There will never again be a route to Scottish Independence deemed legal by Westminster. 2014 will never be repeated. The UK will never willingly give up a third of its land, most of its fisheries, most of its mineral resources, its most marketable beef, soft fruit and whisky, most of its renewable energy potential, a vital part of its military including its primary nuclear base, its best universities in a number of key fields including life sciences, its ready pool of intellectual and professional talent. Johnson is for once honest when he says keeping the Union together is his top priority. It is the top priority of the entire British establishment.
David Cameron only agreed to the 2014 referendum because he thought the result would humiliate and kill off Scottish nationalism. Support for Independence was at 28% in the polls at the time he agreed. Westminster had the most enormous and horrible shock when support for Independence grew to 45% during the campaign as many people for the first time in their lives heard the real arguments. The Whitehall panic of the last week of the 2014 referendum campaign is not something the British Establishment ever intend to repeat.
There is a charmingly naive argument put forward by some that, if support for Independence can be grown to 60% in the opinion polls, Johnson and Westminster will have to “grant” a referendum. This is the opposite of the truth. If support for Independence is at 60%, the very last thing that the Tories will do is agree a referendum they will lose. Their resistance will be massively hardened. Remember, the Tories could have zero Tory MPs in Scotland and still have a majority of 73 in Westminster. There is no political damage for Johnson in unpopularity in Scotland. In England, his anti-Scots stance is very popular with their Cummings core support base of knuckle-dragging, ill-educated racists.
The “intellectual justification” for this stance was trailed by Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on the Marr programme this morning. Irrespective of the wishes of the majority in Scotland, the UK has a duty to stop Scottish Independence, to prevent anarchic secessionist forces being unleashed across Europe; he named Italy, France and Spain.
Westminster will never agree another referendum, and the more we look like winning it, the less they will agree to it.
Nor is there a route to a “legal” referendum through the courts. If a court rules that a consultative referendum is legal under the current Scotland Act (which it might well be), then the Tories will simply pass new legislation at Westminster to make it illegal. They have already done this at Westminster to overturn Scottish parliament decisions, and the UK Supreme Court have already made clear that the Sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament cannot be challenged.
Scotland can become independent, but becoming independent is, without doubt, going to be illegal in terms of UK law – which is to say Westminster law. There will not be a route to Independence agreed with Westminster.
If you believe in Scottish Independence, you believe that the Scottish nation are a “people” within the meaning of the UN Charter, and thus have an inalienable right of self-determination. That means that Westminster has no right, by legislation or by any other means, to prevent the Scottish people from exercising their self-determination.
I am sorry, but this is the fact: If you believe Scotland should only move to Independence in a Westminster-approved process, you do not really believe in Scottish Independence at all.
Which brings us to Nicola Sturgeon. Her much-trumpeted speech on the way forward following Brexit was disgraceful in explicitly stating that any referendum must be held with Westminster agreement, and that any referendum held without Westminster agreement could be “illegal”. She used the words “illegal” and “wildcat” to denigrate the idea of Scotland acting without Westminster permission.
Even the most loyal to Sturgeon of all major Independence bloggers, like James Kelly and Paul Kavanagh, could not support Sturgeon on this point.
What Sturgeon said amounts to an explicit acknowledgement of UK sovereignty over the Scottish people as both legitimate and immutable. She is accepting that the Act of Union did permanently alienate the right of self-determination. Sturgeon should heed the tale of Toom Tabard as to what respect English rulers show to Scottish leaders who accept their authority. Her speech reinforced my view that she really is much too comfortable in her role of colonial governor.
And yet…
When Sturgeon started talking about calling a Constitutional Convention I first scoffed thinking she was merely fulfilling my prediction that her “plan” would be to start yet another talking shop. But then I was astonished when she outlined the potential membership – the elected representatives of Scotland sitting together, constituting MSPs, MPs, (former) MEPs and council leaders.
I have explained at length over the last two years my proposal for a route to Independence that would lead to recognition by the international community. Donald Tusk today confirmed all I have been saying about the enormous sympathy there will be in the EU towards welcoming Scotland back, now the UK has switched status to third country state. [I knew Donald Tusk reasonably well when I was First Secretary of the British Embassy in Warsaw in the 1990s and he was an out of office politician the same age as me. I should like to think I had an effect!]
But the heart of what I was proposing is this, as I put it in December 2018
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.
Or as I put it again two weeks ago:
We should assemble all of Scotland’s MEP’s, MP’s and MSP’s in a National Assembly and declare Independence on the 700th Anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, thus emphasising the historical continuity of the Scottish state. The views and laws of London now being irrelevant, we should organise, as an Independent state, our referendum to confirm Independence, to be held in September 2020.
Please do read the articles linked if you have not already done so. They explain how Scotland can legitimately become an Independent nation without regard to UK domestic law.
Now, until Sturgeon’s speech, I had never seen anybody else but me put forward the proposal that the way forward is via an assembly of all MPs, MSPs and MEPs, giving the triple legitimacy of democratic election. Sturgeon has enhanced this by adding council leaders.
There is a huge difference between an assembly – or convention – of elected representatives, and an appointed one of the great and the good. This new assembly proposed by Sturgeon is very different indeed in that respect from the Convention of the same name that helped formulate devolution.
Now I do not think for one moment that Sturgeon has convened this Convention to declare Independence. But an assembly of Scotland’s MPs, MSPs, MEPs and council leaders will have a clear Independence majority numerically and a massive Independence majority intellectually. It will have an extremely strong claim to be a properly representative assembly whose members each have a democratic mandate. The French Revolution was of course similarly precipitated by constitutional innovation convening a National Assembly combining the different Estates, and that Assembly was swept along by fervour to take proto-revolutionary measures which went far beyond the initial positions of any of its members.
The dynamic of a new constitutional body whose members feel they command legitimacy, should not be underestimated. The convening of this body will be a real constitutional innovation. We need to make sure, that like that French National Assembly, they can clearly hear a huge mob outside their windows, demanding radical and speedy change.
——————————————
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 enormous sympathy there will be in the EU”
The word he used was “empathy”. Not quite the same thing.
actually he used both words at different points.
Not much empathy in Spain I suspect.
Michael Droy
You suspect wrongly.
Spain will be focussing on taking control of Gibraltar.
Gibraltar talk is cheap and a deliberate distraction from their real worry Catalonia.
MJ
Sympathy early in the interview and empathy later in the interview
At the risk of bringing down all sorts of opprobrium upon my (probably deserving) head, I ask again: what on earth is the point of seeking and gaining independence from the UK only to seek a possibly even more onerous vassalage to the EU? I believe a truly independent Scotalnd would be a wonderful success, but governed by the EU it would quickly find that the dreadful economic conditions which prevail in Greece, in Spain and in Portugal will be repeated in Scotland. What are the advantages of being in the EU? it is a hungy beast and would suck the very life out of a newly resurgent Scotland.
We’re a small nation like Ireland, the EU will afford us some protection against those that seek to act against a independent Scotland.
Would you prefer to ramain part of the increasingly rogue state that the UK is on the road to? https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/02/01/johnsons-true-brexit-objectives-were-revealed-by-the-video-he-released-last-night/
No – Independence for Scotland. True independence, not subjugated to the will of anti-democratic, corrupt and wasteful EU.
It’s up to the Scottish people who they align with after independence.
At least the EU allow you leave.
Only if you are very determined and a bit lucky. They take you money and use it to bribe a fifth column.
Theophilus
The same as Westminster – we call them Vichy jocks – like Gove. A particularly nasty subset of Britnat – the Britnats very own SS if you like.
A Union is only is Union if there is a process to voluntarily depart the Union. The EU meets that criteria and has now proven it in reality.
The UK has always been an English/Westminster dictstorship and is now proving that to the previously blind. The UK (England) is also now proving it is going down the black hole of racism and fascism and wants to drag Scotland down there with it.
Criticisms of the EU are not excuses to stay in a UK which denies Scottish people their basic human rights and is fundamentally an abusive relationship.
In summary, the EU is a Union the UK is a fascist dictatorship.
It’s not often I do this, because I do try to examine the arguments and reason my way through the labyrinths of opposing views, but today I am going to restrict my comment to “Bollocks”. This is not offensive because the Liberal Democrats and the Speaker of the House of Commons have used the expression frequently in public discourse.
Caratacus
I couldn’t care less if you say bollocks. It just means you have no arguments and in fact you are the one who was talking bollocks.
🙂
caratacus
Your avatar gives the impression you are familiar with bollocks???????
The EU won’t steal everything we own….
Indeed Jeff. Unlike what London has been doing
I think it would be in the EU’s interest to help boost an Independent Scotland’s Renewable Sector.
Only your soul, your culture and your resources (fishing et al)
They wont give you £10 million a year either. They will likely ask you to contribute so that they can give your money to some indigent Balkan bandit.
Still better than our money being stolen.
Because the UK is an INCORPORATING union but the EU is a FEDERAL union. How many times do I have to keep pointing this out?
MBC
Probably from now to eternity. Too many people’s minds full of rubbish. They seem to think every union is the same.
Scotland in U.K. gets 59 MP, England gets 550
The 550 of England stop us having a vote to leave
Scotland in the EU gets one seat and can have a vote and actually leave anytime we want
Scotland in U.K. gives U.K. all its money and gets some of it back the rest is spent on things that those 550 English MPs in Westminster decide it should be spent on
Scotland in EU makes a contribution but gets to spend all its money on things Scottish MPs decide it should be spent on and if the people of Scotland are not happy with the spending choices that are made they vote those MPs out
The 550 English MPs that decide how Scotland’s money should be spent can never ever be voted out by the people of Scotland
I suspect it’s because many people (the majority?) do not share your views on the EU. Also, have you ever even remotely considered that the UK and the EU are two vastly different things?
Greece, Spain and Portugal all have the Euro! As long as Scotland goes with its own currency, not sterling, and doesn’t join the Euro, we’d be fine.
Does Scotland want to be in the Eurozone? If so, it would have to adopt the Euro.
“There is a charmingly naive argument put forward by some that, if support for Independence can be grown to 60% in the opinion polls, Johnson and Westminster will have to “grant” a referendum. This is the opposite of the truth.”
You’re suffering from “English People Always Tell Me What To Do”-itis, or at least encouraging it in others – and missing the fact that polls (AND the recent Scottish results in the British general election) show a majority AGAINST independence.
If there were an across the boarding 60% for independence polls, the s30 request would probably be granted. But in any case, there would obviously be a clear route to independence running through bringing about a Scottish general election, which it is within the power of the SNP to do, assuming their pals the Greens help them out. If there were 60% in the polls for independence, the SNP would sweep to a large majority in Holyrood – both of seats and the popular vote – and there would then be a referendum. The SNP could bring that about within a few months. They don’t want to. They prefer to blame the English for not allowing a referendum. They are deceitful lying politicians encouraging xenophobia because it’s in their interests. Jo Swinson was right to speak of a rising tide of nationalism north and south of the border.
There will in any case be a Scottish general election in 15 months’ time. That is what the current statements by SNP leaders are aimed at.
It’s a good thing for Scotland that some of what’s in your first paragraph wasn’t used to lower the figure agreed in the Barnett formula and therefore decrease public expenditure in Scotland.
As usual your bizarre anti-Scottish hatred leads to you to spout absolute rubbish. The polls show a narrow majority for Independence. The SNP overwhelmingly won the general election in Scotland with 45% of the vote. The Greens are also pro-Independence. Polls consistently show between 30 to 40% of Labour voters in Scotland support Independence.
Craig
What can you do about people like N who are obviously reasonably intelligent but have a blind spot re Scottish independence. Impossible to fathom how they suck up propaganda and lies. Still can’t work out where he sits on the British Nationalist Pyramid of lies.
[ Mod: You also posted on this thread as ‘John O’Dowd’. From the moderation rules for commenters:
Sockpuppetry.
…. the adoption of multiple identities within the same thread is not to be allowed.
Please use one identity only. ]
—
Good question Cubby – if as his avatar states he regards himself as ‘Marxist’ one has to assume it is of the Stalinist variety – what we used to call ‘Tankies” – that is to say, not really Marxist at all.
A risky read across to assume support rises in a campaign, Labour made that assumption based on 2017’s performance, and the surge never really materialised in 2019. The arguments for and against Scottish independence are now so well rehearsed and established, the numbers who can be ‘won over’ are probably fleetingly small. Every percent in support above a certain level obviously becomes much harder to obtain. Therefore, how can you be confident at ~51%?
The stakes are huge, as it will end independence hopes if another referendum is lost – for at least a decade – it may even destroy the SNP looking at Quebec separatists and what happened there after a second referendum loss. Were independence support now consistently running at 65%, sure, I’d be urging go for it now ,immediately, but it isn’t and this is too risky to get it wrong twice.
Much will depend upon how Johnson fares, I think he’s vastly overpromised and he’s in way over his head with Brexit. He hasn’t got one circle to square, but dozens. If he causes a slow motion crisis starting next year that’s the moment for Sturgeon to ask ‘can”t we do better?’
Goose
Sorry but I dont accept comparisons with Quebec. Quebec has never been an independent nation never mind one of Europes oldest nations with one of the world’s oldest national flags. Scotland is still formally a nation even in the UK.
So you think it is ok for us to vote 62% remain but be told to shut up and do what you are told.
= EU citizen rights being removed.
So you think it is ok to be told your votes will be ignored for ever and you will never get another sect 30 independence referendum. = human rights being removed.
“Wee timrus cow’ring beastie”
I didn’t raise the example as a literal comparison. But it shows how acrimony would reign in the aftermath of another defeat, as people argued over who was to blame. You’d risk a split in the SNP and the whole movement would risk unraveling into warring factions. What is an essentially English Tory party are past masters at such ‘divide and conquer’ tactics to achieve longer term strategies, right back to the days of empire. They’d amplify such division to diminish the movement as a whole.
The SNP got 45% of the vote but how many were voting for Scottish independence and how many for a hung parliament and a delayed or denied Brexit? We shall see a little more clearly come the next Scottish General election.
Theophillus
Recent yougov poll 51% for Yes. Poll late last year 52% for Yes.
65% for Yes in age group 49 and under in recent yougov poll. It’s only a matter of when.
It’s the seventy, eighty and ninety year olds who still believe the crap they read in the Mail and Express that vote no in large numbers. Is that you?
More cheap talk from you .
“If there were an across the boarding 60% for independence polls, the s30 request would probably be granted. ”
As usual N, you aren’t paying attention, Boris Johnson instructed his governor general Alistair Jack to get across to Scots that there won’t be a referendum anytime in the foreseeable future.
ROS
Correct and Johnson himself stated he will NEVER agree a sect 30 request.
Fascism.
Don’t be daft
More than half a million of the voters in Scotland are English people who always vote for mother England to keep control of Scotland and as you recently seen Westminster refuse to allow Scotland any control of immigration in Scotland if you look at just Scottish voters in Scotland there is over 60% in favour of independence.
And what do the Scottish people living and working in England think?
Theophilius
” I wish I still lived in Scotland”
Very apt and interesting article.
In the first paragraph you outline a lot of Scotlands resources but you omit the oil and gas resources. Is this a simple error or a deliberate omission. There is no doubt that Scotland is the golden goose that has been laying golden eggs for Westminster to keep for themselves. Why would Westminster agree to give up its golden goose. It’s amazing that reasonably intelligent people still think England subsidises Scotland and quote the Barnett formula propaganda as evidence ( yes that’s you N). The Westminster establishment desperate not to give a penny to the EU are falling over themselves to subsidise Scotland. Westminster has sucked resources out of most parts of the world like parasites/locusts over centuries but Scotland is uniquely subsidised to the tune of unbelievable amounts.
I too have unanswered concerns about how any polls showing any extremely high % support for independence will achieve a sect 30 backed referendum.
I have long held the view it was a mistake by the SNP to change from using a majority at elections to gain a mandate for independence to referendums. Elections are regular occurrences and cannot be classed as illegal.
In summary I agree with most of what you write. A majority for independence is probably there already but I do not see how increasing that majority will necessarily achieve independence on its own. Remember a 52% majority was good enough for leaving the EU with no confirmatory referendum. The Scotgov do not seem to have a plan to actually achieve independence. There are, however, plenty of different approaches that could be taken.
A good analysis with less emphasis on personalities than previous articles.
Cubby
To be fair, I thought when Craig Says ” most of its mineral resources,” .. I thought that covers Oil and Gas, Coal, Various Sands, Metals, Rocks.. I believe the Mineral industries are worth around £600 million a year to Scotland’s economy
Independence Please.
Brianfusijan
Fair point Brian. At the risk of sounding pedantic the term – economic minerals is often used to include non solids like oil and gas. But nevertheless it is likely that Craig was including oil and gas in minerals. It’s just I think that there is so much misleading propaganda about the value if oil and gas fields in Scottish waters it would have been worth mentioning them specifically.
Of course another resource that we have plentry of is fresh water. As the planet heats up this will become a more valuable commodity.
A powerful new argument for independence is that it is the only way to save the NHS for Scots.
It’s a pity Craig your not the FM, at least you have a plan to get us out of this prison masquerading as a union.
Tusks words as you say show that the EU is willing, if we’re able.
Tusks words are not very reliable. He will say anything to suit the EU book of the moment. He wanted Poland to join the Euro until events changed his mind for him.
Donald Tusk’s empathy towards an EU member Scotland is understandable at this breaking juncture for UK independence. Independence as such is antithetical to the ‘common’ objectives of EU members and best avoided. Better to advance with Scotland’s freedom, autonomy, liberty, and self-determination.
Indeed, Mark; those four noble objectives do indeed run counter to the EU’s raisons d’être and would be quickly beaten down by the exigencies of ever closer union.
Tusk is no doubt mindful of Poland’s repeated attempts throughout the 19th century to assert independence from Russia.
He may also be mindful of Russia’s earler repeated attempts to assert independence from Poland.
As usual I got an email from ‘Nicola Sturgeon’ telling me all about it as though it were something worth paying attention to.
As usual I replied pointing out that expecting Boris Johnson to be a democrat when he has majority of 40 is a fantasy.
As usual I do not expect any sort of reply to my replies to emails from ‘Nicola Sturgeon’.
I agree Nicolas speach sounded like a nail in the coffin for independence – at least whilst her party dominates the independence debate / she is its leader.
It’s not that abvious to me that we would easily gain European membership if we declare independence either – but there’s a resonable chance that they would at least recognise us as a nation.
Lesley Riddoch has done a lot of research on the Scandanavian block and is often heard saying that we should be looking North and not South for a trade block to join – and she makes compelling arguements based on the experiences of nations smaller than our own.
I think your idea Craig for an assembly as you describe – is brilliant – but under the current circumstances – I just don’t see it happening. The next Scottish Parliment elections are scheduled to be on 6th May next year. To my mind we need an alternative independence party whose manifesto is to have such an assmbly , hold a referendum, and declare independence if it wins a clear majority.
The Spannish governments treatment of Catalan and it democratically elected leaders – has genuinely scared a lot of people – and this fear is well founded imo – so as well – there is a lot of important work to do in addressesing these fears.
Scotland needs to make a claim for independence on the basis of anti-nationalism and anti-racism, on the basis that it can no longer abide what the UK has become. It needs to offer moral and not just legal justification if it is to win people over to its cause.
I don’t doubt that small-mindedness exists in Scotland too, as this is something that exists wherever the political elite enlists the media in huge campaigns of xenophobia and fear-mongering.
I was looking at this just now:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/police-called-in-after-poster-tells-residents-of-flats-to-speak-english
Really ironic that the author of the poster sings the praises of the English language and of a parasitic aristocracy, but can’t even get to grips with grammar or the use of apostrophes. So sad.
My sense is that foreigners usually understand, write and speak the English language better than such Brexiteering imbeciles.
[ Mod: You also posted on this thread as ‘Hamish McGlumpha’. From the moderation rules for commenters:
Sockpuppetry.
…. the adoption of multiple identities within the same thread is not to be allowed.
Please use one identity only. ]
—
“The convening of this body (The Sturgeon Constitutional Convention) will be a real constitutional innovation. We need to make sure, that like that French National Assembly, they can clearly hear a huge mob outside their windows, demanding radical and speedy change.”
Indeed so. We must all be ready to lobby this (these) event(s) to stiffen the resolve of our elected representatives as the feeling of we, the Scottish people.
Craig Murray is right – it has been becoming clearer for months that perfidious Albion will NEVER give us “permission” to leave the UK.
We must seize the day.
Since the Tory flea-collar of a rigged election now resembles King Louis XVI at Versailles, and his rigged majority allows him to force through an extreme right wing agenda on a minority of nearly half the electorate without having to give their wishes a thought, … the consequences of his unparalleled arrogance will be the same as 1789. We will have an English Revolution and we will cull this failed Tory dogma of the market being the Oracle. The Oracle that in 2008 made the big mistake of letting the bankers eat our money while getting our kids to pay for it.
Ok not just our kids. Iraqi kids, Syrian kids , Tunisian kids , Afghan kids , Ukranian kids and Egyptian kids.
Of course you are right Craig. We the British are no different from any other people. We will not be governed by theft and dictat. To me Scottish Independence is one of many symptoms of our duress under Tory government. Irish Unity will pop first, followed by outright rebellion against the NHS and employment law being taken over by the yanks this year.
Scotland will find if it challenges English hegemony that it breaks off with all the roots intact stretching down into The North.
Johnson’s levelling up the North will be achieved by England losing its head and heart, leaving just the paunch, private parts , and legs for London. This Tory fraudulent decision to turn back the clock on two centuries of social reform will bring civil war to the UK.
Tory heads on spikes on Westminster bridge.
“We the British are no different from any other people. We will not be governed by theft and dictat”.
Au contraire, you have always been governed by theft and diktat. And you always will, no matter what government you choose – or think you have chosen.
Government *is* theft and diktat.
Tom Welsh
After the war the British government made a social contract that they would stop persecuting people st home or abroad. That lasted from 1949 to 1979 one generation. Then we had 20 years of domestic upheaval and then 20 years of foreign upheaval.
The right wing is now collecting its chips and counting them.
But this is the Chinese century. The right wing is going to get mugged on it’s way home from the casino.
Starting from the last faked election.
Giyane
February 2, 2020 at 18:35
The Left wing under labour facilitated the genocide of a million Indonesians.Then brought in the British Goebbels Norman Reddaway to sanitise the act of killing.
Giyane
February 2, 2020 at 18:35
“the British government made a social contract that they would stop persecuting people st home or abroad. That lasted from 1949 to 1979 one generation.”
You missed the Korean war, 1951, the Suez Crisis 1956, Malayan ’emergency’ (for it was a war in all but name) 1948-1960, the Irish ‘troubles’ of the 1950’s… And on, and on.
The ‘war’ you mention, never, ever, stopped to this day.
Many Scots resist Independence because they are afraid of a leap into the unknown. Well now they have no choice, Brexit is also a leap into the unknown, and the few bits we can foresee are terrifying – throwing open our NHS to US vulture corporations for example.
So it’s now a question of which unknown you prefer – Scottish Independence in Europe with a preserved NHS, or Boris’s march into darkness. Suddenly the Independence option is the more familiar, less scary.
A new Independence party could sweep the 2021 Scottish Parliament Election on a platform of immediate UDI, a return to Europe and saving the NHS.
[ Mod: You also posted on this thread as ‘Hamish McGlumpha’. From the moderation rules for commenters:
Sockpuppetry.
…. the adoption of multiple identities within the same thread is not to be allowed.
Please use one identity only. ]
— “A new Independence party could sweep the 2021 Scottish Parliament Election on a platform of immediate UDI, a return to Europe and saving the NHS.”
More likely it would split the independence vote. No, imperfect as the SNP is, we need to stick together – this is the time for clear thinking and a resolve to let the powers know what we think. When the time comes for UDI, the political work must have been done ahead of it.
We have a window of opportunity where Independence is less scary than the alternatives. We have to grab it and the SNP isn’t offering it.
Missed your chance, I’m afraid. Now you’ll have to wait and see how Brexit works out, and when it turns out to be a tremendous boon for this country it will kill off the independence question for generations to come. You should’ve got right in with all the corporate, media establishment doom mongering over British independence and demanded it then; because no one except the most hardline, English-hating Scottish nationalist will want to leave a prosperous and independent union. In five years time you’ll be back to 28%.
“Missed your chance, I’m afraid. Now you’ll have to wait and see how Brexit works out, and when it turns out to be a tremendous boon for this country it will kill off the independence question for generations to come.”
Oh right shunning the largest trading bloc in the world right on our doorstep, to make a weak handed deal with the US is a boon is it?
Not only that but we’ve lost all the great benefits of the EU as well, higher food standards, employment rights laws, and other standards that Westminster say they’ll reformulate in a British bill. Not to mention millions in subsidies that support our farming communties and EU projects.
No give me the EU over Westminster any day of the week.
Edward
A delusional wishful thinking post. Once people’s eyes are open to the truth of the abusive relationship with Westminster and decide they want freedom there is no going back to serfdom. The UK Union has always been prosperous but just not for Scotland and never will whether or not Brexit is a success for Blighty. So your analysisbis jut plain wrong.
Latest yougov poll – under 49 years of age 65% for Yes. The future is not orange in Scotland the future is a normal independent state that makes its own decisions.
How on earth will you make your “own decisions” as a non-entity in the EU?
Edward
You really really don’t get it do you. Or are you just being bloody annoying.
We are totally oppressed within the UK at present. Our votes are ignored. Our resources are looted and we are subjected to daily propaganda.
As an independent country we can vote and our votes will count and that includes voting to leave the EU if we want to.
Now surely that is easy enough for you to grasp.
You must live in England Edward.
Anyone living in Scotland would know that support for Scottish independence will never go back to 28%.
It’s rising month by month
Rising quicker than Westminster can persuade English people to move to Scotland and quicker than Westminster can hand out British citizenship and British passports to people moving to Scotland from the Far East
No, Craig. The goalposts haven’t changed and is still +50% of the vote. What’s changing is the route we must take – if a referendum won’t or can’t be held, simply transfer its threshold for success to an election and seek a mandate for independence itself. It would be completely irresponsible to declare independence beforehand.
GE2019 – 46%(45% SNP, 1% GRN)
EU2019 – 46%(38% SNP, 8% GRN)
SP2016 – 48%(42% SNP, 6% GRN)
We must first get over 50%. Then, what you propose becomes entirely possible. Beforehand, it’s merely a duplication of Brexiteers forcing their project through with an artificial majority built upon the largest minority. We can and must do better than that.
Bear in mind a significant number of Labour voters now support independence even if their party doesn’t.
Alan D
The figures you quote were not for an election that asked for a mandate for independence. Apples and pears.
If you ask for a mandate they may well be a lot higher. They may be lower.
I agree if no referendum use the elections. Elections happen on a regular basis and are not illegal.
Mr. Murray:
And similarly the US Constitutional Convention was intended to just modify the Articles of Confederation. It greatly exceeded its mandate! Calling a convention of elected officials is dangerous to out-of-touch elites.
The U.S. Constitutional Convention enacted what most of the elite wanted.
Guardian top headline: Tusk: EU would be enthusiastic if Scotland applied to rejoin.
The UK govt will find the rules have changed now and what being a ‘third country’ really means. Scottish independence supporters may find their quest greatly aided.
Pedantry requires me to point out that, if the Tories had zero Scottish MPs, Johnson’s majority would be 68.
I remember the last referendum in 2014. The unionists’ strongest card by far was the £ Pound sterling; the Scottish attachment to it and the SNP’s ridiculous position of simply saying ‘they can’t stop us using it’, this despite the then chancellor, George Osborne, threatening to do just that. Osborne insisted ” we will not share’ sterling” and he would advise against a currency union.
If the SNP don’t have a coherent answer to this pivotal question then it’ll be problematic again. As Javid and Johnson will almost certainly double down on Osborne’s stance and it’d be drilled home by whoever defends the union this time, much as Alistair Darling or Gordon Brown used the argument ad nauseam. Another problem with continued use of the pound is it would imply loss of economic sovereignty. If Sturgeon were to force a referendum against Westminster’s wishes how on earth could Scotland keep using the pound without permission? It’d mean no input on monetary policy, such as setting interest rates.
You are wrong. The £ was a viable option. It can be adopted by anyone, but why would you want to? What the SNP proposed and was rejected was not merely using the £ – which anyone can, it is a fully tradable currency – but also a currency union and continuing sharing the Bank of England as the central bank. That was what Osborne ruled out. The Bank of England btw was nationalised in 1948. They just never got round to changing the name.
MBC
Correct.
There was nothing technically wrong with the position taken by the SNP in 2014. The problem was people accepting the propaganda from the Britnats and failing to understand it.
Personally, I favour a move fairly quickly from Sterling to a Scottish currency (oily pound).
The Bank of England is part owned by Scotland as is all UK assets.
I suppose it’s already too late to cure our national fear and ignorance of this topic of currency, which is seen as a fatal blow to independence. It’s a pity because it is a false concern, a canard, that has been allowed to become a stick to beat the independence movement, needlessly.
Ireland (Irish Free State) used the UK pound right after it became independent 1922, and moved only in 1928 to its own currency that was pegged 1:1 to the UK pound right up to 1979. This throughout a period when Rep of Ireland was recognised and acted as completely independent, politically, militarily and in trade, without any sense of control or repression about it.
The pound is a currency of convenience that can be adopted by any country’s central bank that can give security, usually in issued bonds. A central bank can issue bonds in Sterling as easily as in any other fiat currency – dollar, euro – they key of course is the price. I am certain that within hours of becoming independent, Scotland’s new central bank would issue sterling denominated bonds, and the Bank of England would buy them, in competition with buyers in all the main international markets.
It is also worth noting that Ireland inherited no debt under its independence arrangements. Again this is a historical fact and precedent that the Scottish independence movement has allowed itself to forget and be beaten with too easily.
As a currency user (as opposed to a currency creator), Scotland currently shares, effectively, the same status as a local authority – insofar as its expenditure is funded entirely by central government grants plus whatever it can scoop up in “horizontal money” by way of local “taxes” (which are really a form of service charge than actual taxation), fines, rents, and other local service charges.
This inability to create its own currency, and impose its own taxation to drain reserves at its own central bank, severely hampers its room for fiscal manoeuvre.
Adopting Sterling or the euro, post-Independence, will simply continue this diminished status, and would render the whole process pointless, being “Independence” in name only.
A truly independent Scotland *must* adopt its own fiat, sovereign, non-convertible currency, created by its own central bank, from day one – and ensure ubiquitous acceptance of that currency throughout Scotland by imposing all taxes in that new currency.
Anything else will not be genuine independence, and simply swaps one straitjacket for another.
Totally agree mr Shigemitsu, even if it’s only in digital form to begin with.
Mr S. I don’t recognise your distinction between using and creating currency – or rather it seems to rely on a household economy view of international exchange that has few serious modern followers.
Money (in the technical sense) is created by any credit-worthy sovereign bank simply by issuing bonds to investors; it is the source of the country’s credit, of exchange and of currency through locally issued notes (though look up Bank Strike Ireland 1970 for an interesting tale where a country worked well without even currency notes, and Money Supply almost dried up).
I’m not sure what taxation has to do with this – unless you mean taxation of trade, but you refer only to local taxation? Trade taxation should net to zero in a stable exchange regime (such as pegging), and can only help the smaller country if its currency devalues. So I’m really at a loss what you’re getting at here.
For a small economy issuing sterling bonds (as Ireland did for many years) it makes sense to peg its exchange to sterling. This is not a straitjacket or anything about independence or status; it is simply ordinary economic common sense, a stabiliser and and a balancer of trade. A proud or political attachment to a floating Scottish currency puts heart over head, and makes for unneeded instability.
AF: “Mr S. I don’t recognise your distinction between using and creating currency – or rather it seems to rely on a household economy view of international exchange that has few serious modern followers.”
The UK government, via its central bank, the BoE, creates currency into existence every time it spends, simply by adding reserves to the BoE reserve accounts held by the banks of the recipients of that initial govt spending. This is what Keynes referred to as “High Velocity” or “Vertical Money”, and adds net financial assets into the economy.
Furthermore, neither the Government nor the BoE depend on currency returned to the Treasury in taxes before they can spend; the £800bn in bank bailouts, and the £435bn of gilts purchased on the secondary bond markets in the QE process are evidence of this.
Because money does not stop at first use, each pound of initial departmental spending circulates around the economy, being taxed away at each transaction in a geometric progression, until, for any positive tax rate, the entire amount (bar whatever the non-government sector chooses to save) is returned (“revenue”) to the Exchequer, where, in an opposite reserve drain operation, the currency is effectively destroyed, so the whole spending process can continue, ad infinitum, without causing the inflation that would inevitably result were transactions to go untaxed.
AF: “Money (in the technical sense) is created by any credit-worthy sovereign bank simply by issuing bonds to investors; it is the source of the country’s credit, of exchange and of currency through locally issued notes (though look up Bank Strike Ireland 1970 for an interesting tale where a country worked well without even currency notes, and Money Supply almost dried up).”
I have no idea where you get this from. Private sector banks, under license from the BoE, create credit (“Horizontal Money”) out of thin air, but which, because it needs to be repaid, adds *no new net financial assets* into the economy. This issuance of credit happens at a keystroke, and rather than coming from the lending bank’s reserves (the increasingly discredited “Loanable Funds Theory”), in fact creates new reserves, as the loan, created out of thin air, is credited to the lender’s bank and thereby its reserve account at the BoE. The banks perform a necessary underwriting service, and loans are created as long as there are willing and creditworthy borrowers. When the economy slows down, these are thinner on the ground, and this is when increased government spending is essential to make up for the lack of new credit circulating in the economy. If only the banks had been restricted to this traditional “bowler-hat boring” activity, instead of being allowed to pursue their reckless and exotic behaviours, all would have been fine.
AF: “I’m not sure what taxation has to do with this – unless you mean taxation of trade, but you refer only to local taxation? Trade taxation should net to zero in a stable exchange regime (such as pegging), and can only help the smaller country if its currency devalues. So I’m really at a loss what you’re getting at here.”
Taxation in a fiat currency regime is essential in order to force ubiquitous acceptance of an otherwise worthless currency. It is what Scotland would need to do to enforce acceptance of a new Scottish Pound, or whatever they chose to call it. It is also the way to divert labour and other resources to the government’s bidding, because once you have a tax liability in a currency, then you obliged to seek employment for that currency, which means that the State can command the resources it requires in order to function. This is why the British imposed the Hut Tax in Kenya, for example.
AF: “For a small economy issuing sterling bonds (as Ireland did for many years) it makes sense to peg its exchange to sterling. This is not a straitjacket or anything about independence or status; it is simply ordinary economic common sense, a stabiliser and and a balancer of trade. A proud or political attachment to a floating Scottish currency puts heart over head, and makes for unneeded instability.”
Pegging your currency is a fruitless exercise, which gives power to the markets instead of to the sovereign government; you may as well use another nation’s currency because you lose control of domestic policy. A free-floating, sovereign, non-convertible fiat currency means that a democratically elected government can tell the markets where to go (see Japan). Remember the debacle when Lamont had to raise interest rates to 15% to defend the DM2.95 ERM peg? And how the economy improved quickly and interest rates could be dropped immediately, once the peg was abandoned? An independent Scotland ignores these lessons at its peril.
I should add that currency *users* are all those who cannot create currency, but are forced to earn, or borrow currency – because forgery is illegal! Effectively this means any person or entity outside the government sector; you and me, businesses and organisations, regional and local authorities, etc.
The UK currency *creator* is the Government via its wholly-owned central bank, the BoE. As the monopoly issuer of the currency, it can never go bankrupt, can always repay any “debt” denominated in Sterling, and can command for itself any resource available for sale in Sterling.
This is where Scotland needs to be, post independence, or it risks finding itself in a situation like Greece or Italy, where unelected bureaucrats dictate the levels of public sector spending and borrowing, and, in extremis, enforce fire-sales of national assets, which would be an absolutely woeful state for a new nation to find itself in.
Finally, an newly independent Scotland should never, ever, borrow in a foreign currency!
If it doesn’t want to run an overdraft facility denominated in “Scottish Pounds” at its central bank, which is how the old Ways and Means Account at the BoE used to work, but which would be illegal under EU legislation should Scotland re-join the EU, it can issue govt bonds in the event of any budget deficit – which would have the benefit of enabling Scottish savers and savings institutions, and those who had imported Scottish goods but who preferred not to exchange their earnings for their domestic currency, to stash their money safely.
But to issue bonds in either Sterling, euro, USD, etc would be a very big mistake. That’s how debtor nations get into trouble.
AF: “Money (in the technical sense) is created by any credit-worthy **sovereign** bank simply by issuing bonds to investors;”
Sorry – I failed to see the word “sovereign” and thought you were referring to retail banks. This is still not the case – Gilts, in the UK, are bought with the Sterling savings left over from previously issued currency. It’s just an asset swap; a liability at the BoE (Sterling savings) swapped for a liability at the Treasury (Gilts). As the monopoly issuer of Sterling, the govt certainly doesn’t depend on currency previously issued into the non-government sector in order to spend!
And if it wants to keep the accounting neat and tidy, ex-EU, it could simply run an overdraft at the BoE, for example. Within the “Whole of Government Accounts”, it nets to zero, so no big deal really, but Gilt issuance is a favour to large Sterling savers – if they ever spent those savings, taxes would be paid on those initial and subsequent transactions, so the deficit would disappear, along with the savings, accordingly.
So the denier of democracy in Scotland Biris Johnson is to soend £5 million pounds on anti-Scottish independence ads beginning on Valentines day.
Johnson is to use taxpayers money to keep Scots taxpayers subjugated and inline with his Brexit strategy. Looking back at the last indyref in 2014, when Better Together lied and deceived the Scottish public through the unionist media, we have now a rough idea as to what the democracy denier plans to do.
“The campaign is set to coincide with the publication of a review by Conservative peer Lord Dunlop into new ways to strengthen the Union, established by former Prime Minister Theresa May.”
Its a coordinated assault on Scotland to deny the will of the people the right to vote in a democratic referendum.
https://politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/109561/boris-johnson-set-launch-£5m-anti-independence-ad-blitz-scotland
Interesting, but £5m is small beer in comparison to the budget of BBC Scotland, News & current affairs and that outfit’s sole purpose is to maintain a hypnotic drum beat of “Indy baaaad”.
“Johnson is to use taxpayers money to keep Scots taxpayers subjugated…”
If it’s any consolation at all, it’s not “taxpayers” money; it’s government money. There’s no such thing as “taxpayers’ money”; it’s all government money, but it allows us to complete transactions, and, if we’re lucky, to accrue some savings.
Taxes don’t fund spending – the government creates as much as it likes (and uses it to do whatever it likes) via a keystroke at the BoE – but they do prevent inflation occuring as the result of continuous government spending – which would otherwise lead to more and more money chasing the same level of goods and services.
So, by paying taxes, you’re really just saving yourself from having to pay double for everything else in a year’s time – which if you think about it, is like another form of tax. There’s no escape, I’m afraid!
I’m surprised people are still buying into what Sturgeon says. Anything she says is to do with keeping the membership onside and the money coming in to keep them all in the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. Nothing else.
I’ve been reading a lot of comments elsewhere this morning that the independence movement is playing into Westminsters hands by critics of Sturgeon and the SNP causing division, divide and conquer and all that and how we’re doing Westminsters work for it.
I am truly and utterly at a loss to understand how thick many independence supporters are and yet they run message boards like they’re all authorative voices. I don’t mean this one or the Revs but in general. They are unable to get it through their thick heads that the ONLY people causing division within the independence ranks is Sturgeon and the SNP themselves. Westminster doesn’t have to do anything. The SNP will destroy independence by itself.
I am convinced that Sturgeon and the SNP are the enemy of Scottish independence and the sooner they’re gone and an alternative Independence party appears, the better. We’re going nowhere with the SNP and people really must wake up and understand this.
Sturgeon has dedicated her life to the cause of independence. She’s just using logic, looking at the polls and the rocky political road ahead for Johnson’s crew. He’s got to get a trade deal that averts chaos after 31 December 2020.
A certain Jo Swinson got swept up in her own hubris, thinking she was going to become PM, they were dismissing people predicting the Lib Dems winning 70 seats as being far too pessimistic(they ended up -1 on 11). My point is, don’t you think there’s a risk that those too close to the coalface end up with a distorted view of their levels of support?
Why is that? It’s hard to imagine a party whose main raison detre is independence doing anything that would scupper that. Is there missing information? Is there a long game? Or is it simply comfortable snouts in a comfortable trough? I’m not Scottish so not really bothered either way but am baffled by it.
Mist001
Financing your lifestyle in France courtesy of the UK gov? Or is it in some barracks in England.
I thought you posted you had had enough and were going away for good. I knew it would be to good to be true.
You are the most negative poster about everything and always have been. Not once have you ever put forward any case for Scottish independence. Your message is always destroy the SNP. That is always your solution. It’s boring.
Don’t be daft
Scotland will regain its independence in spite of the SNP, not because of the SNP.
My contention would be that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Johnson would agree to go down in history as the leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party that “looses” Scotland, rather than IMPOSSIBLE.
Johnson has a cast iron majority for the moment and for the foreseeable future, but other factors are in play. The Tory message being pumped out with priority status (Johnson, Rabb & Javid) is “we will not be rule takers”. Regardless of the prattling of Johnson, if the UK diverges from EU standards and regulations, there WILL be Customs checks at Belfast & Larne. If the UK goes rogue and refuses to implement the Customs checks, the Republic will be forced to step in. The outcome is the same either way, Irish unity. For Johnson to “loose” Scotland would be a different magnitude of disruption in terms of Johnson’s “personal, historical legacy” but a psychological precedent is (kind of) set.
It would appear from the shenanigans of the last three days that Brexit day has not broken the fever of English nationalism. The mob will seek a new target. In the most recent edition of the Slugger O’Toole podcast, the theory was proposed that Brexit was in part fuelled by an English nationalist sense of injustice that “we’re giving THEM money”. The argument proposed that with Brussels removed as an object of grievance, the fiscal deficit in Northern Ireland would become the next target of English nationalist, perceived injustice. In short, Irish unification will be subject to an Irish nationalist pull and an English nationalist push.
The next domino to fall would be Scotland.
” Brexit was in part fuelled by an English nationalist sense of injustice that “we’re giving THEM money”. ”
Similar to the Scottish nationalists then.
Eh…naw
Kempe
A failure to grasp the basic difference.
The UK agreed to the EU contribution. The UK decided it wanted to stop EU payments it stopped by leaving.
Westminster steals from Scotland and uses propaganda to tell its people that it subsidises them. It also says you canny leave. England says you belong to us.
You had a referendum and chose not to leave. The idea you are held against your will is laughable. All those who genuinely struggle for independence around the world would laugh at such a notion.
Edward
It is no laughing matter in Scotland. It is no laughing matter for all the people’s around the world oppressed by the British Empire.
Multiple yes multiple election mandates for a referendum and Westminster says never again – just what about this situation is not being held against your will. Democracy did not freeze in time 6 years ago.
I find your comments very offensive.
Don’t be daft
“The mob will see a new target”.
Aren’t the “mob’s targets” decided upon by the elites then implanted in the mob’s brains via the Daily Star and The Sun.
If the elites dont want to get rid of NI . . . The mob wont want to either ect.
The British (with whom some Scots seek to disassociate themselves) have shown you how to be free.
US Presidents, big business, corporate media, the intellectual classes, celebrities, the EU and senior politicians all tried to prevent the British from embracing freedom – but the people remained resolute in their determination to be free. They were willing to accept any abuse any threats and were willing to pay any price at all in order to be free.
Odd then that Scottish nationalists can see nothing at all in this great campaign for freedom that could assist their cause. Rather those who are now free are still besmirched by Scottish Nationalists as “knuckle dragging, ill educated racists” Winners would be a more accurate description. The beacon lit by the winners will surely provide both light and encouragement for the struggle for Southern Europeans to throw off their shackles.
Can Scottish Nationalists really be so stupid as not to recognize that the British have provided opportunities for all oppressed people throughout the European continent? or could it be that Scottish nationalism has nothing at all to do with Scottish independence and everything to do with selling an entire people into serfdom.
I can say categorically that independence for Scotland will NOT be fought on those same dishonest and frankly bigotted tropes that were used in the BRexit campaign.
Rightly, we have a political population well versed in knowledge of their country’s assets, resources and possibilities who will not be fooled by memes, slogans and lying politicians…
Agreed, you know that English voters were spooned fed lies, when the likes of northern English mining towns that were destroyed by Thatcher voted leave.
Never mind they’ll have years of cuts and privatisation to Bewail their faux pas.
Oh yes indeed!
And add in the ‘love campaign’ by the much derided Boris Johnson and I feel quite content to say they STILL dinnae get Scotland!
Welcome back.
Serfdom was imposed on the English by the Normans in the immediate aftermath of 1066. King David I of Scotland tried to impose partial serfdom (not including the Highlands & Islands and the Border region – something to do with a lack of volunteers to break the news to a population armed to the teeth) around one hundred years later. Serfdom in England was predominantly agricultural, serfdom in Scotland was predominantly pastoral (this matters with regard to how much of a head start a “fugitive” serf would have before the Lord’s overseers noticed). “Fugitive” serfs in Scotland had the time honoured option of joining a mercenary company as an escape route. Serfdom disappears from the Scottish legal records after around 300 years, serfdom remains in the English legal records for around 600 years.
There is little mention of serfs after the Black Death in 1368. They could not impose it.
Serfs? Read this
http://www.scottishmining.co.uk/429.html
And it remains in the English psyche today. However much we profess to despise the toffs, we still regard them as the anointed rulers and vote for them.
Always maintained, it takes six forelock tuggers to make a laird. The FTs are the problem.
Loony
Loony right enough. It’s scary getting an insight into some people’s thoughts.
Our enemy’s enemy is our friend. Thus the EU is Scotland’s friend.
I think your “…and yet…” comment says much to me.
I do believe that a new assembly will show the direction of travel.
Maybe she has been reading your blog after all?
I think the focus of such an assembly should nor directly be on independence, though that is the logical outcome to Scotland’s problems, but on Boris’s bullshit and what damage it is wreaking on Scotland.
I think it should include NHS and the voluntary sector as well. All of civil society that wishes to engage.
There is currently a citizen’s assembly looking at way forward for Scotland which encompasses all these matters. Due to report next few months and may be interesting.
Yes but it’s not the same thing. It consists of 100 randomly chosen citizens who are individuals. Not members of organisations. It is very useful for hearing what genuine grass roots opinion is, so far the number one anxiety is the NHS. But what I had in mind was a bit more focused. By having representatives of organisations they could come to identify how specifically Brexit and Boris’s bullshit is affecting them, gathering both a clearer picture and building a consensus of opinion.
It what way is what you suggest “a bit more focused” ? Seriously, an assembly to blether on about Boris’s bullshit, the NHS and the various and many other agendas of the voluntary sector.
The act of Union was real.
It commits Scotland to UK law. EU support (excluding Spain) or not.
Meanwhile UK has just exited the EU.
And Boris point that a referendum is a once a generation thing is fair.
And even if you start dreaming, a Scottish return means something worse than the NI customs issues. Rejoining the EU would be a nightmare. Britain might even expel Scots earning less than £30k. 6 years down the line you’d find calls for a new referendum to re-join the UK. Would that be acceptable?
Craig I am afraid your dream ain’t happening.
Scotland retained its separate legal system and ancient rights.
“And Boris pointing out that a referendum is a once in a generation thing is fair”
No it’s not . There is no limitation in the frequency or time interval between referenda on Scottish Independence written into any legal document or treaty. The phrase “once in a generation” was used by Alex Salmond in one interview and was qualified as a personal opinion.
The period between Border Polls held in Northern Ireland written into the Good Friday agreement is Seven Years. This is an international treaty signed by the British Government.
This article has cheered me up from the depression caused by NS’s speech. Thank you.
One thing to consider is unemployment.
Most countries of Europe have a very much higher rate of unemployment than does the U.K.
UK unemployment figures are a total sham and have been since Thatcher changed the way of calculating them 26 times.
All statistics coming from any agency of government, independent or otherwise have been through the mangle and should be treated with deep scepticism.
‘ We need to make sure, that like that French National Assembly, they can clearly hear a huge mob outside their windows, demanding radical and speedy change’.
Indeed but there is no such mob in Scotland, just a few thousand flag waving dafties who are so stupid they have been lead by the nose by Sturgeon and her fairy stories for years. Ordinary Scottish people are far too comfortable and in my experience having lived here for more than 60 years, not the material revolutions are made of. Buckfast Bravehearts at best.
Now that Johnson has an 80 majority in parliament and the SNP are an irrelevance at Westminster, Sturgeon has been forced to tell the truth. There is no legitimate route to independence in the foreseeable future.
Eric McCoo
“There is no legitimate route to independence in the forseeable future” the genuine words of a Britnat fascist. I doubt you will be insulted by that comment.
Never drunk a spot of a Buckfast in my life so GIRUY.
Yougov poll under 49 years of age 65% yes – hope you live long enough to see Scottish independence realised because it will happen. Scotlands future is not orange but a normal country.