I live in the capital of my country. I had to travel hundreds of miles to the capital of a foreign country to hear a bunch of unionist judges, the majority from a foreign country, declare that my country has no right to existence, indeed my country only exists at all in so far as it was incorporated by a foreign parliament in the Scotland Act of 1998.
It was cold and wet, walking to the Supremes Court his morning from Albert Embankment. Londoners were hurrying to their jobs with heads bowed, collars up and gloved hands clutching umbrellas against a driving rain. It was mundane. There was no sense of excitement and no indication anything in particular was happening at the Supreme Court. Arriving at 9am there was no queue, and I was the third person into the courtroom.
The former Middlesex Crown Court is one of the heaviest and most plodding examples of Victorian Gothic architecture in existence. It looks like a set from a 1930s Errol Flynn film of Robin Hood. Courtroom Number One of what is now the Supreme Court has a mock medieval vaulted ceiling, designed to echo that of the ancient Westminster Hall across the square (which is one of the architectural marvels of the world). But the Victorian version fails to soar like the medieval one. It is massive and clumpy and the bosses are like vast excretions of pointless wood. Rather than marvel at its lightness, we fear it will fall on our head.
In Westminster Hall, a pain-racked William Wallace stood his trial before a foreign authority he did not acknowledge, but which insisted it ruled him and had the right to condemn him to death. That same foreign authority was about to come down on our heads again. 700 years later not much has changed; the venue had just shifted three hundred metres.
Inherent in the judgment of the Supreme Court is the proposition, incredibly advanced by Scotland’s Lord Advocate, that Scotland effectively ceased to exist as a nation in 1707 and the Scottish legal principle of the sovereignty of the people was completely replaced by the English legal principle of the sovereignty of the Crown in parliament. Thus Scotland has no authority, power or recourse, in any situation, beyond what is handed down to it by Westminster.
That is in no sense an exaggeration. It is what the ruling is.
It is fair to say – and I published this at the time, long before the judgment – that Scotland’s unionist Lord Advocate got precisely the result her entire presentation of the case was designed to achieve. She did not turn up in court, doubtless having been sent the judgment in advance and perhaps not wishing to be seen to smirk in public.
The Court itself was extraordinarily subdued on an occasion that will be written into every history of the Scottish nation. The public gallery was not crowded, and mostly filled by law students with zero interest in the outcome wither way, turning up as part of some assignment. There were a few gloating members of the state and corporate media. I was there with an old friend from Sinn Fein.
A few of the very best of Scotland’s MPs turned up – Angus Brendan McNeill, Douglas Chapman, Tommy Sheppard, Neale Hanvey, John McNally and Anne McLaughlin (apologies to any I missed). There was a remarkably high correlation between MPs who bothered to turn up to the case, and MP’s willing to be seen to be friends of Craig Murray in public, which I think is not coincidental. Or to put in another way, there was no sign of the troughers who don’t care about Independence beyond the effectiveness of the slogan in getting them elected.
I shall do a proper analysis of the judgment later. It was notable that Reed – whose Scottish accent had once again become almost entirely imperceptible – addressed the international law aspects of the case which had been wrongly and totally omitted by Lord Advocate Bain, but submitted separately on behalf of the SNP. Reed relied heavily on the completely outdated Quebec judgment of the Federal Court in Canada – which is of course apposite because it is a parallel instance of the colonial authority denying democracy. He also very selectively misrepresented the Kosovo Opinion of the ICJ.
So Reed ended up in a situation where this was quite literally the argument of the court.
Scotland is not a colony, Scotland has meaningful access to the political process. No, Scotland certainly does not have the right to hold a referendum.
That he cannot see the glaring contradiction in this is a sign of the effectiveness of Unionist blinkers.
This outcome is precisely what Nicola Sturgeon and her Lord Advocate aimed for. She can now claim she tried to hold an Independence referendum and was blocked, when she plainly never had the slightest intention of holding the referendum in the first place.
We now come to what is known in Scottish politics as “Plan B” – a plebiscite election, which she announced would follow if a referendum is blocked.
A plebiscite election on Independence can only mean an election which, if won by the SNP, will be a mandate to declare Independence. Plebiscite is virtually a synonym of referendum. A “plebiscite election” cannot be an election which will lead simply to a renewed request for permission from Westminster to hold a referendum. A “plebiscite election” is the referendum.
I am pretty confident we will see Surgeon again squirm towards the off ramp and simply try to turn the “plebiscite election” into a demand that we re-elect the do-nothing troughers for a further five years with a new “mandate”. I do believe this ploy is now wearing thin.
We now know Westminster will not grant Independence; we have to take it. We have to take it whatever UK law or the London Supreme Court says. We have to assert the Sovereignty of the Scottish People as an authority that stands, in Scotland, ineffably higher than any parliament in a foreign land.
Independence must be declared in Scotland by Scotland’s people, preferably through Scotland’s government.
Any politician who still argues we must be constrained by Westminster law and bow our heads to London diktats is a unionist. Please see that.
(Correction – I typed Tommy Sheridan for Tommy Sheppard. Both excellent men. Now corrected).
————————————————-
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
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:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
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
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
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.
What a strange and sorry saga this is. The motivations of the primary actors inspire a jaundice of deeper yellow than the SNP’s own colours.
” We now know Westminster will not grant Independence; we have to take it. We have to take it whatever UK law or the London Supreme Court says. We have to assert the Sovereignty of the Scottish People as an authority that stands, in Scotland, ineffably higher than any parliament in a foreign land.”
If the Scottish people at heart are so decided and express themselves accordingly – so be it.
Excellent piece as always. How we’ve managed to get to this position beggars belief. If I thought we’d actually hold a ‘plebiscite election’ in some ways I’d be delighted. My worry is this insistence by the FM that it needs a ‘majority’ before we can move to become independent. A ‘majority’ of what? Votes? Seats? More than 50% of those eligible to vote? It strikes me that she will find a form of words which leads us up a cul-de-sac and limbo till she decides to retire. For me a ‘plebiscite election’ in the next General Election should be simple and straightforward. A majority of seats under their FPtP electoral system is enough for me.
Imagine that the SNP actually wants independence. They know that a unilateral declaration is the only route, but they also know that this is likely to be unpopular with moderate Scots who would prefer a negotiated departure on good terms. So, to get moderate opinion onside the SNP need an unequivocal ruling that a unilateral declaration is the only possible route to independence. And they have just obtained one.
I don’t know what the SNP’s intentions are, but I don’t think this court case proves anything either way.
I agree that the Supreme Court ruling does not divulge the Scottish Government’s intentions. But I thought Dorothy Bain’s pleadings did.
Indeed. The argument presented in this case on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon and her party is akin to William Wallace accepting that the English crown had authority over him but that his actions in some way fell short of treason, and without knowing much about the trial of this Scots rebel I assume that his case was that he was fighting against a foreign power to which he owed no allegiance.
@Cornudet, on the matter of treason, have the judges ruled on whether it is a treason felony under the 1848 Act to even try to break away from the United Kingdom/British Empire, given that the relevant criteria appear to be:
Is the repeated failure to repeal this legislation significant in the constitutional and Independence debates/struggles? And should judges offer some opinion on whether there are any obvious inconsistencies, injustices or obsolete aspects of this (kind of) legislation?
After finding some references to ‘legal black holes’ I found mentions of the concept of a ‘zone beyond law’. Does this also cover areas like the Royal Prerogative? Should the UK be recognized internationally as a constitutionally lawless (perhaps failed) state, long captured by the winning organised crime family, and ejected from the United Nations? Can judges make that kind of judgement, and are there historical precedents for doing so?
Sleeping Dog
would this apply if the SNP declared that Charles would remain as king -as he is, for the present, of Australia and Canada?
It is current policy but there is also widespread support for a Republic.
I think the problem Wallace had was his feudal superior had sworn fealty to Edward and to abide by England’s courts. 800 years later…
.
Geoffrey Howe’s famous resignation speech sporting metaphor seems apt :
“rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain”.
Just how insincere are Sturgeon and her team. In TV interviews you can see their barely concealed insincerity just below the surface. It’s in every word and gesture, every little smirk. The whole independence issue is dead to these people, now just a useful carrot to dangle for another election mandate.
The SNP needs a new leader and team who are truly committed to the cause, one not ashamed to promote independence at every opportunity.
If that’s famous it says a lot about the UK.
A far more reputable authority, John Enoch Powell, once said that the Scotland could be independent again if it wanted to at any time. I don’t have the exact wording handy but he said it during the first battle over EU entry. He was right when he said that the Brexit issue would never go away and he was right about Scotland’s independence. I am not very happy about this, but there we are.
Powell was a long time ago, and his views no longer aligned on today’s situation, much like Tony Benn’s. We’re now discovering that, in that the Brexiters’ attempt to go back to that time is a catastrophic failure.
Powell was wrong on most things especially immigration.
It doesn’t matter if Bain is Unionist or not: the Supreme Court was always going to decide this way. Bain was hopeless and hapless in equal measure but her lack of advocacy skills and advancement beyond her ability are indicative of the failed Sturgeon governments. Ultimately Dot’s failing mattered not a jot to the court, which applied the 1998 Scotland Act to their judgement. We have to start thinking out of the box, and need a leader who is brave enough to open Pandora’s box.
“We now know Westminster will not grant Independence; we have to take it. We have to take it whatever UK law or the London Supreme Court says. We have to assert the Sovereignty of the Scottish People as an authority that stands, in Scotland, ineffably higher than any parliament in a foreign land.”
Thank you Craig. As ever, your diligent physical presence at key Court rulings, with your perceptive first hand commentaries following, is so very much appreciated. May your cri de cœur above find at last a resounding echo of approval from a Scottish populace which for precious years now has been bafflingly beguiled by Svengali Sturgeon.
Craig and Roddy Dunlop exchanging tweets at the moment!
I never had serious doubts about Sturgeon’s commitment to independence until I started reading this blog.
[ MOD : Caught in spam-filter ]
___
The FM has never been bothered to attend an AUOB march, but yet her job is now on the line and I feel sure she’ll be willing to attend one of these rallies tonight. Lesley Riddoch and Sturgeonites endorsement of Sturgeon in every regard is the reason we find ourselves in the cul-de-sac on Independence. When has Sturgeon ever been democratic in her approach when it comes to the SNP? And we heard her today saying she’ll hold a conference next year for her and her party to talk a way forward for Scotland – don’t make me laugh.
She was asked about working with other parties and straight away avoided the question entirely, this woman hasn’t changed her spots and doesn’t know how to move forward, so for Scotland nothing is going to change until we change the leader running the country. Sturgeon did look rattled, but what would you expect, she asked the opposition (SC) to make a judgement because she couldn’t make the judgement herself; she should have known what the result was going to be – after all the rest of us did.
She said Indepeendence isn’t about one person, and yet here is me thinking that’s all it’s ever been since she’s been leader of the SNP. Scotland is worse off under Sturgeon.
If Sturgeon was serious about independence, she would have all her MSPs resign and SNP MPs resign (in the Spring to give her a few months to complete her decades-long planning ha ha), and call all of these by-elections the plebiscite.
Spot on!
The futility of the exercise was predictable, but the Supreme Court is bound by law, and that law is made by Westminster, hardly a disinterested party. Still, there is value in exhausting all the alternatives within the system to demonstrate its intrinsically undemocratic nature before moving on to a more confrontational approach using the right of peoples to self-determination as its core. The opening paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence is quite relevant.
“The British reacted with contempt toward the ideology expressed in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, angry at the ingratitude shown by the colonists toward their king”.
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2020/07/happy-fourth-of-july-what-did-the-british-think-about-the-declaration-of-independence/
Linkages between Sturgeon’s inner circle and the British Security State are difficult to establish because a surrogate or cut-out has been applied. Rather than looking for the fingerprints of MI5, we should be should be examining known connections to the US State Department.
MSPs Humza Yousaf and Jenny Gilruth are graduates of the State Department’s International Visitors Leadership Program.
There is nothing inherently sinister in either Yousaf or Gilruth having participated in the IVLP, others (Kezia Dugdale, Patrick Harvey, Ross Thompson) were recipients of the State Department’s largesse.
What’s interesting are the details where Yousaf and Gilruth are concerned.
From Yousaf’s Wiki: “In 2008, whilst working as an aide, Yousaf took part in the IVLP programme, an exchange that is run by the US State Department.” That’s right, in his second year as a humble aide, Yousaf was recognised by the US State Department as a “future leader”.
School teacher, Gilruth was in Washington as part of an IVLP delegation on 9th July 2016. That’s 35 working days after being sworn in as a rookie MSP.
If those two don’t strike you as State Department plants, I have a Nigerian Prince you should meet.
MPs Angela Crawley and Patrick Grady were also present in Washington on 9th July 2016. Crawley and Grady are members of the British American Parliamentary Group and as such are uniquely and mysteriously exempt from reporting State Department gratuities on their HoC register of interests. Despite their efforts to conceal their presence in the USA, Crawley and Grady were confirmed as also being on the IVLP trip (impressive detective work from Caltonjock).
The trip worked wonders for Crawley’s career prospects. Politics graduate Crawley is (as of 01/02/21, same day Joanna Cherry QC was sacked) Shadow Attorney General for the SNP at Westminster. Get this, Crawley obtained a LLB Degree in Law from the University of Glasgow AFTER she became a MP. A Shadow Attorney General that’s never practiced law! Truly we live in an age of wonder.
Stewart McDonald MP, Spokesperson for Defence, attended the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars for a “Defeating Disinformation Workshop” (3rd – 9th Feb. 2020). The WWICfS is a de facto annex of the State Department.
McDonald is one third of the tres amigos of the NeoCon apocalypse at Westminster (the other two being John Nicolson and Alyn Smith).
Nicolson, recipient of a Kennedy Scholarship to Harvard University, cut his professional teeth as a speech writer for Democratic Senator Daniel Moynihan.
All in all, this mafia of the mediocre rocket through the ranks from their well earned obscurity after they’re touched by the magic hand of the State Department.
Here’s a curious statistic. Take the seven elected Scottish politicians known to be alumni of the State Department’s IVLP, add the tres amigos listed above, that’s ten names. Only Yousaf is heterosexual. These people work to an old playbook.
Sturgeon’s joined-at-the-hip confidante Liz Lioyd attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 1998 to 1999. This liberal, arts college has been a recruiting ground for the CIA for over 30 years.
None of this is to imply that Sturgeon was herself “recruited” by the State Department at the behest of MI5. Rather that Sturgeon’s multiple character flaws, personality disorders and insecurities give fertile raw material for manipulation by trained and experienced “case officers”. Manipulation facilitated by the nebula of Security State, compromised characters that surround her.
So, what’s in it for the State Department? Simply put, it’s quid pro quo, standard operating procedure. Remember wee Simon Bracey-Lane from the Institute for Statecraft “volunteering to work for Bernie Sanders” during the US Primary against that deep state ghoul Hillary Clinton.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is not a ‘liberal arts college’ but the oldest US state university, now with business and medical schools. I taught there for 16 years and saw no reason to think it recruited for the CIA any more than any other US university. Georgetown is rather different.
A Shadow Attorney General that’s never practiced law! Truly we live in an age of wonder.
I can do you one better than that. Here in the USA we have a brand new Supreme Court Justice, a sitting justice, no shadow she, who would appear never to have pled a case in court.
There may be a third way. If the next Westminster parliament is hung, which is a distinct possibility, with the SNP holding the balance of power, then a policy of disruption might encourage English voters to push their politicians to “rid” themselves of the Scottish nuisance. Only then might Westminster allow a referendum.
“If the next Westminster parliament is hung”, one of my recurring dreams …
But the SNP will do no such thing- guaranteed.
Not under Nickla anyway!!
I’m of the view, Malcolm, that a hung parliament after the next general election with the SNP holding the balance of power, is not just a third way, but the only way short of mass civil disobedience by Scots, of Scotland achieving Independence before 2030. The current odds of a hung parliament are about 40% on Betfair – though of course in that situation, Labour or the Tories might not need the SNP to form a minority government.
The past participle of ‘hang’, as in the method of execution or suicide, is ‘hanged’, Stevie – unless you’re dreaming about something else.
At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, as I read it Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP hierarchy don’t particularly want independence, they want a never-ending campaign for independence that keeps them in office with all the trappings thereof and so they can go on and on about perfidious Albion. I suspect this will blow up in her face for once.
Back on topic, if I was persuaded that there was evidence of a significant, continuing and consistent majority in Scotland for independence I’d be content to accept Craig’s arguments over this.
But absent such evidence, IMO you are whistling to keep yourself warm.
Of course, it’s a bummer when you don’t get the answer you campaigned for, but for me democracy means accepting the result when you don’t win; to me “Once in a Generation” means what it says. So let’s programme a referendum for the early 2030s, assuming there is then consistent polling evidence that the Scots people want one.
Who actually said the referendum was “Once in a Generation” and when?
You’d think that throwaway remark made in heat of the 2014 campaign had been carved into tablets of stone the way unionists and the unionist media cling onto it. It’ll be nearly a decade, that’s hardly neverendum territory.
There’s a very good argument for testing public opinion every 10 years, given the closeness of the 2014 result; Brexit betrayal and subsequent pro-independence polls due to pro-inde demographic changes. Sturgeon would be pushing on an open door were she truly committed, that’s what is so frustrating about the SNP’s unenthusiastic approach.
“Who actually said the referendum was “Once in a Generation” and when?”
They all did, repeatedly in 2013 and 2014
Nicola Sturgeon. Alex Salmond. The SNP. The Scottish Government’s 2013 White Paper “Scotland’s Future” :
https://theferret.scot/sturgeon-2014-independence-referendum-generation/
Now I can accept that there may be a case for arguing, as Craig has done, that so much has changed since then that this is no longer sustainable. I disagree, but it’s arguable.
But let’s not pretend it wasn’t said. Repeatedly.
The statements were that the referendum would be “a once in a generation opportunity” or “a once in a lifetime opportunity“. The meaning, as I understand it, was simply that it is very difficult to get TPTB to allow a referendum, and that people should take the opportunity when it came. There was no suggestion that it ought to be only once in a generation.
IMHO a plebiscite is completely justified if (as seems to be the case) a majority of the electorate want independence.
Exactly. If my children were given a chance to ride in a hot air balloon, and I told them it was a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’, this would clearly NOT entail my committing to stopping them from ever riding in a balloon on any subsequent occasion. Just that I thought it was unlikely to happen very often.
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, repeatedly in 2013 and 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuQP4XeMngc
The SNP white paper, signed personally by Salmond, said it at least twice.
It was said as a forecast, not as a commitment to do something.
The argument of once in a generation is only valid if constitutional arrangements remain unchanged. But during the Indy ref the Scots were told that the only way they could remain in the EU was as part of the Union (arguing that Spain would block an independent Scotland’s application because of the Catalonia issue). Instead Scotland has been dragged out of the EU, against its will by the English. So the constitutional arrangements have changed substantially.
I also think that the British state will never grant another referendum if there is a slightest chance the Unionists will lose, whether it is this generation, the next one or ten generations down the road.
John D Monkey: thank you for your comment suggesting that Scotland should wait until the 2030’s for its next try at independence. However circumstances have changed radically since the ‘No’ vote in 2014. The rest of Britain has, against the wishes of the Scottish electorate, left the EU, with predictably massive damage to Scotland’s economy (as well as to that of England and Wales), and has elected an extreme right-wing English nationalist party to power in Westminster.
So, it’s official: Scotland is a hostage of England’s, a hostage that is denied the right to democracy; Scotland is NOT in any form of union as presented by the foreign government at Westminster.
We are being held hostage and asset-stripped by a foreign country, aided by some House Jocks and legalese that doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny. There’s no way out of this hostage position for Scotland via Westminster; we’ll need to take our independence.
What are the options now? A few off the top of the head thoughts.
1. Pile on the pressure either to get the UK government to grant the referendum or to change the Scotland Act?
2. Withdraw all forms of cooperation with the Government including like Sinn Fein not sending SNPs to Westminster and making Rishi Sunak’s political life unbearable in every possible way?
3. Create as much political mayhem and unrest as possible including direct action where it might be effective?
4. Employ Mick Lynch to devise the strategy?
5. Sack York..
I think you will find that Prince Andrew already is persona non grata
I don’t think this Supreme Court ruling is going to end well for the Union (or the career troughers of the SNP). I think Nicola has badly miscalculated this one.
It’s gone just as intended, that’s the point many here are making. It was certain to fail, the result was inevitable.
Indeed, had the ruling gone the other way, Sturgeon would have probably looked shocked and flustered at that press conference.
They say they’ll seek another mandate at the GE to enable them to ‘negotiate’ with Westminster again, and so the merry-go-round continues. Great for the SNP careerists, terrible for anyone genuinely interested in achieving independence, and/or those who believe the SNP are acting in good faith.
Sturgeon is gambling that she can fool enough people into believing she is still the leader that will get us to the promised land.
She either has too many sycophants around her that are too scared to tell her the truth, or she thinks that with a totally pliant media, she can ignore her dissenters and keep them without a megaphone.
Perhaps there are too few strong people left within the SNP to stir up trouble for her. But when there aren’t any strong people, the strongest of the weak sometimes act out of principle.
I reckon she’ll be out of office by Christmas. Wouldn’t that be grand?
Ireland 1922= 2022 Free, using the only methods the Brits understand – armed violence – as we tried the parliamentary routes that got nowhere
Nonsense. Mahatma Gandhi destroyed most of the British Empire by non-violent means, where armed violence had failed miserably.
The murderous thugs of the IRA failed to re-unite Ireland. Ireland will be re-united in our lifetimes by a democratic plebiscite in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland was a brazenly antidemocratic creation. It has never had a shred of democratic legitimacy.
Seamus: I disagree. The action that made it clear to the British elite that Irish independence was inevitable was the non-violent decision by the majority of Irish MPs elected to Westminster in the 1918 general election to boycott the London parliament and set up their own parliament, the Dáil Eireann, in Dublin.
Wrong, the Dail was deemed illegitimate by the British who continued to occupy the country. Hence the valiant warr of independence.
Did the judgement say anything about the state, health or quality of the British quasi-constitution in either determining this case or more generally? In the light of the non-self-governing territories of the British Empire as well as the ones with some self-government? I am not legally trained (we touched on philosophy of law and some constitutional politics in my courses), but is there some useful concept, such as a , which could characterize a notable lack of quality or completeness in the British quasi-constitution, that legal minds might consider needs addressed? Or perhaps the whole thing is so full of cruft, so knackered by technical debt, the imperial theocratic hereditary-monarch-based quasi-constitution should be urgently replaced, reinstalling numerous features as options?
The Judgement does indeed refer to the status of Quebec and of Kosovo and Metohija in the context of declaration of UDI and the potential legality (or otherwise) of such an action.
It rather diplomatically avoids mentioning the outcome of declaration of UDI in the case of Rhodesia. I guess most of the voters for Wee Nippy and her silliness are just too young to remember Rhodesia.
It’s on the Supreme Court’s website.
Did anybody truly believe that there is any legal ambiguity about the fact that Constitutional matters were not devolved to the pygmy parliament?
I have been voting SNP more or less since 1968. I will never vote for them again. At my age I do not expect to see an independent Scotland. The SNP are led by a vile devious conniving harpy. If I am alive at the next election I will vote for ALBA, a party which I joined today.
Congratulations on seeing the light.
Craig Murray, …”We have to assert the Sovereignty of the Scottish People as an authority that stands, in Scotland, ineffably higher than any parliament in a foreign land. Independence must be declared in Scotland by Scotland’s people, …”
Why this fixation with the Scottish people? it was the Scottish people who left you with this unholy mess after they did a deal with their English chums in 1707. Sod the descendants of the Scottish people, …. or do you not have a clue how unionism was born or what they now look like today.
Instead, raise the argument that it is freeborn Scottish citizens you wish to champion, not their lord and lady rulers.
As to the plebiscite, why do you still want to argue to the electorate of the United Kingdom for the right to part company from the Union. By doing so you disenfranchise every 16 and 17 year old freeborn Scot from the ability to be heard, when they would be heard in elections to the Scottish Parliament; or are they simply irrelevant.
Make up your mind, either you stand for the extension of the freeborn rights of Scottish citizens, or the continuation of rule by the Scottish people, for the Scottish people, i.e., rule by the unionists for the unionists.
Please feel free to continue demonstrating how butter doesn’t melt in your mouth…_
Giving children the right to vote in the referendum was a trick which backfired.
Anyone who’s read Lord of the Flies recognises that children of that age are naturally tribalistic. The tribalism of separation seemed to the adult tribalists to be a good fit with idea of giving children the vote and matches to play with.
Actually, it turned out that they weren’t quite as prone to voting tribally as had been hoped for by the adult nihilists.
Ebenezer Scroggie,
“Giving children the right to vote in the referendum was a trick which backfired”
DiggerUK,
“I’m speechless”…_
Christ, this clown is basing his beliefs on fictious writings enough said.
That was my reaction when Salmond gave the vote to children in the hope that they’d behave like the children in that novel. Neither did the adults, but that’s another matter.
He failed. His ploy simply did not work. The children did not react in the way he expected them to.
Salmond failed for several reasons. One was that he made the classic error of many inveterate liars. He started to believe his own bullshit that the people of Scotland want(ed) to destroy the United Kingdom which was created by Scotsmen.
He also started to believe his own lie that the EU would take over as parent figure from the UK. That lie was never true either.
I think you’ll find the only ones acting like children are Westminster and its puppet UKSC, in denying Scots democracy.
@Ebenezer Scroggie, anyone who has read Harry Potter recognizes that children of that age are naturally either members of competing factions of magical Illuminati and will have all sorts of adventures and occasionally freakish deaths but seldom any votes, or most likely members of a non-magical class entirely ignorant of the real levers of power and whose political views are almost utterly irrelevant to real governance, like their non-magical parents.
Alternatively, they are young people who will live through the mistakes and crimes of their elders, will have studied civics and have other life experiences highly relevant to political decisions, and are considerably less likely to suffer from senile dementia or other cognitive impairments that are no bar to voting in the UK.
Ebenezer Scroggie is basically right about children.
16- and 17-year-olds don’t have enough life experience to make good political judgements.
Ebenezer Scroggie’s point about Lord of the Flies has been misunderstood. Golding was a great writer, and the point about Lord of the Flies is that a mature person with sufficient real-world experience will find the development of the characters completely plausible. He was more than just an imaginative storyteller.
Whether politicians, as a class, want an informed, mature electorate able to make rational political judgements is another matter entirely; they behave as though they don’t. The main use of the Official Secrets Act isn’t to stop the country’s enemies from finding our military secrets, it’s to stop the citizens from finding out what the pols are doing.
Roger,
You claim that “16 and 17 year olds don’t have enough life experience to make good political judgements” …. this is nothing more than recycled arguments against a universal franchise that has been served up in all manner of new wine bottles, many, many times.
From The 17th century levellers to the scum of the earth, our ‘betters’ have come up with penny ha’penny tosh to thwart us.
“Not educated enough to vote” “not enough property, land, or money, to vote” “not old enough to vote”
Being the wrong sex didn’t get you the vote at one point.
Life experience and age do not guarantee wisdom, neither does it mean we all vote the same way come election time.
Never mind the 16 year olds, how many 56 or 66 year olds have you come away from thinking, ‘and that prick gets a vote’.
Scotland is right on this issue, it’s time for the rest of us to follow suit…_
@DiggerUK, I agree, and they are apparently considering dropping the age of voting in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
STV news running with the need for the 50% threshold on any plebiscite election or indyref, whilst NO PM in a GE election for more than 100 years has reached the 50% figure.
If it’s good enough for a GE to allow a winning PM to enter Ten Downing Street without the 50% threshold, but with a majority of seats, then it should be good enough for Scotland. A majority of indy MPs should be enough to break our hostage bonds.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/
The big question is can we trust sturgeon to make good on her words? If her record on promoting and pushing Scottish independence since she became FM is anything to go by, then the answer is a resounding no.
There are good reasons why we separate referenda from elections.
They are two completely different forms of democracy and we never make the mistake of conflating or confusing the two.
The next General Election will be just that: a General Election.
The next Indyref, circa 2032 I expect, will be a binding Referendum, just like the 2014 one was.
“They are two completely different forms of democracy and we never make the mistake of conflating or confusing the two.”
Go on then let’s see the difference, this will be interesting.
General Elections are partisan affairs which involve debate and discussion on a huge variety of topics of interest to the electorate. They are, by their nature, fleeting temporary affairs, lasting four or five years at most, often much less.
Referenda are invariably single issue matters and their outcome tends to be permanent. They are seldom single Party affairs. Almost never, actually.
Two very different forms of democracy, both in style and substance and in long-term importance.
So, the difference boils down to the number of issues and their term of their duration. One could equate this also to the length of the union, when it began, how’s its going and when it will end; and all in a democratic fashion – until today that is.
No, I think – and I’m sure many of my fellow Scots will agree – that if the next GE is held as a plebiscite, standing on the issue of gaining democracy by ditching this union, then we’ll win.
“Go on then let’s see the difference, this will be interesting”
Well for one you generally have a choice of three or more options (individuals or parties) in an election. Would you support a referendum where the choices were: full independence; status quo; abolishing devolution and going back to one UK parliament; independence only for the central belt; independence for the mainland but not Orkney and Shetland; and whichever got the most votes (a plurality) would win even if it had only, say, 30% support? My money would be on the status quo winning.
For two, elections are always for a term of years. Referendums tend to have an element of finality, or at least open-ended and considerable longevity, as we have seen over both Brexit and Indy. I cannot foresee a referendum with the question being “Let’s try independence for [5][10] years but if it doesn’t work or we don’t like it go back to one UK parliament and abandon the failed devolution experiment”.
I could go on but these two are probably sufficient for now.
ps Ebeneezer got there first…
“Well for one you generally have a choice of three or more options (individuals or parties) in an election.”
Given that politician’s pre-election promises are not binding and are therefore worthless, ditto their party’s policies and given the tendency for MPs to slavishly follow the party line, your choice is mainly limited to whether you vote for a Blue Tory, a Red Tory, a Yellow Tory, or, in Scotland, a Tartan Tory.
So the idea is that the SNP will try to make the next GE a single-issue contest. Problem is, other parties may not see things that way; they may prefer to campaign on taxes, inflation, jobs, the NHS or whatever. Once the election is decided, it’s not legitimate to insist that it was a single-issue election; the simple fact will be that the SNP declined to campaign on the other issues in the election. That is, one side can’t make it a single-issue GE just by saying it is.
In that respect, a referendum is completely different from a GE.
I am more shocked and saddened by the ECtHR’s ruling in Craig Murray’s case than by the UKSC ruling. For one reason or another I think few had any expectation that the UKSC would rule in favour of Indyref2.
If the SNP really were the national party of Scotland who believed the people of Scotland are sovereign, they would stop being the colonial administrators at Holyrood and colonial collaborators at Westminster. They would assert Scottish national sovereignty.
But they don’t and they won’t. The SNP / Scottish Greens are the Vichy Government. Traitors and collaborators in Scotland’s imperial imprisonment.
Apart from Scotland’s people’s sovereign right to self-determination, the right to self-determination is an internationally recognised human right, as Craig Murray has repeatedly highlighted.
The people of Scotland are the prisoners of the UK, which in reality means the English Crown in England’s UK Parliament. Where is our modern-day Wallace, Murray or Bruce? Not in the SNP, that’s for sure.
Not that I’d have a vote anyway but does this mean that the 2023 referendum won’t be happening?
My question is why there is no movement by the rank and file members of the SNP? Everything seems abundantly clear to everyone EXCEPT the SNP membership.
Is there some kind of mass hypnosis happening in the SNP that the membership is blinded to the ways of Sturgeon? Why do the members stick around? What’s in it for them?
“Not that I’d have a vote anyway but does this mean that the 2023 referendum won’t be happening?”
Yes.
It was never going to happen in that year. Nine or ten years too premature, I’d say.
Scotland has the energy and the water. England would be much diminished if Scotland became independent. England will fight fair or foul to keep the status quo !
The English economy would be much reduced without Scotland helping to prop it up. England would also be darker than Ukraine is now, if it couldn’t steal our energy. The Westminster government just can’t afford to let Scotland go – it’s as simple as that.
Holding Scotland hostage is imperative; that’s why democracy has been thrown out the window.
Scotland’s quest for Independence/decolonization is pretty much as Craig describes the situation, and more or less the same as the 60-odd other former colonies that managed to escape London rule. A colonial justice system never stopped any of them and neither will it stop Scotland’s liberation.
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/wp.towson.edu/dist/b/55/files/2022/05/The-Socio-Political-Determinants-of-Scottish-Independence.pdf
It’s the end of any quaint notion Scotland’s “membership” of the Union is voluntary, and the end of any notion that the Union is a partnership of equals. We are held in the Union with no way of escape.
And THAT is a big step forward towards Independence, as big as the 44.7% YES in 2014.
Won’t be long now.
Apparently, a competition has already been announced to design the new logo for the rUKSC, and there is a debate as to whether it should be called the rUK Supreme Court, or the EWNISC. There are other suggestions.
I would suggest that the EWNISC would be fairly short lived. In any case, the UK without Scotland would no longer be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as Great Britain was formed by the Union of Scotland and England. Lose NI as well (IMHO, the re-unification of Ireland is more likely in the near future than Scottish independence) and you aren’t left with two kingdoms to unite.
Time to get the Claymore out from under the thatch.
And the rest, Frazer. Time to tango is here.
Does that judgement now have true and disenchanted and disenfranchised Scots pondering on exercising the Ian Douglas Smith Rhodesian style Unilateral Declaration of Independence root/route ?
“There was a remarkably high correlation between MPs who bothered to turn up to the case, and MP’s willing to be seen to be friends of Craig Murray in public, which I think is not coincidental” — worth emphasizing.
When I heard the judgement on the news your comments earlier about Scotland’s unionist Lord Advocate’s presentation came to mind.
Then I heard Sturgeon wringing as much from this judgement as she could to get elected into power again. Maybe after another go she is thinking of retiring anyway.
I hope to live long enough to see an independent Scotland.
I can not understand how the majority of people can be for or against independence without knowing the terms first, even if only broadly. Yes, I understand that there will be some who want Independence at any cost, but the majority will ask whether they will be better off or worse off. We need to know how will the UK total debt be shared ?
In an earlier post Craig said that all the debt should stay with whoever keeps the seat at the UN (from memory) and suggested that should be the rest of the UK ? I don’t think the rest of the UK would like that very much or think it fair and would suggest Scotland can have the seat in that case , rather than taking on a £Trillion or so.
Scotland created not one penny of “UK debt”.
Recommend you read what Richard Murphy says about UK debt in the event of Scottish independence.
Unfortunately most people (very much including most journalists and economists) have little understanding of debt. If awareness of MMT principles could be raised, the quality of debate around Scottish independence (and many other issues) could be vastly improved.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/05/05/how-much-debt-would-scotland-owe-the-rest-of-the-uk-if-it-were-to-be-independent/
Like most accountants, Murphy wants watching, haemoglobin – though in his defence, not being the sharpest tool in the shed, he’s probably just managed to trick himself, rather than being deliberately disingenuous or deceitful. He assumes that Scotland has ‘no debt’ because, according to analysis from Prof Brian Ashcroft at Strathclyde Uni, from 1980-2013 (we’ll forget about what happened from 2014-2020), UK taxation on the extraction of Scottish oil (plus a bit of gas) was more or less covered by public spending in Scotland under the Barnett formula. But he’s forgotten that this is *extra* public spending, with underlying spending being still partially funded by debt, as in the rest of the UK. Once you take that into account, the rest of his sums are meaningless.
That’s an interesting point but I think it’s incorrect. I agree that some people want independence ‘at any cost’, and some will ask whether they will be better or worse off; I disagree that the latter are clearly “the majority”.
The Irish chose independence even though that left the Republic of Ireland poorer than Northern Ireland for 50 years after independence. The British Remainers based their case on economic arguments, but lost the Brexit referendum. Similarly, I think that the Scots who assert that Scotland will be economically better off after independence are making a mistake. The real argument for independence is that a people should be governed by themselves, not by others.
” I don’t think the rest of the UK would like that very much or think it fair”
The people in the rest of the UK don’t get a look in. The people who run the UK will be far more interested in the seat on the UN security council and the veto, which gives them a lot of international clout, than losing part of the debt, which doesn’t affect them in the slightest.
If we accept a share of the UK national debt, then by extension we should also get our share of all UK assets. You can’t have one without the other.
More importantly, there are moves afoot courtesy of liberation.scot to seek reparation for the theft of Scotland’s assets. It’s complicated but worth a look at the evidence presented by the SSRG, Salvo etc. This will be our way forward despite The SNP.
Independence isn’t something you ask your exploiter to give you it is something you demand and fight for. Independence is a demand for equality, accepting subservience is out of the question.