Yesterday the Scottish Government published “Scotland’s Right to Choose“, its long heralded paper on the path to a new Independence referendum. It is a document riven by a basic intellectual flaw. It sets out in detail, and with helpful annexes, that Scotland is a historic nation with the absolute and inalienable right of self-determination, and that sovereignty lies not in the Westminster parliament but with the Scottish people.
It then contradicts all of this truth by affirming, at length, in detail, and entirely without reservation, that Scotland can only hold a legitimate Independence referendum if the Westminster Parliament devolves the power to do so under Section 30.
Both propositions cannot be true. Scotland cannot be a nation with the right of self-determination, and at the same time require the permission of somebody else to exercise that self-determination.
I was trying to find the right words to discuss the document. One possibility was “schizophrenic”. The first half appears to be written by somebody with a fundamental belief in Scottish Independence, and contains this passage:
The United Kingdom is best understood as a voluntary association of nations, in keeping with the principles of democracy and self‑determination.
For the place of Scotland in the United Kingdom to be based on the people of Scotland’s consent, Scotland must be able to choose whether and when it should make a decision about its future.
The decision whether the time is right for the people who live in Scotland again to make a choice about their constitutional future is for the Scottish Parliament, as the democratic voice of Scotland, to make.
Yet the rest of the paper completely negates this proposition and instead argues that the necessary powers must be granted by the Westminster Parliament:
The Scottish Government is committed to agreeing a process for giving effect to its mandate for a further independence referendum. When they make a decision about their future, the people of Scotland must do so in the knowledge that their decision will be heard and respected and given effect to: not just by the government in Scotland, but also by the UK Government, by the European Union and by the international community.
For a referendum to have this legitimacy, it must have the confidence of all of those that it would effect. This means not just the UK Government acknowledging and respecting the Scottish Government’s mandate, but the Scottish Government and UK Government seeking to agree the proper lawful basis for the referendum to take place.
We call on the UK Government to enter discussions about the Scottish Government’s mandate for giving the people of Scotland a choice, and to agree legislation with the Scottish Government that would put beyond doubt the Scottish Parliament’s right to legislate for a referendum on independence.
I am frequently told that this paper is all just a cunning ploy, and that when the Tory Government rejects – as it will reject – this servile request to grant Scotland the powers to hold a referendum, the Scottish Government will go to court to say it has the right to a referendum.
If that really is the cunning plan, it is the most stupid cunning plan since Baldrick and his turnip. In what way does publishing an official Scottish Government paper which states explicitly that a referendum “must have” the agreement of the UK government to be legitimate, prepare the ground to go to court and argue the precise opposite? Plainly that is not the intent here.
Nicola Sturgeon’s speech presenting the paper made the acceptance of a veto from “the rest of the UK” on the holding of a second referendum even more explicit:
It is based on the solemn right of the people of Scotland to decide their own future.
The Scottish Government believes that right should be exercised free from the threat of legal challenge.
In line with our values, we acknowledge that a referendum must be legal and that it must be accepted as legitimate, here in Scotland and the rest of the UK as well as in the EU and the wider international community.
We are therefore today calling for the UK Government to negotiate and agree the transfer of power that would put beyond doubt the Scottish Parliament’s right to legislate for a referendum on independence.
And what does Ms Sturgeon plan to do when Boris Johnson just says no, as he assuredly will? To be fair to Nicola, she could not have been clearer about what she intends to do. Absolutely nothing different.
Of course, I anticipate that in the short term we will simply hear a restatement of the UK government’s opposition.
But they should be under no illusion that this will be an end of the matter.
We will continue to pursue the democratic case for Scotland’s right to choose.
We will do so in a reasonable and considered manner.
So this is the Sturgeon plan: in the short term, we accept Johnson can block Independence. Beyond the short term (how many years is that?) we do nothing except continue in democratic politics as the SNP already is, operating at Holyrood and putting before Scottish voters “the democratic case for Scotland’s right to choose”, while accepting Westminster’s veto. This will have the pleasant side effect of keeping Ms Sturgeon living very nicely indeed in Bute House, with her husband picking up a massive salary as CEO of the Party, and the SNP just like the last five years doing nothing whatsoever about Independence other than occasionally blether about it, “pursuing the democratic case”, while very explicitly accepting Westminster’s veto.
The truth is there is no route to a referendum by legal challenge in the UK courts. The UK Supreme Court has already ruled that Westminster, the “Crown in Parliament” is sovereign, that the Sewell Convention has no legal force and that any powers that the Scottish parliament has, and indeed the very existence of the Scottish Parliament, is entirely at the gift of Westminster. The clue is on the tin. It is the UK Supreme Court. To be fair the Scottish Government paper plainly does not anticipate any such pointless legal challenge, though it is not inconceivable that one may be futilely undertaken at some stage to keep the SNP’s pro-Independence activists happy, by pretending to do something and kicking Indy yet a few months further down the road.
Because the truth is, that is the purpose of the current Scottish Government paper. The reason it is schizophrenic is that it is a deeply dishonest document. All the stuff at the beginning, about Scotland’s ancient right as a nation and the sovereignty residing in the Scottish people, is no more and no less than window dressing to keep Scottish Independence activists happy. The actual meat of the paper, that Indyref2 “must have” Westminster agreement or it is not legitimate, sits there like a great steaming turd whose stink cannot be disguised no matter how much the SNP leadership has tried to conceal it under flowers.
I have to say, I am astonished how many very decent people in the SNP have fallen for the trick.
The Scottish Government position is fundamentally incorrect. The Independence of a nation is a matter of international law, not of domestic legislation. The UN Charter enshrines the right of self-determination of peoples, and nobody has argued that the Scots are not a people in the encapsulated sense.
It is perfectly normal for States to become Independent without the permission of the state from which they are seceding. The UK Government itself argued precisely this position before the International Court of Justice over Kosovo. I here repeat a post I wrote almost exactly one year ago setting out the legal position:
BEGINS
The London Supreme Court last week not only confirmed that the Westminster Parliament could overrule at will any Scottish Government legislation, irrespective of the Scotland Act and the Sewell Convention, but it also ruled that Westminster had already successfully done so, by retrospectively passing provisions in the EU (Withdrawal) Act that overruled the Bill on the same subject, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, that had already been passed by Holyrood.
Not content with that, the London Supreme Court confirmed that London ministers may, by secondary legislation, under the Scotland Act decree laws for Scotland that are not even passed through the Westminster parliament.
Which leaves Scotland in this extraordinary situation. English MPs or English ministers in their London Parliament can, at any time, impose any legislation they choose on Scotland, overriding Scotland’s parliament and Scotland’s representation in the London parliament. Yet, under the English Votes for English Laws rules of the London Parliament introduced by the Tories in 2015, Scottish MPs cannot vote at all on matters solely affecting England.
That is plainly a situation of colonial subservience.
I am firmly of the view that the Scottish government should now move to withdraw from the Treaty of Union. Scotland’s right to self determination is inalienable. It cannot be signed away forever or restricted by past decisions.
The Independence of a country is not a matter of domestic law it is a matter of international law. The right of the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence may not be restricted by UK domestic law or by purported limitations on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The legal position is set out very clearly here:
5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of
the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect
of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor
State‟s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration
of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are
fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of
the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be
predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in
which the secession is occurring.5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim
independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international
law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional
authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative
institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond
the scope of already conferred power.
That is a commendably concise and accurate description of the legal position. Of major relevance, it is the legal opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, as submitted to the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case. The International Court of Justice endorsed this view, so it is both established law and the opinion of the British Government that the Scottish Government has the right to declare Independence without the agreement or permission of London and completely irrespective of the London Supreme Court.
I have continually explained on this site that the legality of a Declaration of Independence is in no sense determined by the law of the metropolitan state, but is purely a matter of recognition by other countries and thus acceptance into the United Nations. The UK Government set this out plainly in response to a question from a judge in the Kosovo case:
2. As the United Kingdom stated in oral argument, international law contains no
prohibition against declarations of independence as such. 1 Whether a declaration of
independence leads to the creation of a new State by separation or secession depends
not on the fact of the declaration but on subsequent developments, notably recognition
by other States. As a general matter, an act not prohibited by international law needs
no authorization. This position holds with respect to States. It holds also with respect
to acts of individuals or groups, for international law prohibits conduct of non-State
entities only exceptionally and where expressly indicated.
As I have stressed, the SNP should now be making a massive effort to prepare other countries, especially in the EU and in the developing world, to recognise Scotland when the moment comes. There is no task more important. There is a worrying lack of activity in this area. It may currently not be possible to spend government money on sending out envoys for this task, but if personal envoys were endorsed by the First Minister they would get access and could easily be crowd funded by the Independence Movement. I am one of a number of former senior British diplomats who would happily undertake this work without pay. We should be lobbying not just the EU but every country in Africa, Asia and South America.
My preferred route to Independence is this. The Scottish Parliament should immediately legislate for a new Independence referendum. The London Government will attempt to block it. The Scottish Parliament should then convene a National Assembly of all nationally elected Scottish representatives – MSPs, MPs and MEPs. That National Assembly should declare Independence, appeal to other countries for recognition, reach agreements with the rump UK and organise a confirmatory plebiscite. That is legal, democratic and consistent with normal international practice.
There will never be a better time than now for Scotland to become an Independent, normal, nation once again. It is no time for faint hearts or haverers; we must seize the moment.
ENDS
Events since I wrote that have made the case still stronger. With the UK now leaving the European Union, EU states will be extremely eager to recognise Scottish Independence and get Scotland and its resources back inside the EU, while sending out a strong message that leaving the EU can have severe consequences. At the UN, the UK’s repudiation of the International Court of Justice ruling and overwhelming General Assembly mandate over the Chagos Islands has made the UK even more of a pariah state, while senior statesmen in the developing world see Scottish Independence as a wedge issue to open the question of the UK’s ridiculous permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
The claim that to proceed to Independence without Westminster consent is illegal and illegitimate lies at the heart of this truly disgraceful Scottish Government paper. That claim is wrong at every level.
You cannot both believe that the Scots are a people with the right of self-determination, and believe that Westminster has a right to veto that self-determination.
This paper by the Scottish Government is nothing more and nothing less than proof that the gradualists who sadly head the SNP are perfectly happy operating within the devolution system and have no intention of ever paying any more than lip service to Independence.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
The chances of Johnson making any sort of deal with Scotland under those conditions are what exactly? Like Brexit, and particulary the NI border, there are good reasons for wanting to leave, but a responsible government has to weigh politics with economic realities.
And what exactly are these economic realities? All the revenues that Westminster loots from Scotland?
With you all the way on this one, Craig.
We are either masters of our own future, or we are not.
Time Scotland found it’s spine and stood up for itself.
‘Both propositions cannot be true. Scotland cannot be a nation with the right of self-determination, and at the same time require the permission of somebody else to exercise that self-determination.’
Doesn’t this seem a little incongruous in the light of your desire to be part of the EU?
That’s a consensual relationship, not a master/servant one.
Erasmus
The answer to your question is No and it illustrates the poor thinking of people who raise this point.
Pretty sure Craig has lost interest in joining the EU. I think a Norway deal would suit him
The loss of “self-determination” to the EU will be the easy part. It is the price they will pay to continue trading with the UK (and the loss of funding) that will blow the whole fantasy out of the water.
Excellent article Craig, now whose got Sturgeons phone number, she must read this.
Johnson is of course going for a no deal brexit, that’s why the we’ll have made a deal by the 31st of December 2020 is being touted, in reality it will take much longer.
After we’re out Johnson will roll back devolution whilst his preferred no deal brexit will see Scotland hammered economically.
We need to be out of this union before the end of the transition period or face the dire consequences.
How to get the message to Sturgeon, she’s determined to wait until we reach the 60% mark and to go down the gold standard Westminster accent route, I’m hoping she’ll get fed up being told no, and change her plans.
Or is she foolishly waiting for the 2021 elections hoping that Johnsons persistant refusal to grant a S30, will translate into a slew of votes for her party. By then I think it might be too late.
Ros, my dude. Nicola need the boot can you deselect?
ROS
“Johnson is of course going for a no deal brexit”
I very much doubt that. The strategy is to leave no deal on the table till the last hour as a bargaining chip. A very sensible and rational thing to do.
Meanwhile the Scots will not vote for Indyref 3 (the decider) once they have become aware of the deal they are looking at. Indeed, it is unlikely they would win Indyref2 either.
I would bet money that you and your friends here turn out to be wrong on all counts.
I would bet money that you and your friends here turn out to be wrong on all counts.
Indeed, these outlandish predictions aren’t fueled by logic nor reason, more like wishful thinking by embittered people who seeking someone to blame.
Fredi you sound pretty bitter yourself. Too much English bitter down the throat.
Time for England to stand on its own two feet. Or is England too wee, too stupid and too small.
The days of looting other countries resources are coming to an end.
No, not ‘England’ Cubby, it’s the United Kingdom, which you are a part of, whether you like it or not. That is the reality of the here and now. This blog is knee deep in wishful thinking and outright delusional fantasy. Wallow in that as much as you like, but just don’t bet on your opinions, or it may by you seeking a bail out.
Fredi
So you drink UK bitter do you. Your post is nonsense.
England exists and it is too scared to stand on its own as an independent country.
The idea of the UK as a country is the real fantasy.
How exactly is having no deal on the table a bargaining chip?
Now that Jeremy Corbyn is leaving the stage and Labour is unlikely to threaten the Tory majority for at least 5 years, the media will turn their vitriol and sustained attacks on Ms Sturgeon as she is the only politician on the mainland who is presenting a strong, coherent and well-supported challenge to the Tory hegemony. Her performance in the GE was head and shoulders above all others.
The bile poured on Mr Corbyn was far worse that on any previous opposition leader in living memory, but, I suspect the hatred of the Tories and their media will be even more sustained and savage.
So, it is disappointing, to say the least, to see Mr Murray, Republic of Scotland, Shatnerzug and others piling in.
From Sturgeon’s letter to BoJo: “I am enclosing a copy of that document.” and “I therefore look forward to discussing matters further with you in the new year.”
I don’t know about you, but I would prefer if she’d said “Listen Bozo, you give us the S30 one way of another, and there’s a folder full of stuff that’ll tell you why you have no choice. You have until the New year to do it. Now get on with it, I’m getting impatient. Tap tap.”.
Sadly or just as well, I’m not FM. However, she did “legally” include the full 39 page pdf. Which has Claim of Right all over it, plus self-determination, pllus union not unitary state, and plus mandate – several of them. And she gave him a deadline.
Which has obviously to me at least, been maybe 3 years in the making one way or another, it covers all the stuff me and a few others used to talk about in a blog which used to support Indy, and has footnotes just like you get on submissions to the Court of Session or the UKSC.
In fact it has so many ways of getting Indy Ref 2 in it, BoJo will be totally bamboozled. Or Bozobammed. Where do I send my defence dvisions, my air support, which of the dozen potential fronts, leaving others undefended?
Nice one CinC Sturgeon 🙂
This is willy-waving.
Well stop it at once.
It pains me to say I agree with you.
“At times like this, it’s essential that the town hall takes control of the money supply! And to get there, let’s do a Catalonia – after all, that went so well! To give it a twist, allow 14-year-olds to vote and tell them ‘Westminster’ wants to remove their sweeties.”
The next Scottish Parliament election has to be held on or before 6 May 2021 and that poses but one of a few big dilemmas for the SNP, given how hard majorities are to win under a proportionate system.
Whether Johnson has managed to get a decent trade deal with the EU will certainly be known by then, He’s (foolishly) put into law, that come 31 December 2020, the UK leaves with or without a trade deal. There is talk of a minimalistic Canada style free trade agreement which is far from perfect. And for that, the EU have already made clear they’ll demand fishing rights in UK waters as a price for any deal (another potential snub to Scots).
If Johnson leaves with no trade deal, having paid £40bn for the privilege. The SNP would be incredibly well placed to push their case. I think aggroing the situation now however, is unwise, Johnson is at the zenith of his popularity. The SNP need to believe in themselves and the case for independence.
Could an unofficial ‘advisory’ referendum be held alongside the next Scottish Parliament election in 2021? A big ‘yes’ win along with a big SNP victory could provide an absolute mandate that even Westminster can’t ignore.
I think Stuart Campbell of Wings was considering setting up a wings party to mop up all those list votes which are effectively wasted on the SNP (because the SNP win so many of the constituency seats in a region that their list votes don’t translate into many if any extra seats). The idea being that the wings party MSPs would bolster the number of MSPs supporting independence in Holyrood.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/flying-with-wings/
Personally, I’d say forget the referendum and make the 2021 Holyrood election a de facto referendum on independence. Bozo the clown can’t stop the 2021 election.
Pat Lee is setting up the People’s Party to do this. See https://m.facebook.com/groups/458998201699681
Great Article Craig.. And for those of us fighting for Independence, Rather Worrying Reading.
Your precise logic about the second part Not being some kind of Cunning ploy is hard to argue against.
Anway.. Still we fight on.. Bill
It seems Bill is unaware..That There is a Massive Marc on.. All Under One Banner Have are it on the 11th Jan, the ‘ Emergency March for Independence.
They say that ” within 540 hours, there are already Hundreds of Thousands going..Including myself.
” Saturday 11th January 2020 11.30am
This March will be our usual march with a shorter rally than normal with a few key speeches, from a few key people.”
PROCESSION ROUTE: Kelvingrove Park, Kelvinway, Gibson Street, Eldon Street, Woodlands Road, Sauchiehall Street, Pitt Street, Blythswood Square (S), West George Street, Renfield street, Union street, Jamaica street, Clyde Street, Bridgegate, Saltmarket, Glasgow Green.
I messed That up trying to rush..Sorry
I meant to say
Bill Boggia
December 20, 2019 at 17:24
Said – ” sounds to me like we need a mass rally “
They have asked me to speak
I was Wondering if they would. Be great if you can make it.
Gonna Be Huge.
Wrap up well.
And keep on Telling it as it is.
Good but please keep it positive. No slagging The SNP – not the right place – or I might have to boo you – LOL.
Thanks for the heads up – I had missed that 🙂
I’ll be there. Hope it’s dry.
Mr Murray is correct in that he describes the document as schizophrenic. Either we have self determination or we don’t . Maybe Nicola does have a ” cunning plan “.
I certainly hope so and am willing to give her, for the present, the benefit of the doubt.
However what she cannot do is be leader for years and not deliver independence. All the stuff I read about Johnson must respect democracy isn’t true in my opinion. To me it looks as if he can and will do anything he wants. I’ll stick with Nicola for another year, maybe two, but after that if we haven’t got independence then she will have failed and we need a new leader.
Great comment James.
Is anything ever heard from Ruth Davidson’s replacement?
‘David Jackson Carlaw CBE MSP (born 12 April 1959) is a Scottish Conservative Party politician serving as Acting Leader of the Scottish Conservatives from August 2019, and previously from September 2018 to May 2019, and Member of Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Eastwood since 2016.’
Mary
I hear Ruth will be Hosting Christmas Specials on LBC.. One to Avoid Methinks.
Carlaw, And Scottish Labour were up to the same old worn out Tricks yesterday –
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18113695.fmqs-nicola-sturgeon-defends-attacks-governments-record/?
Given the quite correct Brit Govt declarations on Kosovo, surely theyd have been supporting the Catalans too? Yeah right…
Just a note that ‘schizophrenic’ shouldn’t be used to describe a split personality or being in two minds. People with the condition have one personality. Usually a paranoid one and often with delusions. I know it is often used this way but it’s a pretty inaccurate description and perpetuates the public misunderstanding of what schizophrenia is. .
I dunno, your description sums up this situation better than ‘split personality’
I think the whole basis of the law of the Union is fundamentally crazy, because England has a permanent veto if the Westminster Parliament is the supreme arbiter.
Where matters of the Union are concerned, you need altogether different mechanisms. The four nations must have equal voting powers on constitutional matters, although obviously, that could not pertain to financial matters as then the three small nations would gang up to bleed England dry.
I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, but it is long past due that a Constitutional Convention not able to be subverted by corrupt minorities was constituted to completely overhaul what is a disgrace of a national legal framework.
A law case I would bring is that a Union is not a Union if one party can unilaterally block all activities of other members. It is a prison.
Of course, you cannot constantly have divorce threats, but when step changes in the external environment occur, each party must be allowed to consider what their best interests are.
I think UDI is a dangerous route to go, unless it is the tactic to force Boris Johnson to the table.
They have had 312 years to turn a forced marriage of a union into a modern democratic union. It ain’t gonna happen now. This farce of a union needs terminating now.
Please look at the use of the term UDI. Scotland is a nation – one of the oldest in Europe – by definition it is in a union therefore it cannot do a UDI. It just terminates the Treaty of Union 1707. It was a sovereign independent nation when it signed up not a region.
Well Said Cubby
I see you post often over at The Wee Ginger Dug
WGD the best independence blogger.
Brianfujisan
Posting here for the holiday season LOL or until Craig boots me off.
The problem with that logic is that the “one party blocking the other”, the UK, is also us. The UK isn’t just England, it includes Scotland, so we are, to some extent, the UK too.
Much as I agree with your sentiments Craig surely there has to be a demonstration that withdrawal from the union has the support of a majority in the country before any moves are made in this direction, otherwise I don’t see how we can rely on international support. In short we need a referendum whether or not Johnson blocks a S30. I believe a referendum should be called now by Holyrood at a specified date later this year. If the unionists choose to boycott so be it, the voice of the voting public in Scotland will have spoken. If the result is positive as I fully expect then the gloves can come off. Scotland should then revoke the treaty of 1707 and remove all its MPs from Westminster and claim its independence. Quite how Scotland obtains control over key functions in Scotland run by a non compliant Civil Service, Inland Revenue, military and others in these circumstances is problematic. I suspect massive civil unrest would follow if the unionists did not bow to the inevitable, but history shows they pay scant regard to the rights of others and are capable of bloodshed. We live in challenging times.
In the light of what we now know to be tools of the state i.e Cambridge Analytica style weapons grade mind warping tools – to swing marginal voters, and the in your face biased MSM – even if we do have a referendum – these significant weapons will still be used against us. We need a plan for that IMO.
“The International Court of Justice endorsed this view so it is both established law and the opinion of the British Government that the Scottish Government has the right to declare Independence without the agreement or permission of London and completely irrespective of the London Supreme Court.” I’m not sure whether I read the situation exactly as you do, Craig. The citation states that “Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled”. What would those other conditions for recognition be? I suggest one condition might be that the agency claiming independence had established control over the territory in question. Of course a would-be state can be recognised by existing states without having effective control over the territory, but what must decide the issue for international lawyers is whether de facto control has changed hands. If it has not changed hands, the territory is de facto still part of the predecessor state. I can’t see the ICJ backing an independent Scotland before a Scottish government had not just declared independence but had actually taken physical control of the territory.
Which of those conditions did Biafra not satisfy?
Coldish,
You are absolutely correct. Physical control of Scotland is essential. After we declare Independence, we have to mean it and be prepared to defend it like any other nation state.
Fatty Arbuckle Johnson will give nothing.
I am still hoping that the game Sturgeon is playing is to the nth degree demonstrate to the international community that, unlike David Cameron in 2012, this Westminster govt is not reasonable or honourable. With Brexit, Chagos etc this as you say will garner much international sympathy.
I realise I may be mistaken in this and your analysis prevails. But the SNP should surely know that if that is the case then with Wings Stuart Campbell poised to start a Wings party for 2021 those of us in the Independence movement disheartened by the SNP and the SNP and Green obsession with GRA will stop voting SNP and start building a new vehicle for Independence.
Sturgeon cannot be so ignorant as to ignore that manifest risk, surely? I get emails from the ‘First Minister’ putting this and that and I always reply politely and rationally making the above and other points. I know Sturgeon will not read them but I expect someone is collating the responses and monitoring comments on Wings where I’ve also said much the same things: my vote for the SNP is at very great risk and I am perfectly serious about this.
I suggest we wait and see what happens when No10 rejects this request. Note Craig that the legislative program for the indyref is continuing through the parliament. We should be sceptical about the timetable. A poll in 2020 is very unlikely even assuming no Westminster blockades of the bills or pressure on her Maj not to sign them.
On the part of Westminster and Whitehall they must know their strategy will ultimately fail. Though they could be operating on the grand old tradition of ‘something will turn up’. But the Scottish GE result should tell them that the SNP’s remarkable ongoing feat of denying normal political gravity (in power since 2007) continues and ‘something turning up’ is unlikely to include no Independence majority at Holyrood. A Wings party will simply constitute the gung ho wing of the Independence movement while also being sceptical about GRA and arguing for its repeal.
Which reminds me, I need to comment on it. Something to keep me out of mischief this weekend.
What does “GRA” stand for?
Ripped out of the EU against our will, facing almost certainly dire economic consequences, unemployment, poverty, more deprived children… it’s great being Scottish, isn’t it. A nation of diabolical cowards.
Soon we will be dragged into another war and stuffing our faces with chlorinated chicken.
Scotland the brave…. lol
Hatuey
I bet you are a laugh at a party.
Be positive more and more people are learning the truth about the “Union” despite the best efforts of the propagandists in the English/Westminster controlled media. It’s only a matter of when not if. The UK is the dirty fag end of the British Empire and is on its last legs.
I don’t go to parties. Never did really. If you’re suggesting I’m anti-social or a social failure, you’re 100% correct. I’ve never considered that side of things to be important.
The British Union is a very ordinary example of an abusive relationship. And abusive relationships are actually very easy to get out of, despite what some say — you just leave.
The SNP are just really cowardly and weak; that’s why we are still in the UK and never likely to get out.
Sturgeon demonstrates in person why working class people should keep out of politics; too easily seduced by the trappings of success.
Rich politicians don’t worry about losing their jobs, bonuses, pensions, etc. They don’t compromise on their politics for fear of losing materially.
It’s unfair, but I’d much rather have someone leading me who didn’t need the money, who wasn’t worried about losing their job, who wasn’t caught in the headlights of “success”.
Well said Hatuey.
Hatuey
“Working people should keep out of politics.”
Yes let’s just leave it to the Kings and queens and lords and ladies and let’s not forget the billionaires. What a stupid post.
Are you Prince Philip – he holds similar views.
I think everybody should keep out of politics.
A problem with the self-determination argument is that Scotland used that right to unite with England to form the U.K. Question: is the U.K. itself a nation as a result of the union?
The Short Answer is No.
MJ
No is the answer.
Why not try having a look at the articles of the Treaty of Union 1706/7.
Just did. It says that “the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May [1707] .. and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain ”
Sounds like a new nation called Great Britain came into being in 1707. 🙂
MJ
You actually quoted “one Kingdom” a kingdom is not always a nation. “Sounds like” not sure are you.
First time look at them obviously. Try looking at the rest of the articles and educate yourself.
Also it is an international bipartite treaty that can be rescinded at any time by either of the two signatories. Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England.
No previous governments/politicians can bind future generations. Even Westminster uses this principle all the time. E.g. fixed term parliament act being rescinded.
It is amazing how many diehard Unionists know very little about their precious Union. I suspect you are in this category.
I think a kingdom is indeed a nation, but it is possible for nations to freely decide to be divided as well as unite by a free act. But this doesn’t apply to unilateral secession, since it doesn’t have the consent of the united nation, namely the UK. The confederacy of slave states tried that in the US and we know what the result was. There are many secessiontst movements around the world. Almost all have failed except where the nation of which they were a part have given their consent. The only possible exception I can think of is East Timor. Oh, and Key West, Florida except that after the declaration of independence they went to the pub and promptly forgot the whole thing. 🙂
Therefore the UK government could decide to let Scoland choose whether to separate, which is exactly what Cameron did. Scotland chose to stay. I doubt whether Boris will repeat the mistake. Therefore, for the foreseeable future Scotland will stay in the UK.
MJ
A colonial post by someone with a colonial mindset. Proud of that are you?
You still don’t get it do you.
Scotland as a sovereign Kingdom signed up to a union via an international treaty. It can terminate the agreement when it wants as can the Kingdom of England. Your example of the southern states of America is just invalid just as the Catalonia example is invalid. Scotland signed up as an independent sovereign nation that is one off the oldest in the world. If it’s people do decide it can terminate the Treaty. Of course if Scotland is such a burden on England why doesn’t England just terminate the Treaty.
If you read the Treaty you will see Scots law is preserved and from that various rights are preserved e.g. Claim of right.
Of course there is no written UK constitution. Wonder why?
If there is no Treaty of Union there is no UK.
The question us whether the UK is democratic of files it want to be seen as a rogue state e.g. Chagos islands
What can an independent Scotland as an EU member do (a rather small member, around 1% of the EU population) that she cannot do as a part of the United Kingdom better?
Anyone care to answer?
Baron
Be free to make its own decisions. Starting with whether or not to be in the EU AS PER THE 62% remain vote in Scotland.
Listen up, Cubby, it’s uncertain that a new referendum will go the other way from the one in 201 4, if that’s the case, you won’t have another chance for a t least a couple of generations, that’s some 50 years, give or take. Why risk it? Better to usurp power by infiltrating one of the two stale monochromatic political parties, Labour seems to be up for grabs, push for a Full Monty federalisation of the UK from the position of power. .
Listen up Baron.
Federalism for the UK is a joke.
Control our own Taxes,, Resources, International affairs, GET RID of WMD’s…Protect the poor that the Tories want to crush.. Keep our EU, and world markets. Treat immigrants as Humans. Ect
One Popular Blogger here says we could just give London ALL THE OIL.. in a trade for independence.. cos our natural resources are vast.. I don’t agree with that point..Why the Fk should we give it away to Evil war criminals.
Treat immigrants as Humans.
More drivel, why do the vast majority of immigrants choose the hated England to settle in. They risk their lives to ‘escap’e from France and greater Europe and settle in ‘racist’ little England, few settle in Scotland, and for good reason..
You are trying to imply racism doesn’t exist here because we have immigration…wtf
Get real, Brianfujisan, the EU’s responsible for over half of the new legislation as the EU is currently, if the monstrosity moves towards greater federalisation, most of the laws will come from Brussels, including those on taxes, resources bla, bla.
I bet you cannot name one single EU new law
Baron
“A rather small member. ”
Why is population size so important to you. Is the UK vastly inferior to India or China due to their massive populations compared to the UK. No – I suspect you mention it because you are playing the too wee to be independent card. Total nonsense of course.
The majority of top ten GDP per head countries are all small independent countries.
Is England too small to be independent?
I’m all for Scottish indepenece, the SNP are diluted communists, totally unfit to govern. As with most governments they are part of societies’ problems, not the solution.
Indeed, take for example Tony Blair, a ‘left leaning’ Scotsman, who cosied up with a fascist to help unleash complete chaos and oceans of blood upon the middle east.
Fredi
You post utter pish. Blair a Scotsman. No Scotsman would change the sea boundary to favour England.
No Scotsman would change the sea boundary to favour England.
Well, that one did!
Fredi
More pish. Blair is a British Nationalist. Just like Gordon Brown, Andrew Neil and all those other tossers. They may have attended a school in Scotland but they are BRITISH NATIONALISTS.
Martin
“Diluted communists” is that a new Robinsons drink. Add some nice Scottish water and you get a diluted Scottish communist.
You are competing with Fredi for posting utter pish.
You must be very young, Cubby, when you grow up, you will figure for yourself why numbers matter.
Baron
“You must be very young Cubby”
You must be Sherlock Holmes. Naw you are just somebody without the ability to come back with a decent reply.
Not have our young men sent off to fight in illegal wars by the British Army. Not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Craig
Two of the most important reasons.
Baron seems to have gone silent.
Only because Baron has other things to do, Cubby, has he been quiet.
OK, Craig’s two reasons seem unarguable except that he cannot guarantee that the EU Armed Forces that are being set up will not demand that Scottish young women and men join in, not just in peacetime, possibly also in war zones if a conflict in which the EU may be involved arises s.
The question of the removal of WMD, or for that matter the three ailing Trident submarines domiciled in Scotland isn’t dead certain either, the two furnish jobs, and not just in the manufacture or servicing of the stuff, but in the feeder companies also.
Don’t misunderstand Baron, like you he’s as against tools of war as anyone sane must be, but sadly the design, the making of the weaponry, its servicing translates into jobs (and not only as many seem to think boosting the companies’ bottom lines). Jobs translate into votes, hence the near impossibility of running down the manufacture of the tools of death .
Look at the Republic, the huge increase in their military budget has been the major reason for the growth in US employment, the domino effect did its job. What will the US military do with more of and also much better toys of death? Probably start a conflict in the Baltic, or somewhere or beef up the capability of some ISIL throat cutters in the ME.
One doubts an independent Scotland lost in the enormity of the EU bureaucracy would be able to do much to stop it, by far better strategy would be to mount a long term plan how to seize the top of (say) the Labour party (you remember Smith?), then, from a position of power, go for a full federalisation, but keeping the UK intact.
There are no EU Armed forces, that’s a right-wing rag myth:
“While there is no EU army and defence remains exclusively a matter for member states, the EU has recently taken big steps to boost defence cooperation.”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/security/20190612STO54310/eu-army-myth-what-is-europe-really-doing-to-boost-defence
There is PESCO, where any forces promised remain under the control of the member state. Membership s voluntary, Denmark is not a member as it is a member of NORDEFCO.
Scotland would also have a veto in the EU, whereas now it has none – that is the UK that has the veto. Scotland would be as democratically able to make our voice heard in the EU, as the UK, Germany, Italy, Belgium. Malta …
Solid reasons, Craig, except that neither you nor anyone else could guarantee either if Scotland were independent, and in the EU. The EU Armed Forces that are on the horizon will behave just as the UK Forces do, and the removal of the WMD (also the tree subs that leak) would lead to jobs removal, too.
What will the men and women currently making the stuff or servicing it do, catch midges? (only joking).
Milord Baron, are Sweden and Ireland in the EU? Are Sweden and Ireland neutral countries?
4 Iain Stewart:
Que?
I find the obsession with entirely imaginary EU armed forces one of the most amusing aspects of the current peculiar state of politics.
Craig
A bit like the imaginary “Turkey will soon be joining the EU” comment in 2016.
I have much less experience and knowledge than Craig, but it seems to me that there is a basic flaw in his argument, and that is encapsulated by the words “representative institutions”. Whom does the Scottish Government represent?
There has only been one plebiscite on Scottish independence, and that took place in Sept 2014, when 55% of the Scottish electorate who voted, voted no to independence. Until such time as the Scottish Government has a clear mandate from the sovereign Scottish people, they have no right to declare independence.
Sturgeon is correct in her statements that a “section 30” referendum would remove any doubt as to the legitimacy of any subsequent Declaration of Independence, and she is absolutely correct to try for that outcome, in the first instance.
In the likely event of a section 30 order being denied, nothing will have changed. The Scottish government, the UK government, and the international community will still be in a position of not knowing how many Scots want independence.
If the SG passes legislation for a referendum without a section 30 order, and that is challenged in the courts, there are only two possibilities:-
1. The courts will support the SG’s position, and a legitimate referendum will be held, which most people expect “yes” to win, and we get independence, hopefully with the acceptance of the UK government, but if not, by UDI.
2. The courts will support the UK government’s position, in which case the idea of a referendum should be dropped, because the result would lack legitimacy. In this scenario, nothing will have changed. The SG, the UK government, and the international community will still be in a position of not knowing how many Scots support independence.
After scenario 2, there is only one possibility left open for the SG. They have to turn an election into a plebiscite on independence. No detailed manifesto. Just a stark statement “A vote for the SNP (in a Westminster election), or a vote for the SNP or the Greens (in a Holyrood election) WILL be a vote for independence. A majority of SNP MP’s in Westminster, or a majority for the independence supporting parties in Holyrood WILL precipitate a Declaration of Independence by the Scottish Government on behalf of the sovereign Scottish people”.
There is NO legitimacy in any of the courses of action that Craig talks about. I’m no expert, but I suggest that no other country has declared independence, without the support of the majority of the people of that country. Everything depends on having a proven majority. No recognition will be forthcoming from the international community, until the SG can point to a clear mandate from the majority of Scots.
We are in a Catch 22 situation. It would be daft for the SG to let Boris off the hook, by diverting from the request for a section 30, before he has refused one. Once he has done that, then on to the next action – holding a non-section 30 Referendum. If that fails in the court, THEN the last option is a one-issue election.
By the way, remarks about Sturgeon, her husband and other SNP leaders, being “cosy” with their sinecures, says more about the accuser than the targets of their snide remarks. There is much more ground to cover, before anyone has the right to smear the SNP leadership like that. We can all feel uneasy about the situation we’re in, but snapping at each other only helps Boris.
“no other country has declared independence, without the support of the majority of the people of that country. Everything depends on having a proven majority. ”
That verifiably not true. Actually almost the exact opposite is true. Happy to go through as many examples as you care to and with over 200 countries in the world we aren’t short on examples.
I agree though that UDI would probably be the wrong way to go right now. And despite my correction above, I think it would be important to demonstrate majority support. Legitimacy is a key concept and issue in international law today.
As for the idea of all SNP MSPs resigning and forcing elections and using those elections as some sort of referendum, that’s the obvious way to go.
The SNP hold 59 of a possible 73 constituency seats. If all 59 resigned at the same time, I think it would throw the whole system into chaos and that would force people to think and act. They’d be basically closing down the parliament. And it’s all perfectly legal.
We know the British Government has prepared for that sort of development with its offices in Edinburgh. But it would be very easy to agitate and create momentum that would neutralise any moves to close down the Scottish parliament. If they make one stupid wrong move there would be a massive backlash. Either way, that sort of crisis suits us. Anything that causes instability and makes people think is good for us.
I’m not a historian, and I expressed myself carelessly. Are there countries which have declared independence without a majority in favour and without bloodshed? I have zero interest in any course of action which resembles those in times past, when bloodshed was common.
You suggest that there is a majority of countries who declared independence without popular support? Can you name a few that did so peacefully?
Well, the peacefully part wasn’t in the original hypothesis.
I have no evidence or knowledge of any attempt to gauge public support when it came to say Indian independence, Egyptian, or any country really. It was just assumed; that is to say, it was assumed that a majority of people in all colonies wanted independence — I can’t remember the British arguing that the people didn’t want it anywhere, except maybe in the US, and that applies to Ireland too.
There was never any concern for what the people of Scotland might think about the Union — it was basically arranged behind their backs and when they found out there were riots all over Scotland — just as there was no attempt to gauge public opinion when it came to invading countries and making them colonies elsewhere. The idea that public opinion matters is relatively new and exotic idea when it comes to British and English history.
As for violence, I don’t really understand the point you are making. Just about everything you hold dear in terms of rights, the vote, democracy itself, national borders, etc., derived from violence.
I guess some people think some things are worth fighting for. If someone breaks into your house and starts threatening you and stealing your stuff, I think you’d have every right to defend yourself. Is that violence?
I omitted to pick up on one point you made in your earlier reply. The SNP did win 59 out of 73 constituency seats in the 2016 Holyrood election, but they also won 4 regional seats. In 2019, they won 48 out of 59 seats to Westminster.
“I guess some people think some things are worth fighting for”. Therein lies the problem we face in Scotland. My nephew, who voted “no” in 2014, might agree with you. If someone breaks into his house and threatens him with the statement that he is no longer British, but is Scottish, whether he likes it or not, I would agree with him that he has a right to defend himself and his family against such a threat. Is that violence? Absolutely! The question is, who would carry the blame for the ensuing violence? My nephew, who acted lawfully throughout, voting in a legal referendum, or the person who is ignoring the wishes of the majority?
I am an enthusiast for Scottish independence, but I respect democracy. If a majority of my fellow citizens wish to remain in the UK, then I have to respect that.
I am deeply suspicious of the logic that says “some things are worth fighting for”, because then democracy takes a back seat, and the winner is the one who has the greater force of arms.
We yes voters have a difficult task ahead of us, not in politically defeating Boris. Once the majority for independence is clear, defeating Boris will be easy. First we have to persuade sufficient numbers of our fellow citizens to join with us.
Once that is achieved, Boris is toast. The days when a few platoons of British soldiers could “settle hash of the natives” are long gone. The days when a government can send in troops to defend a majority population against a minority who are trying to force their will on the majority are still here, and rightly so. Sturgeon has to play this game, because it is the only game which has a chance of success, without blood being spilt.
Alex
Slovakia and ……….?
The politicians just did it.
I can see that this is going to develop into a circular argument. Czechoslovakia was a relatively recent construct, joining two separate ethnic groups together. There are a hundred differences between the two situations – Scotland/rUK and Slovakia/Czech Republic, the most important of which is the democratic balance of power.
My point is that Scotland is in a unique situation, with a strong movement towards independence, balanced against a large constituency (and it is arguable how large) which wants to remain in the UK, with an overweening UK government using every tool it has to defeat the independentistas, including a monopoly of the Media.
Any attempt by “the politicians to just do it” would lead to disaster, in this case, because the situation of Scotland bears no resemblance to that of either Slovakia or Czech Republic. In Czechoslovakia, there was no Sturgeon on one side and Johnson on the other, and the queen certainly wouldn’t resign as Havel did.
Why did Scotland vote the way we did. We were told we would be out of the EU, and we wanted to stay in the EU. Now look at what’s happening
“Everything depends on having a proven majority.”
Everything you say is very reasonable.
Alex Birnie
I agree with nearly all of this post. I think Westminster has to stew under the pressure of holding the line on no sect 30 for a few months. Let them demonstrate that they are the unreasonable fascists. Alistair Jack has already started cracking by saying on national radio the UK is an involuntary union ( he is telling the world that Scotland is in a prison and Wales and N.Ireland) .
I would miss out the courts ( the claim of right is established ) and go for Scot parliament election brought forward to 2020 as an equivalent one issue referendum – independence.
There is no way Johnson’s government will allow Scotland to break away. He would be prepared to put troops on the streets in no time and arrest SNP leaders like in Catalonia. The Scots don’t have the same history of rebellion as the Irish and would have to put up with it.
Ray
What a cheery chap you are. So you are saying England has elected a fascist. Thanks for the warning.
Let the Heiling begin.
” Scots don’t have the same history of rebellion as the Irish ”
You think.. Are you talking about All Scottish History ?
Funny how God save the Queen has the verse about rebellious Scots being crushed and not the Irish or Welsh.
Cubby, it really isn’t necessary to refer to how cheery people are or how pleasant they’d be at parties. I’m not offended by it, I’ve declared above that you’d be right as far as I’m concerned, but lazy personal digs are just a distraction.
Ray’s points deserve to be taken seriously.
Putting troops on the ground in Scotland or arresting SNP politicians would guarantee independence; nothing represents failure in an argument better than a resort to force. And it would backfire on them dramatically.
The thin thread that the Union hangs by in Scotland depends on maintaining the pretense that we are voluntary partners in the glorious union. That idea would disappear with the appearance of the first British soldier.
As for Ireland, yes, it’s easy to say Scotland isn’t as rebellious. But Scotland has never been treated as badly as Ireland, not since about 1750 anyway. We need to accept that for a lot of Scots the Union once worked quite well. It’d be hard to say that about Ireland when it was part of the Union (established in 1800).
Of course, we must admire the bravery and perseverance of the Irish in the past, as well as the authenticity of Sinn Fein today. I totally admire the way they refuse to even sit in Westminster. The SNP look like a bunch of kids playing charades by comparison; it’s hypocrisy for the SNP to sit in the UK parliament, and pointless.
Hatuey
I took Rays point as seriously as it deserved. You effectively answered it so no need for me to repeat it.
To many Doom and gloom people. We are winning.
Cubby the fantasist. Wake up man !
Grafter
Wide awake. So come on then why am I a fantasist. Give it your best shot. Or is that the best you’ve got.
I am no history expert – but I think there’s a strong history of rebellion in Scotland – or ‘crush those rebellious Scots’ would have not once been a verse in the westminster national anthem, nor would we have the term ‘Scot free’.
hadrian would agree
Pretzelattack
And Antonine and Edward the second.
Been known to attack a bag of sour cream and onion pretzels now and again. Does that make me a rebellious Scot?
Did the EU say to the UK you are not having your referendum – no because it knows that you cannot coerce a country to remain in a union and still call yourself a union. If it is not by consent then it is a prison and the prison guards are dictators and fascists. The difference between Scotland and Catalonia is that Scotland is a long standing nation legally in a Union and Catalonia in Spain is in a state with a constitution that forbids separation.
Johnson knows this and will not want to be branded as such for various reasons.
I am an outsider in this. One defence that Westminster Tories have used repeatedly with regards to a second Scottish referendum is the same one that they used to win a massive U.K. wide election and that is that you can’t keep asking the same question again in order to get the right answer. The phrase they use is ‘once in a generation’. Unfortunately this is the point that has to be strongly counterargued. I know that SNP has made statements that calling the second referendum is because there has been a material change and therefore you need to ask the question again. But currently all we get is a rather wishy washy statement about the will of the Scottish people. This unfortunately cannot be proven except by a second referendum and hence the catch 22 situation.
So one tactic would be to have an indicative referendum on whether the Scottish people would like to have a referendum. As there are no direct constitutional consequences it would make Westminster look very foolish to deny this and Separatists can then hammer the point of the material change that leads to a desire for a second independence referrendum.
SA
You certainly sound like an outsider in this
The Scottish government has won multiple elections with a mandate to have an independence referendum.
The Scottish parliament has voted for a second referendum.
It’s democracy.
Cameron got approx 36% of the vote in 2015 to give him a mandate for the EU ref. SNP got 45% of the votes in Scotland in the last GE. Cameron got approx 53% of the seats in 2015. SNP got 81% of the seats in Scotland.
Just how many times do Scots have to vote to have the right to determine their own future.
Cubby
I said I am an outsider not an ignoramus. Your condescending answer repeating things that everybody knows is typical of those living in a bubble, sadly did not address my suggestion.
The question is that there is only one way of proving that there is a majority for independence and that can only be answered by having a referendum not by extrapolation from results of elections. My suggestion that the obstacle is to actually get a referendum to prove this and to counteract the Tory mantra that you had your chance because it was a “once in a generation chance” a mantra that they tediously repeat as they have repeated to “Get Brexit done”.
The challenge is to get this referendum which unfortunately will be denied by Boris who feels he won a huge mandate to steamroller his way.
SA
Never said in post you were an ignoramus – read it again.
You seem to think that presenting you with facts is condescending. I did answer your point but I’ll repeat it again for you.
Cameron got a mandate for the EU referendum with lower voting results than the SNP. He didn’t need to carry out a referendum to prove he should have a referendum on the EU.
Tories may repeat the “once in a generation chance”all they want but it is votes / mandates in a democracy that counts.
So the question should be is the UK a democracy or is it a rogue state.
“Cameron got a mandate for the EU referendum with lower voting results than the SNP.”
Commons voted by 544 to 53 for the referendum only SNP opposed. Now it was within the jurisdiction of the WM parliament to legislate for the referendum, but sadly this is not the case in Scotland which I am afraid is a fact, whether I or you like it or not. You could also argue that many of the Turkeys that voted for that early Christmas got a result they did not expect and hence the delay in parliament for Brexit. The last election was fought by the Tories on one issue mostly and that is to honour the result of the referendum and they won with a landslide. Unfortunately the SNP did not fight the election this time on the basis of independence but on the basis of stopping Brexit which sadly they could not do on their own, Had they fought on the basis of independence irrespective of Brexit they would have had a more solid base for their claims to call another referendum.
Now do not misunderstand me, I have no axe to grind and being a remainer myself and considering that Johnson’s election is perhaps the biggest disaster to befall this country, I still feel that constitutionally it is still up to the SNP to prove the case for the need for another referendum and I suggested a way for that. The only other way to my mind is for the SNP to force an early election in Scotland and stand on just the one issue of independence.
SA
What part of having an independence referendum in your manifesto do you not understand.
What part of Johnson gettting 56% of the MPs and SNP getting 80% of the MPs do you not understand.
What part of Johnson getting 43% of the vote and the SNP getting 45 % of the vote do you not understand.
The Scottish gov and the people of Scotland can have a referendum if it wishes. It’s called the claim of right. It’s a legal right – the people of Scotland are sovereign and can choose its own government. This is part of Scots law which is guaranteed in the Treaty of Union 1707. The sect 30 nonsense is to get a civilised agreement to respect the result.
“What part of Johnson gettting 56% of the MPs”
Westminster runs the UK.
“SNP getting 80% of the MPs”
Scottish parliament runs Scotland.
Now I think it is unfair but it is a fact of life, there is a lot of unfairness. The whole British constitution, or whatever there is of it is just a license for the ruling class to rule by a Royal prerogative, through a hereditary unelected head of state. A lot of reform is needed before you can cite democratic processes as your rightful entitlement.
Craig
A bit like the imaginary “Turkey will soon be joining the EU” comment in 2016.
SA
Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Thanks for confirming that Scottish votes count for zilch in your mind and as part of the UK. No democracy = fascist state. You are saying there is no democratic way out of the UK. Why did you not just admit that in the first place.
People wonder why so many Scots want to terminate the Treaty of union.
The other usual end to a discourse on this matter is for the Britnat to say I’m British so fuck off.
Sturgeon is obviously a UK deep state sleeper. Look how and when her much cleaner predecessor is treated.
Craig or someone, could you please help. Scotland signed an international treaty with England in 1704 which was subsequently enshhrined into legislation (ratified in the modern parlance). by the Act of Union on 1706.
Does the fact that this was (is) an international treaty that ipso facto is still current and intact, need to be taken into account when applying the principles of contemporary international law. What Craig Murray has argued (quite rightly) is that secession is primarily a matter of international law. Unlike Scotland, this is often a secession by a conquored people excluded from subsequent treaty negotiations and therefore not legitimately bound by them. But albeit long ago, the sovereign representatives of the Scots (i.e. some Scottish gentlemen) agreed the perpetual union with England on behalf of the nation.
Does current international law have a view on the perpetual validity of the 1704 international treaty.?
Taxiarch
The Treaty of union was agreed in 1706 and came in to effect in 1707 when both the Scottish and English parliaments passed seperate Acts of union. So there are two Acts of Union in 1707. This treaty was so hated in Scotland that the members of parliament who signed it were signing it in basements etc as they feared for their lives as mobs roamed the streets hunting them down.
Thanks for the reply and apologies for getting the dates confused. I was aware that the Scots were far from united in their support for their representatives. My question really relates to current international law rather than the circumstances of the time. The lack of unanaminous support for the commissioners I don’t think affects the legal position, as they were the lawful representatives of their day. How do you revoke an international treaty which is characterised as “for ever after”. Is there anything in the Vienna protocols that may be relevant?
Taxiarch
I never said how it was a forced marriage affects the legal position. I was just clarifying for you the correct situation/dates.
Nothing is forever. No previous govs/ politicians can bind future govs/ people for ever. It is a bipartite international treaty and that can be terminated by either party if they so wish.
Unlike in 1707 we now live in better days when the political representatives are more likely to want a mandate to carry out major changes. Hence the SNP winning election after election.
hmm does that actually mean what you think it means tho?
there is a subtle difference between “must be accepted as legitimate,” and “must be legitimate”
I’m suggesting that “Yet the rest of the paper completely negates this proposition and instead argues that the necessary powers must be granted by the Westminster Parliament:” isn’t completely accurate but that rather it says that westminster should accept that it doesn’t have the authority to grant or deny ( a bit of an ask I know but hey…)
I disagree with Craig’s analysis. The First Minister is the head of a government whose primary mandate is to uphold the laws of the land – no matter how odious and unfair these might be. If she were to initiate government action (such as circumventing Section 30) that breached such laws, it would trigger all sorts of trouble, within the Scottish population, the UK legal system, and the international community. Democracy is based on the assumption that governments operate in line with the law, and are answerable to the courts and the electorate if they fail to do this. Governments have mechanisms for changing the law. What we are seeing at the moment is that the law regarding Scotland’s right to choose is deeply flawed. But it it still the law.
Nicola Sturgeon is also the leader of the SNP. In the 2014 independence referendum, the SNP was only one actor among many. Following the referendum result, a huge number of people joined the SNP, as a means of supporting independence within the parliamentary system. Achieving (and winning) a second independence referendum will require re-creating the broad coalition and movement that existed in 2014, In other words – all of us need to find ways to make our depth of commitment to Scottish Independence visible. There are many examples of how to do this, from the Chartists to the poll tax, Pollok Free State, Timex, gilets jaunes, Greenpeace and Mass Extinction. We need to find a style of collective action that is appropriate to us as a people, and to the situation in which we find ourselves. No doubt the legal arguments will continue, drawing on precendents from international law, revisitng the Act of Union, and all the rest. No doubt inter-governmental negotiations will continue. Maybe they will be productive. But, at the same time, the depth of feeling in Scotland needs to be expressed as powerfully as possible.
But you have proven my thesis while disproving it. If you think that the primary mandate of the Scottish Government is to obey the laws of Westminster, you do not actually believe in Scottish Independence, you are just posing.
Craig
Hope you are not going to tell all the SNP members in Glasgow when you make your speech on the 11 Jan that they are not real independence supporters but just posers. It might not go down to well. LOL
Is that why you were not invited to speak in Glasgow in November or in Edinburgh in Oct.
Have you promised not to slag off the SNP. In Jan.
I may well listen to your speech this time just to see if you have the courage of your convictions.
In principle I am for Scottish indepenece. But not led by these quasi-communists.
Martin
I thought you said they were diluted communists. Now they are quasi. Are you not a bit confused.
What’s wrong with communism?
If polling or court rulings did start to put moral pressure on London to grant another independence referendum Scots would be subjected anew to an establishment propaganda campaig that would likely make 2014 look like child’s play.
The Westminster election just gone confirmed that whoever controls mass communications still controls the public mind. State and establishment/ status quo propaganda is getting cruder, less scrupulous and more outlandish. But it plainly works. Were there a hint that Scottish support for independence was at dangerously high levels multiple srate psyops would swing into action as against Corbyn and hammered relentlessly — until even erstwhile supporters of independence believed Sturgeon was an agent of chaos and Moscow and Beijing. The idea that people reject or even discern propaganda from ‘respectable’ sources like the BBC has been decisively disproved. And the BBC will become even more of a Tory tool in the years ahead. Independence supporters need to think hard on how a propaganda war can be won against such an overwhelming and unscrupulous foe, cloaked in the garb of respectable impartality..