desires shift in that direction.
(People may be happily – or at least tolerably happily – married, but feelings change over time and 42% of all UK marriages end in couples wishing to divorce, a situation recognised by the law providing a mechanism for those people to do so.)
And to cut a long story short, here’s the conclusion of the 56 pages:
Those two paragraphs are the entire substantive content of the document. The rest of the 56 pages are waffle and padding and a recap of the last 10 years. All it actually says is “There should be a mechanism, and it should resemble the Northern Irish one” – points that some of us have been making for most of that decade.
(To be absolutely fair to them, “The Centre for Public Policy today released a Post-It note” probably wouldn’t have garnered much press coverage.)
The paper does not elaborate, or even offer suggested options, on just what the “set of criteria” should be. Surprisingly, perhaps, it doesn’t express a view on whether – for example – the extended period of consistent Yes leads in 2020/21 would have been sufficient to trigger the mechanism.
And our previous reluctance to be ungracious notwithstanding, it must be noted that the authors are people of no political significance or influence whatever – sinecured quangocrats who needed something to do with their day, and they have no more say in the matter, or power, than you or we do.
A succession of the main UK party leaders (and Ed Davey) have made it abundantly and repeatedly clear that they have no intention of granting a second referendum in the foreseeable future under any circumstances.
Nor do they have any reason to change that stance. The refusal of democracy to Scotland post-2014 has not proven particularly electorally damaging to them for the last 10 years and there are no signs that it’s about to start doing so. The international community is not especially exercised by the issue, particularly as Scotland did have a vote on the matter in fairly recent history.
We welcome the subject being given exposure, and we don’t disagree with the paper’s findings. But it’s a dead end in terms of actually progressing independence, and since it would certainly set a higher barrier than 50%+1, the effect would be to make victory – by that route, at least – harder to achieve.
A 50%+1 vote in a plebiscitary election, on the other hand, would not GUARANTEE the compliance of the UK government or the meaningful support of the international community, but it would be an unmistakeable, undeniable, unspinnable assertion of the Scottish people’s will in a way that no collection of opinion polls ever could. It remains the only method that puts the matter entirely in Scotland’s hands.
So in the unlikely event that Sir Keir Starmer takes up the proposals, that’s all well and good. The existence or otherwise of such an agreement would not negate or reduce the force of the plebiscitary route. It would do no harm, other than perhaps giving the SNP a further excuse for inaction (although we should have learned by now that they don’t need excuses for that).
But it’s no cause for excitement, or even really a raised eyebrow. There’s nothing here we didn’t know. By all means give it a read if you’re bored, but it will alleviate neither your boredom nor Scotland’s democratic deficit. We’ve taken the bullet for you, and the three paragraphs we’ve quoted above are all you need to know.
“A 50%+1 vote in a plebiscitary election … would be an unmistakeable, undeniable, unspinnable assertion of the Scottish people’s will”
Precisely.
Which is why it remains unfathomably mystifying just why no group of concerned, committed pro-Indy Scots is organising to stand for election on that plebiscitary platform.
That’s all they need to do. Get together, start a party (The Plebiscite Party), get the word out, stand for election. WM, HR, both if they wish.
What exactly, in the name of all that’s holy, is the fucking problem?
The latest YouGov poll on Indy shows 37% Yes, 47% No. When the “don’t knows” are factored out, No wins 56%-44%.
Same as 2014.
The latest Survation, More in Common, Norstat and Opinium polls all show that Yes would lose.
All that heated rhetoric about Scots being “imprisoned” doesn’t seem to be persuading people.
Thanks for taking that bullet. Colour me shocked. Again.
When the dust has now settled over the last ten years, I can’t help but get that very sinking feeling that being a Scot in the UK amounts to no more than being a Nova Scotian* in Canada.
* Also coincidentally known as ‘bluenoses’. There might just be something in that.
I agree 100% with this article Stu and your conclusion.
Words, more words is what this is. No mention on how to action this idea nor any mention on who would recognise and support this vague idea.
We have had years of words from the SNP and little action unless you wish to highlight a draft referendum bill that was put to the UK courts from comment. A court whose purpose is to support the Union. Why was that not an approved bill sanctioned by the Court of Session.
I have no faith at all that any political party with members in Holyrood or Westminster has the nouse, the assertiveness and ability to get us independence. They do not have a clue about our own laws and constitution. They abide by Englands laws only. Disgraceful.
Hatey McHateface @ 13.47.
The problem is the complete inability of Scots nationalists to agree to unite (or even just cease personal hostilities) for long enough to achieve such a joint effort as a new political party.
Get 3 of them in 1 room and you’ll get 4 “united” opinions on how to get the Party going.
Just think of the assorted personal insults and futile point scoring which continues on WOS btl comments irrespective of the original article between regular posters all of whom are allegedly united in the common goal of independence.
Or the way in which prohibited subjects or words are frequently dragged in by the cunning subterfuge of inserting dashes or hyphens.
Start a new Plebiscite Party with you, RoS & Geri all agreeing to unite in a common endeavour ? To quote Geri’s favourite punctuation point, lol.
A second independence referendum will never be granted by the British state. Westminster is not in fact a democracy, it’s a Spookocracy.
Keir Starmer has been described by that levelheaded, one nation Tory, Peter Oborne as the “MI5 candidate”.
Starmer’s Chief of Staff, Sue Gray comes from solidly working class, Irish diaspora stock, having grown up in London. Financial restraints prevented her going to university, and she joined the Civil Service straight from school.
How did she end up joined at the hip to Keir Starmer? Well, she resigned from the Civil Service in 2023 to take up the position as his Chief of Staff while he was leader of the opposition. By exercising this highly unusual move, she was found to have broken the Civil Service code.
One curious note from Gray’s Wiki page; “Gray took a career break in the 1980s, a step described … as “strikingly unorthodox”.During this time, she ran the Cove Bar, a pub in Newry … during The Troubles, … Peter Caldwell, a former special adviser to several ministers, said it had been speculated Gray was a spy at this time, though Gray denied it.”.
The Cove Bar was a known Irish Republican haunt.
Clearly, Gray is Starmer’s Handler, not his “Chief of Staff”. All terribly redolent of Sturgeon’s visceral attachment to Liz Lloyd.
Its not in the UK governments remit to refuse.
“…recognised, legal and fair process to test,
where appropriate…”
Where appropriate are the key words there I think. And the Westminster Viceroy gets to decide.
“The international community is not especially exercised by the issue, particularly as Scotland did have a vote on the matter in fairly recent history”.
Yeah, even though that particular exercise would fail all tests of being a free and fair one; two (or was it 3) world record beating postal vote returns in one day. A foreign media 99.9% hostile to Scotland (proven fact by prof. Robertson), with the State Broadcaster even running a 5 minute ‘No’ propaganda piece nationally, every hour on the hour, all day long, no independent observers etc…
Oh and mustn’t forget a local government franchise used where everybody and his/her dog got a say; second home owners, students here temporarily, anyone from anywhere basically.
Just saying, like.
Oh, silly me, I almost forgot; ‘The Vow’… LOL
If Scots are to receive the equivalent treatment of the Belfast Agreement implied by this report that should mean the franchise is similarly open only to ‘all persons born” in Scotland. But I don’t see this ‘condition’ in the Noon & Dugdale report. Which means the Scots are not being treated equally vis-a-vis N Ireland. We are not equal also re Brexit with people born in N Ireland able to hold EU citizenship via an Irish passport. Scots treated as second class again, and as the Rev implies, held captive. Scotland’s resources are clearly worth a great deal more to Westminster, a factor also ignored by Noon & Dugdale .
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/619500728fa8f5037d67b678/The_Belfast_Agreement_An_Agreement_Reached_at_the_Multi-Party_Talks_on_Northern_Ireland.pdf
Sven
We don’t need to agree on every single thing. Scotland is being asked if we should return to being an independent country or not.
Not whether we all agree on various subjects. That’d be for the people of Scotland to vote on post Indy.
I do get fed up with absolute roasters continually trying to add ad-ons like NATO, EU etc or they’ll throw their toys out of the pram. That’d be for an independent Scotland to decide. Its not what will be asked on the ballot paper.
But Scotland is not Northern Ireland. Scotland is one of the founder signatories of the Treaty of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.
Nothern Ireland was never a state. Scotland was an independent state until May 1707.
Nothern Ireland is a province that emerged as an entity after the rest of Ireland declared independence. Scotland is a country in itself and has been a country in itself for over many many centuries before the union. It has maintained its borders since May 1707 despite this union. The union was political, and did not include the transfer of territorial ownership between Scotland and England.
Because of this, Scotland is not seeking “to secede” from anything, as that document purports, to become independent. It does not need to.
Scotland can and should simply unilaterally terminate that treaty of union so the Kingdoms of Scotland and England can continue their separate paths. Legally, the only thing it needs to do so is a majority of Scotland’s MPs agreeing to end the union. That was what was required to start the union, therefore that is what is required to terminate it.
It is not a matter for “the UK”, for England’s representatives, for foreign-led “think tanks” or for anybody else’s security services to stick their nose in how the people of Scotland can organise its exit way. That is for Scotland, and Scotland only, to decide and choose.
Scotland does not need to negotiate with the “UK”. Scotland is as much the Uk as England is, therefore the idea that Scotland has to negotiate with itself is silly in itself. Without Scotland, there is no “UK”.
The partner Scotland has to negotiate the termination of the union, separation and division of assets is the Kingdom of England. And by negotiating termination of the union, I mean precisely that: how the termination is effected – ie dates, not IF termination can be done or how the people of Scotland should communicate their desire to effect that termination, or how valid it is considered by entities that are outwith Scotland and therefore have no business interfering. It is for nobody else, other than the people of Scotland, to decide.
Ireland never needed “a referendum” to communicate its desire to be independent and to become independent. The only thing they needed and used was a UK general election and then a bunch of MPs with a backbone to reconvene Ireland’s parliament.
Scotland is not the property of the Kingdom of England or “the UK”. Scotland is in a political union with the Kingdom of England, therefore the way out of this union is clear: to revoke the Treaty of Union ending that union.
The only thing we need is a mechanism to ditch the Scotland Act and restore the powers of Scotland’s parliament.
That mechanism could be through a political party that stands on a manifesto to revoke the Scotland Act, restore the powers of the Scotland’s old parliament and revoke the Treaty of Union. For this, it is required that the representatives of that political party do not swear allegiance to any monarch. At the moment, it seems that the only party that resembles that mechanism is ISP.
The alternative is through a popular convention, like the Convention of the States was. Given Scotland’s popular sovereignty, such convention could, independently from UK structures, organise its own consultation with the purpose of overruling Holyrood as it stands, tied in the Scotland Act straight jacket and behaving like a puppet of Westminster and the crown, and Scotland’s MPs, who become useless to Scotland the minute they swear allegiance to a foreign monarch.
Holyrood and the parasites currently sitting there may feel they have to abide by the Scotland Act to preserve their own salaries and perks. But such convention will not have that problem.
It seems to me there is a massive and concerted effort from all elements of the establishment across the UK, to present Scotland’s independence as impossible. The British establishment, including that think tank outfit, seem determined in their minds to, somehow, demote Scotland to the status of a province like Northern Ireland or to a region like Catalonia is.
Scotland is none.
And why can this possibly be? It is obvious. It is because the establishment may fear the prospect that, because it is perfectly legitimate for Scotland to do and because it has every right to end “the united kingdom of great Britain” unilaterally, fed up of waiting for a fair referendum that never arrived, it may just choose to do so. And about time.
Forcing us to wait for a stupid referendum for 10 bloody years after we sent 3 absolute majorities of anti-union MPs to Westminster was abuse and a violation of Scotland’s right to self-determination.
But the abuse was not Westmintser’s. It was from the very Scotland MPs themselves who, elected to deliver independence and to stand up for Scotland, chose instead to stand against Scotland and to collude with elements of the British state to forcefully deny Scotland’s right to self-determination, so they could keep lining their pockets with salaries, secure pensions, access to subsidised bars and perks at the expense of the yes supporters they were supposed to represent.
It seems to me that the controllers of the British state, wherever those are, cannot possibly cope with the idea of losing all that perceived power and influence that the UN seat, Nato seat, embassies, treaties, trade deals, etc, etc, etc, give them.
But the reality is that none of those goodies belong just to England. They are common assets to both partners and therefore they should be treated as such and used for the negotiation of separation. So shame of those who call themselves “Scotland’s representatives” and have, for the last 10 years, pathetically surrendered any attempt to properly represent Scotland’s interests and instead happily capitulated to the pressure of the English establishment by helping them to portray Scotland as a province or region of the kingdom of England instead of what it is: its equal partner in a political union.
If a referendum is accepted by the majority of Scotland’s natives as the route to follow, then the franchise for that referendum will have to be tighten up in line with constitutional referendums across the other European states, including the UK’s franchise for the EU referendum.
Otherwise it will never be a referendum on self-determination. It will be just another joke at the Scots’ expense like 2014 was. It will be another assault on the Scotland’s natives’ right to self determination and yet another sly mechanism to purposely suppress their will by using migrants form everywhere else with no allegiance to Scotland and who, just like it happened in 2014, may just leave Scotland within a year after the referendum.
Scotland does not need “to secede” from anything. That is misinformation. It simply needs to terminate the union with England reverting both, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland to their former status of independent states.
It will be then for NI to decide if it wants to continue shackled to England and form the “United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland”, if it wishes to go solo, or if it wishes to unite with the rest of Ireland.
Vivian O’Blivion @2:30pm, Nae smoke wi’oot fire, o’ that we can be sure. Westminster and the establishment with the assistance of the ‘compromised’in Scotland will continue to conspire against us. We have all been warned!!
From the John Smith Centre!
Hmmm..
Maybe with the SNP in a self imposed death spiral Westminster will suddenly say now is The Time and graciously grant another referendum now the odds would appear (to them) as being heavily stacked in their favour.
It would also mean keeping Branchform going even longer to maintain the nasty smell in everyone’s nostrils; final nail in the coffin and all that..
Great post, Mia.
The two kingdoms that negotiated the Treaty were equally sovereign when they did so in 1706. But by the time it came into effect in 1707, Scotland’s sovereignty had mysteriously vanished, while England’s had apparently expanded over Scotland.
How that came about is a real puzzle to us Scots because there was nothing at all in the Treaty they’d just negotiated, agreed, signed, and ratified that specified anything remotely resembling such an arrangement!
The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland loves a precedent, and the Edinburgh Agreement (2012) is the precedent which has become a rod for our own backs.
The Edinburgh Agreement came about via an Oliver Twist-like approach to the Government at Westminster by the Government at Holyrood, with the former only agreeing to the process because…
*Yes was trailing in the polls
*The MSM were rabidly pro-Union
*HMQ could be called upon if needed (and was)
*West central Scotland Yoons could be emboldened by social club paramilitaries posing as marching bands being imported from Ulster to make the point that hard core Yoons didn’t intend going anywhere, let alone peacefully.
*Postal ballot returns could be ‘enhanced’ and pro-Union local authorities could be less than rigorous in their control of counts
*The pillar of democracy and Mother of Parliaments would be excused any external scrutiny as to the process being fair and meeting internationally recognised standards
*Spain would ensure any talk of future EU membership would be quashed
*NATO allies could be relied upon to pour cold water as/when required
*Westminster could pour scorn upon any hypothetical post-Yes negotiation, for example regarding Sterling, by simply refusing to engage
It’s a miracle that 52% of Scots voted Yes and only a 6% swing would’ve been sufficient to see those non-Scots who won the day for No being defeated.
Any talk of an alternative to the Edinburgh Agreement/IndyRef1 will be portrayed as being an attempt by the losing side to try to change the rules of the game, and in doing so acquire a means more favourable to their preferred outcome.
We shouldn’t be fretting over IndyRef2 – after IndyRef1 we should be running in the opposite direction!
“Clearly, Gray is Starmer’s Handler, not his “Chief of Staff”. All terribly redolent of Sturgeon’s visceral attachment to Liz Lloyd”
Wasn’t Gray also instrumental in bringing Johnson down?
Like or hate him, Johnson was the last popular leader among the tory party membership. I am of the opinion that it was bringing Johnson down what ultimately sealed the fate of the tory party in the GE. That is why so interesting that Gray appears to have been involved in both.
We all know that Starmer only won thanks to FPTP, because he relied on a meagre support and low turnout. Would he have been able to win if the tory leader was Johnson instead of the unpopular Sunak? Did the deep state need to put Sunak as leader to give Starmer the chance?
Who was instrumental in bringing Mr Salmond down? Who advised/encouraged him to resign in 2014 despite increasing support for independence from 23% in January 2013 to over 50% a week before the referendum and despite transforming the party from being a small one to become one of the biggest parties of the Uk in terms of membership?
Was that the reason why they made him resign?
It was Mr Salmond’s resignation what put the SNP on its path of irreversible controlled demolition under the betraying hand of Sturgeon (and her handler). It was her who suddenly transformed that party from being a vehicle of independence to becoming another useless party begging for devolution.
Was Lloyd instrumental in stopping Mr Salmond entering Westminster in 2017?
Was she instrumental in getting him to exit the SNP?
Was she instrumental in the destruction of his reputation?
Johnson had the party members’ backing. Truss did too, but only because Johnson could not be put forward as a candidate. She beat Sunak by over 20,000 votes. Sunak was the most unpopular of the three. He was parachuted to the post without a proper leadership election because they knew the members would not elect him.
Sturgeon, awful as she was, had the members’ backing. But the question remains: would she have been ever elected if Mr Salmond entered the leadership contest?
The election of Yousaf was beyond dubious and, just like for Sunak, Swinney didn’t even face a leadership contest, he was simply catapulted, by someone/something, to the post. His handlers could not even expose him to a leadership context against devolutionist Free-ports Forbes.
Both, Truss and Yousaf were terrible and had short tenures. Sunak and Swinney are even less popular and as if not even more useless. Yet, they were catapulted to the post by someone/something and forced on members they wanted them or not.
Do we see a pattern here? I think we do.
Both in the tory party and the SNP (and I dare say the labour party too), the dodgy leaders were elected only after their most popular leaders (Johnson, Salmond, Corbyn) were removed from the race by the hand of someone/something. That is why any claim the UK is a democracy is total bullshit.
Liz Lloyd was also involved in the campaign of Yousaf until Ms Regan spoke to the senior Civil Servant to bring this to his attention and note that doing so was a breach of the civil servants’ code.
Yet, Teflon Lloyd was never disciplined, never mind sacked. I find it very, very hard to believe that the most senior civil servant in Scotland was not aware of her doings.
Some claimed that Gray breached the civil servant’s code when she took the job as Starmer’s chief of staff. Yet, like teflon Lloyd, she was never disciplined.
What Sturgeon, Truss, Sunak, Yousaf and Swinney have in common is that they were absolutely useless to their respective countries as leaders. But they were/are good for whomever/whatever is controlling the British state.
It takes a particular kind of useless and spineless nationalist to get them to send Scotland’s stone of destiny to England, and to accept the raping of Scotland through free ports, or that outfit called “GB” Energy which symbolises the theft of Scotland’s energy. Swinney has proven to be so utterly useless and spineless that he could not even negotiate, despite all being Scotland’s energy, to put Scotland in the name of the outfit.
When you see things like the freeports and the theft of Scotland’s electricity, you start to wonder if Sturgeon, Yousaf, Swinney and Forbes are all MI5 candidates.
The question for me is who is controlling M15, MI6 and the deep state.
Is it the crown?
Is it the UK gov?
Is it controlling “itself”? if so how? or is it being controlled by the secret services of another state/s?
Who vets civil servants like Lloyd and Grey and who gets to decide that a particular civil servants will not be disciplined when they breach the civil service code?
Why weren’t they disciplined for breaching the code?
Was that because they were instructed to do so?
If so, by whom?
It ought to be fairly simple thing to bring evidence that Scotland joined the Union as a con seating partner to an equal endeavour, not as a supplicant. Nothing whatsoever gives English prior authority to become top dog, nothing whatsoever.
It is not enough to say that the Treaty is ancient history because it is, legally, underpins the UK constitution. If it doesn’t, then there can be no Union. If there is no Union, there can be no UK. The implications are so massive that it is not difficult to understand why lies are told about the Treaty and the Union.
Treaties are, by their very nature, international legal entities, which means that no domestic legislation pertaining to the Union can supersede that Treaty or cause any of its Articles to be thrust aside or to fall into desuetude. The Acts of Union are not primary legislation, but secondary legislation, domestic legislation, and, as such, could never have overturned international law. They still cannot do so. If you are lied to and told that they can – and people have believed that, the Scots and the English people, it is not hard to comprehend why so many English people believe we were conquered. It is all lies and we are fools to believe them.
This is a matter in international law for Scotland to take to the ICJ, as a matter of urgency. The political sphere should be a united front for independence. It is not that England and the British State cannot be overcome, it is that too many Scots are collaborators and fearties, and the top of the SNP, the supposed party of independence, has been compromised and is acting in the interests of the British State and not in Scotland’s interests. That is the truth of it. So much of history, here and elsewhere, is simply a tissue of lies.
Sinecured quango rats….about right. Leaving our collective sovereign future in the hands of the Secretary of State is beyond absurdly ridiculous. Imagine wee murray sitting there rubbing his hands down his union jack suit with glee. It is not for him or his ilk to decide our future.
Mia, you are correct. They are not Scotland’s representatives, they are England’s representatives in Scotland. Useful colonised idiots. England never gets mentioned in the debate, it is as you say, not Scotland vs the UK, but Scotland vs England, and how long before they mention racism. England needs to find its own identity, its own resources and stop depending on colonising others, including Scotland. Grow a pair England, be a good neighbour and pay for what you take. Ultimately you will grow and learn and have a great potential to be a nation again, standing on your own two feet. You can do it. We can for sure, and will.
The Dug goes woof again.
No real nationalist could or should accept that self determination is in any way in the gift of Westminster, or subject to consent.
Constitutional fetters however ingeniously and loosely applied remain fetters.
The attempt by anti independence actors to “Ulsterise” the process of Scottish self determination should be rejected out of hand.
As you rightly say, 50% + 1 in a plebiscitary election might not be seen as authoritative and wouldn’t necessarily guarantee recognition of the result either by Westminster or the UN, but it would be very persuasive. It would also beg the question of whether the pro independence majority has the balls not to take “No” for an answer, and – as any self respecting nationalist movement ultimately must – takes rather than asks for its independence.
There are actually few precedents for a pro independence majority being stonewalled, but there are also relatively few examples.
The Faroese people voted for independence from Denmark in 1946, with 50.7% voting in favour. The Speaker of their Logting declared independence on 18th September 1946 whereupon the Danes dissolved the Logting and called fresh elections which were won by unionist parties. Negotiations after the new elections granted wide ranging home rule to the islands in 1948.
I suspect that the overwhelming majority Scottish unionists and British nationalists – particularly those like Dugdale – don’t really even want or expect to be able to deliver the same level of home rule for Scotland as the Faroese enjoy from Denmark.
Lorna 5.21
You are correct about it being easy to show the Union as a fraud. All you need to do is read the Salvo website. Then ideally join Salvo and sign the Liberation movement. Freedom coming with not a politician sight.
Several YouTube videos around as well.
Another great post by Mia followed by one of Xaracens,it appears that the John smith centre and their resident very highly paid MORON have been instructed to cobble together some pish to placate and quieten the current displeasure of independence supporters at the ongoing and forthcoming destruction of our social services by Labour eagerly supported by the Scum Nonce Party and their deviants
WM has been trying for decades to rewrite the COR and to get Scots to sign away their birthright, they are continuously working to undermine and destroy Scots SOVEREIGNTY , THIS is just another plan to chip away at our sovereignty by inferring that we NEED WM as england graceful permission to hold a referendum with ALL CONDITIONS being set by our colonisers, there are indeed many even on here who would gladly sign away their birthright because they are brit scots not Scot brits and unfortunately our political parties are staffed entirely by them apart from ISP
IF WM as engerland was SO POWERFUL why has EVERY PM since 2014 stated that “Now is not the time” instead of we will NEVER grant another independence referendum because by law we can do so , they CANNOT destroy or rip up the COR because THAT would destroy the TOU, THAT is why they want to AMEND it and to do so they NEED Scots to accept the amendments
As Stu has pointed out the MORON and her sidekick have NO AUTHORITY to propose ANYTHING and even if they did the conditions would be untenable, has Gordy Broon the tr@it or been seen in Glasgow Uni The Vow version 2
The ONLY thing stopping independence is political COWARDS and LIARS
OT… but sobering. Bit dull, but stick with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTWDzMjgsEY
You won’t see any of this on the news.#
It doesn’t mention Scotland, but I defy you “not” to think about Scotland in this mess.
“Legally, the only thing it needs to do so is a majority of Scotland’s MPs agreeing to end the union”
That will never happen the majority of MP’s from Scotland are careerist unionist troughers – who don’t give a toss about dissolving this illegal union – the same can be said for the MSPs at Holyrood.
Andy: the information is no good to us sitting on the SALVO website. I’m not saying it’s their fault. It’s also no good asking people to read about it because, unless they are really committed, they simply won’t bother. What we need are people willing to set up meetings all over Scotland, using SALVO information, but also information and opinions of Scottish jurists, such as the late Professor Walker’s and Professor Campbell’s. Their deeply-researched and legally and constitutionally-valid opinions were published some time ago in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland. It would be fair to say that it is a conservative (small ‘c’) magazine although it does publish some very erudite and liberal opinions.
Unionists will argue black is white, but the evidence is there, in our own constitutional documents, in the Treaty itself and in Hansard. People might take a while to absorb it all, even nationalists, but they will come to understand how they have been lied to for generations. If they still refuse to accept it, then there is little that can be done, except to ensure that all the information goes to the UN/ICJ and to every national newspaper and news outlet across the world as a first step before the political engagement.
One other thing which is very important, I think: when the Normans invaded England in 1066, they eventually spread throughout the British Isles and Ireland. In time, they led the Scottish wars of independence, the Irish wars of independence and the later Welsh uprisings. It may well be, that, in the years ahead, it will be the offspring of the English migrants and our own, together, who take us to independence. Just a thought.
So me n ma mate Tam are gonnae set up oor ain quango and publish oor ain dross.
I see that as no different to this. How much did that cost?
Lorna Campbell @ 5:21 pm
“This is a matter in international law for Scotland to take to the ICJ, as a matter of urgency.”
Indeed so. It remains a great puzzle as to why SNP nationalist governments have never attempted to do this, especially given the many violations to the ToU. Scotland’s constitution and treaty arrangement with England is a pretty clear cut matter under international law. Once a treaty agreement is no longer in the signatory nation’s interest it is ended:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/08/08/determinants-of-independence-constitution/
“Regardless of whether or not a majority of its people are currently happy with their imprisonment, prisoners is still what they are.”
Sorry, this is just silly.
Are people who live in Motherwell all prisoners because there’s no mechanism for them to leave Scotland and become their own microstate? And the interests of the 30k people who live in Motherwell are far more aligned than those of the 5.5m scattered unevenly across the vast expanse of Scotland, so if anything they have more claim to be a defined people.
Mia
Great post.
The UK government has no authority over Scotland. Eejits from the ‘The University Of Glasgow’s Centre For Public Policy’ are trying to imply Scotland is subordinate to England & no higher in the pecking order than a provence ffs. What planet are these morons on? Dugdale still proving she has no brains.
We’re the other half of the UK. A sovereign nation & it gave hee-haw authority to the English. Studies like these should be treated with the contempt they deserve. A parasitic nation trying desperately to cling onto territory, vast waters & wealth that doesn’t belong to them.
If the English wanted to leave does anyone think Kezia & Co would come out with the pish that they couldn’t? They’d need a section 30 or permission from Scots? No, me neither.
This bullshit only tries to legitimise fake news. Made up bullshit that they shouldn’t have wasted their time on.
@Sven says: 26 September, 2024 at 2:15 pm
Get 3 of them in 1 room and you’ll get 4 “united” opinions on how to get the Party going
Hard to believe it could be worse than that, Sven, but actually, it’s worse than that.
Because all the time the 3 in the room are arguing, they’ll be watching the door, in the hope that somebody will come in and announce that they are actually going to do something.
But no, when that fourth person comes in, she’s watching the door too, in the same state of helpless paralysis as the first three.
And so it goes on.
129 good and true Scots, one from each constituency in the land, are all that are required from our 5.5 million to stand on that plebiscitary platform at HR. Heck, just counting the usual suspects on here, we’ve probably already got 10.
And for those regular posters who are absolutely emphatically adamant of the unimpeachable rightness and righteousness of their opinions and the overwhelming support for their cause among ordinary Scots, being elected just has to be a stone cold certainty.
Right?
So as I wrote before:
What exactly, in the name of all that’s holy, is the fucking problem?
@ Derek at 7.03pm: Your point is utterly fatuous. Motherwell isn’t a nation, is it? So why would the people of Motherwell want to leave Scotland? They are patently obviously Scottish. As for Scotland, it has been a nation since 843AD. It was an independent nation for hundreds of years before the UK existed.
I encourage everyone who’s interested in the Indy movement to read the comments at WoS by the likes of “Mia”, “Geri,” “James Che”, the aptly-named “Confused,” and more.
They’ll soon realize that the cutting edge of the Indy movement is populated by a dozen tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists (Humza is an MI5 agent?), historical illiterates, constitutional illiterates, actual illiterates, and Salvo moonh*wlers.
No wonder their actual support is so few that they dare not publish the number of people that voted for their self-styled “Liberation” committee. No wonder the Monster Raving Loony Party outpolls their ISP at elections.
Caveman Campbell
How do you know they don’t agree?
Why are you even here? You’re not an independence supporter so what’s it to you what a group of individuals are doing? Its nothing to do with you is it?
Can you name everyone in the Tory 1922 committee? How about the Tory dining club? Or let’s try the Tory EU research group? Can you give us details on who selected them for these special groups & who funds them? The Tories have more secret groups than the orange order ffs and receive hefty salaries from the public purse.
Why is there political parties within political parties within political parties in England? Shouldn’t you spend yer day on that instead of fretting yerself on what a private group of individuals are doing with their time. Have you donated in any way? Are you a member?
There should be only one way that Scotland gets a referendum. By returning a majority of MSPS in favour of independence.
This is the only definite way of determining what Scottish people want. Opinion polls are not elections. They are snapshots of opinion at a given time. Opinions are not valid in a legal sense. So I entirely refute any movve towards opinion poll democracy.
This is a very dangerous path to go down. An opinion poll may suggest yes would lose, despite electing a nationalist government. And that’s because it is a small sample, not quantifiable, not binding or democratic.
The SNPs failure to use their mandates, is a matter of regret. But that does not mean we then revert to opinion poll democracy.
We cannot bind our people to opinion poll democracy.
Mia 5:20
“Both in the tory party and the SNP (and I dare say the labour party too), the dodgy leaders were elected only after their most popular leaders (Johnson, Salmond, Corbyn) were removed from the race by the hand of someone/something. That is why any claim the UK is a democracy is total bullshit.”
We know who it is. Clue, they go off on an all expenses paid wee jolly the moment they become MPs. Its mandatory.
Its foreign interference as exposed by the Labour Files.
Johnson was jettisoned because he was a loose cannon & would blab the bit out loud he wasn’t supposed to, just like he’s doing on the international circuit at the moment telling everyone Western Hegemony is under threat LOL What a plank.
Scotland isn’t immune from those same lobby groups. They’ve tried desperately to try get a bit of their usual modus operandi introduced to Scotland (Denise + Neale deselected)
Yvonne Ridley wrote an excellent article about this a year or so ago & Police Scotland & The Fringe is even captured. They’re staunchly anti Scottish independence cause they need their UK puppet on the seat of the security council to continue acting like a tit on the world stage & ignore what their eyes & ears tell them.
If England decided it wanted to leave the Union and rUK said no do we really believe it would take a blind bit of notice.
If Scots are prisoners England is the jailer.
Big Jock
Exactly. Opinion polls are easily manufactured & manipulated depending on who conducts them.
The ballot box is the only authority. Not something akin to playing Family Fortunes over the course of a period of time.’We asked 100 people..’
Why is it only in Scotland we find people trying to invent new ways to give Scots ‘democracy’?
We’ll just have what everyone else has, 50%+1 & ONLY ONCE, not best of a dozen.
That’s if we even have a ref. A sovereign nation can leave a union anytime it likes. Its other nations that will recognise us. Not a permission slip from our jailers that means absolutely zilch to anyone in the real world.
There is no benefit for Scotland in this union. None at all or yoons would be shouting about it from the roof tops on a daily basis. They don’t cause there isn’t any.
I encourage people who are undecided about Indy to read the comments of “Geri.”
Whose scintillating intellectual responses to criticism are best summed up as “shut up!”
If sensible people read Geri’s long, rambling, repetitive, weird screeds (danger–they may be bored to death in the process, or break a rib bone laughing) they’ll never vote for Indy.
Could you not find a benefit either?
Thought not.
“Eejits from the ‘The University Of Glasgow’s Centre For Public Policy’ are trying to imply Scotland is subordinate to England & no higher in the pecking order than a provence ffs”
Of course they do. The British establishment they work for is desperate to ensure England remains as the “united kingdom” state after Scotland’s independence.
Right now, if Scotland unilaterally ends the treaty of union, England can only become the successor state with Scotland’s consent. Scotland has the exact same right as England to demand being the successor state.
Presenting Scotland as a region/portion that simply exits the UK, so the UK remains as the main entity, would avoid having to terminate the treaty, which is, in my view, what they are desperate to preserve at all costs.
In my view, this is the reason why they have been busy devising alternatives to revoking the treaty using some kind of fudge around their beloved “parliamentary sovereignty”. And here it is one of the attempts:
“Act of Union Bill [HL]
Private Members’ Bill (Starting in the House of Lords)
Originated in the House of Lords, Session 2017-19
Last updated: 9 October 2019 at 10:28
Long title
A Bill to provide a renewed constitutional form for the peoples of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to continue to join together to form the United Kingdom, to affirm that the peoples of those nations and parts have chosen, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to continue to pool their sovereignty for specified purposes, and to protect social and economic rights for citizens”
This bill is in its second reading, but it has not progressed since 2019. Thank goodness.
First of all, it is not a proper treaty, but rather an “Act of Union”, therefore domestic law. In my opinion it does not substitute the real treaty, it simply adds a domestic layer over it to hide it a bit more.
It seems to me that this “Act of Union” would aim to completely demote Scotland to the status of a province of England.
In this new “Act of Union”, the “union” is not between Scotland and England, but rather between, England, Scotland, NI and Wales. But England remains, of course, in full control of the UK parliament. So, if Scotland leaves, the “united kingdom” remains intact.
It actually purports to offer a mechanism to that effect. It offers a mechanism for Scotland to exit the UK through a referendum via domestic law (fully controlled by England as the UK and its crown, of course) without having to even touch the original treaty, because all negotiation of independence and who grants independence is this new “UK Parliament” through an Act of this Parliament. In other words, Scotland becomes a part of and subordinated to this new parliament.
Because the original treaty remains intact, I am not quite sure what happens with “Great Britain”. I guess is that the idea behind this is that the English crown continues to control the Scottish one. They will probably fudge all that too.
This Act of Union also purports to legitimise the Supreme Court, whose legitimacy under the Treaty of Union is quite dubious. This new Act gives this English court full supremacy over all other courts on Scotland, Wales and NI. I am of the opinion this remains to be a direct breach of the treaty of union.
When you look deeper, you realise that everything continues to be exactly as it is now, with England being given priority and control over everything, over every decision and over every other nation.
The only differences with now are that it provides:
a mechanism to demote Scotland to the status of a region of England, just like Wales and NI
a mechanism to devolve power to England but without losing control over the whole UK
a mechanism to reform/abolish the HoL
a mechanism to reduce the number of total MPs to a meagre 146, making the representation of NI, Wales and Scotland pretty much insignificant.
a mechanism to change the name of the Bank of England to the “Bank of the UK”.
and critically, a mechanism to change the name of the state. By the look of it, it may pass to be simply called “United Kingdom”.
It is interesting that this new “Act of Union” proposes that to start there must be an initiation referendum:
“53 Commencement principle
(1) The preceding Parts of this Act shall not come into force unless their commencement is approved in a referendum held in accordance with this Part (“the commencement referendum”) by all of the following—
(a) a majority consisting of at least 65% of the votes cast in the United
Kingdom as a whole; and
(b) a majority of the votes cast in England; and
(c) a majority of the votes cast in Scotland; and
(d) a majority of the votes cast in Wales; and
(e) a majority of the votes cast in Northern Ireland.
(2) In this section “votes” means valid votes. a referendum that is in domestic law, seeking to avoid having to resource to international law and ending that treaty”
Either the person who wrote this paragraph cannot count, does not have a clue about the populations of England, Scotland, NI and Wales, or thinks we are all thick and would not notice.
According to Google, for 2020 the population of the UK was
67,081,234. The population of England was 56,550,138
65% of 67,081,234 was 43,602,802.1
The population of Scotland+Wales+NI combined was 10,531,096
Even in the impossible event that the entire population of Scotland+Wales+NI voted for this thing, it would still be required that 33,071,706.1 of England also voted for it. That figure represents around 58.5% of England’s population.
In other words, England is given a veto over everybody else, just as it has now. Unless a 60% of England votes for it, it does not happen.
Is also interesting the content of section (2) above which says: “In this section “votes” means valid votes”.
Clearly, they are just ensuring that the inconvenient spoiled ballots do not get counted at all. Probably they do not get even counted as “turnout”.
There is another interesting thing for this “initiation” referendum: the franchise
Here it is, loud and clear:
“58 Franchise
(1) A person who would be entitled to vote in a general election held on the day of the referendum is entitled to vote in the referendum.
(2) No other person is entitled to vote in the referendum”
There you go, a restrictive franchise and not an open one like the indyref was where everybody who was for 5 min in Scotland was able to vote. What a bunch of “ethno-nativists” these Brits are, huh? Yet, I don’t see any of those pro-wide open franchise criticising them.
And what happens if a majority of the people in Scotland, Wales, NI or England vote against this Act? Nothing. Business continues as usual, because this Act was never designed to offer an exit for the present union where the treaty is exposed to be revoked. It only offers an exit to Scotland from this fake new “UK” that they appear to be planning.
The fact that it requires a referendum to start may explain why it has stalled since 2019. They still cannot guarantee at this point that Scotland would vote yes to this crap, even after Sturgeon took a chainsaw to the principles, reputation, competence and integrity of the SNP, even after she forcefed us all with the self-id gender woowoo crap an put rapists in female prisons, even after Yousaf enacted the hate crime bill and send the stone of destiny down south, even after the threat of the freeports and the plans of this new GB entity to devour our electricity while we are charged over the odds for it, etc.
However, this bill, or something similar to this but more elaborate, could explain why the political fraud Sturgeon, yousaf, Swinney or Forbes never were in any hurry to call a referendum, and forced us to wait and wait and wait despite knowing a S30 would never arrive.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Dugdale’s paper is based on this bill. Let’s remember this, published by the BBC on December 2016:
“Kezia Dugdale calls for ‘new Act of Union’
“Kezia Dugdale has called for a “new Act of Union” in a bid to “save the UK for generations to come”.
The oppressor always makes it illegal for the oppressed to have legal methods of removing the oppression.
The sooner Scots realise and act on this the better.
Surely we could take a leaf out of Gandhi’s book?
If ANY of our elected parasites from ALL parties had any principles or integrity they would be shouting outrage that engerland doesn’t have a devolved parliament or a Barnett formula like the other parts of the fake uk
That they are ALL silent indicates to me that they are all collaborators working to oppress and subsume Scotland on behalf of their colonisers