This is one of those unusual occasions, where a little while ago I intended to write a post advocating the precise opposite, but events have changed my mind.
After long and hard thought, I had come to the conclusion that pride had to be swallowed and personal animosity set aside. For the sake of Scottish independence we all had to reunite the movement and that could only be behind the SNP. I had a few attempts at starting an article on this.
My mind was changed by Humza Yousaf stating that, unequivocally, Independence can only be achieved through a referendum sanctioned by Westminster, and that could only be obtained if polling showed the majority for Independence to be significantly over 53%.
That is an entirely fair précis of Humza’s interview found here.
As I have consistently explained, Westminster will never consent to lose Scotland’s resources. Independence will have to be taken.
Anybody who believes that we need permission from London for Independence, by definition does not believe in Scotland’s right of self-determination.
Humza Yousaf plainly has no intention whatsoever of progressing Independence.
I therefore cannot possibly suggest the Independence movement unite behind the SNP, because the SNP is de facto a unionist party, interested only in governing within the devolution arrangement of the UK.
The concomitant of that is that any real Independence party must seek not to cooperate with the SNP, but to replace it entirely.
That is a long hard slog, but there is no genuine alternative that is real about Independence. The other option is to seek an accommodation with the SNP, but that can only ultimately aim at sharing some of the fruits of office obtainable within UK institutions. That is all the SNP want.
The SNP and Independence are clean different things.
I therefore cannot any more support Alba’s campaign for a Scotland United ticket, because that would involve asking Independence supporters to vote for SNP MPs who are in it entirely for personal career and are a block on Independence, not movers towards it.
Besides, with the SNP rudely rebuffing Alba at every opportunity, there is now an extrordinary irony:
Alba repeatedly asking the SNP for a “Scotland United” joint ticket is becoming as pointless and humiliating as the SNP repeatedly asking Westminster for an S30 referendum.
Alba has already decided, at conference, that it is a political party not just a popular movement, and therefore is not confined to the Salvo/Liberation route.
Well, you are not a political party if you do not fight elections, and Rutherglen is here.
Now I am not a complete idiot (although I would be grateful if nobody polled my household on that). I realise that a great many genuine Independence supporters have not yet realised they are betrayed, indeed taken for fools, by the SNP.
I understand that the “Scotland United” proposal is designed to avoid Alba being blamed for loss of seats to unionists under the First Past the Post system when the Independence vote is split.
But we have passed that now. We have offered again and again, and the SNP has said no. Scotland United is a very dead parrot.
I also no longer care if the SNP does lose seats to Labour.
We have incontrovertible proof that if the SNP holds 95% of Westminster seats, it does nothing to move for Independence.
We have incontrovertible proof that if the SNP holds a majority in the Scottish Parliament, with or without the Scottish Greens, it does nothing to move for Independence.
There is simply no connection, since Alex Salmond left, between the SNP winning seats and “mandates”, and Scottish Independence.
That is an incontrovertible fact and we need to bite the bullet and start explaining it relentlessly to the electorate.
Starting in Rutherglen.
I realise this is a hard road. I realise we may convince only hundreds this time. But a long hard road starts with the first step.
————————————————
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
Well said Craig. It will be a long road but we have got nowhere with the SNP since 2014.
Too many snouts in the trough and comfy lifestyles. Principles and ideals they may well have once genuinely held – oot the windae.
If Alba stand, they will of course take SNP votes and split the independence vote. And SNP brickbats from Wishart et al, as well as from the Media establishment, will follow.
But Alba – even if they are attacked on all sides as the bogeyman – need to tough it out for the long haul.
Seeing the leader of the UK governing party – which the majority of Scotland voters never votes for – make a brief flying visit up from London,
to tell the local population that he was selling off more of our mineral rights,
was depressing confirmation that colonialism is alive and well in 2023!
Apart from the oil, London values our land and water resources.
Since the Referendum, and especially since Brexit, it’s been obvious to a blind man
that independence will never come from the ballot box.
Don’t disagree with much in this but I do want Humza’s team to be entirely responsible for the loss of the seat. That might loosen up the more enlightened MPs and MSPs.
I would not like the snp to be able to point to alba splitting the vote at this stage.
totally agree the SNP management team are entirely compromised
Unfortunately there are heaps and heaps of erstwhile independence folk who have become more attached to careerist SNP troughers than to the idea of independence itself. Most of them aren’t even related to the troughers and will never get a sniff of the trough themselves. Humza has become their latest guru if only because he was annointed by the Murrells. You will struggle to break the spell no matter how blatant his unionism. They will laud him even if he proposes a Better Together neolib alliance with New NuLabour.
I believe the SNP politicians are mostly beyond redemption and the shock of defeat with ALBA standing may swing an increase in support for ALBA and the funding that comes with it.
Spot on Craig, unless there’s a few good indy SNP MSPs who are willing to go that extra mile to try and change the course of the SNP back onto delivering independence, if not, then its time to abandon them for good. It’s been almost a decade since the indyref vote and we’re not one step closer to dissolving this union even though the Scottish public have returned mandate after mandate to the SNP to at the very least hold an indyref, a route that Sturgeon and her LA tried to block off forever.
Alba must stand candidates, as many as possible and at every election and in the Rutherglen Hamilton West by-election, as you rightly say it looks like we’re back to square one or maybe two as indy figures are higher now than when Alex Salmond set out all those years ago. Sturgeon really done a number on us and with the help of House Jocks and the English security services they ruined the SNP as a indy party.
This always sticks in my mind.
The International Court of Justice, in a 2010 advisory opinion, declared that unilateral declarations of independence were not illegal under international law.
Totally agree with your stance Craig – though heavy hearted in doing so.
For me the situation with the SNP is that plain and simple I cannot vote for them again. Since Sturgeon they have not and will not move independence one step forward and in my view their (and the Green’s) promotion of trans-ideology and all that connects to that is a grievous, grievous mistake.
For now I joined ALBA about a year ago and donate some when I can. All this has repercussions of course and at my age I no longer expect to see an independent Scotland in my lifetime. Ah well, I am trying to inure myself to that thought now. The haul to achieve independence will have to be down to younger generations than me. I wish them great luck and good fortune in their efforts.
Peter, I suspect (please correct me) that you are a more mature Scot than most of the commentators on here, and I also suspect you have been a supporter of Independence and the SNP for DECADES! I’m approaching 70, and like you I am now wondering if Scotland can rejoin the world before I have to make excuses to “my maker” (confession – I’m an atheist so this doesn’t really apply!).
The last 9 years have convinced me that some in the SNP hierachy were never really Independence supporters and have taken our votes to live a life they could never have achieved on their merits. They have become just another bunch of politicians and not really the ‘radicals’ we need. Add to this the obvious influence on UK-SS agents in the movement and the next 10+ years looks like we’ll have to start again with a clean sheet.
And as for ALBA, although I’m not a member (I joined ISP when they formed) I hope they have some seriously investigative processes on membership and influence as undoubtedly the UK-SS will have their fingers in the party (as I am sure they also have in ISP). We are up against history’s premier manipulators and saboteurs.
The fight back starts now
I agree that in recent years the SNP has not advanced the cause of independence, and that the leader has made it clear that all he will do on winning the next general election (which he defines as gaining a majority of Scottish seats) is repeat the entreaty to London for permission to hold a referendum – which I accept would be an entirely pointless gesture because it would certainly be refused. But the dilemma remains that only the SNP is in a position to do the right thing, by turning the general election into a proper plebiscite, if its membership can compel it to do so.
I know that many members believe that is what should be done, and a motion has been sent in for the October conference to that effect. Whether it will make the agenda remains to be seen, but it declares that the manifesto should state: A vote for the SNP will be taken to be a vote for Scotland to become an independent country, and on a majority of such votes that is what will happen, within 3 years of the election, whether on terms negotiated with the UK Government or not. It also says that in order to strengthen rather than split the vote, the SNP should make whatever arrangements are required with the other independence parties.
If the SNP comes out of the conference without adopting that proposal, it will be cutting its own throat and impeding Scottish independence. I believe that is the crunch point, rather than whatever transpires from the weird Rutherglen by-election.
Having had a look at the odds for Rutherglen & Hamilton West on Betfair* (currently over a 90% chance of a Labour win), I’m going to stick my neck out and say that if Alba do decide to stand, rather than splitting the Indie vote, it won’t make any difference to the overall result:
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.215574273
* Betfair punters don’t always get it right of course: see Uxbridge & South Ruislip.
Seems to me that the SNP will lose the seat, emphatically. An Alba candidate will obviously divide the independence vote in some unknown proportion. Alba have a steep hill to climb and I am unsure of the strength of Alba to mount a campaign. It will require a major commitment to have any impact so putting up a candidate is quite high risk. Would Craig Murray be too provocative as a candidate?
My gut feeling is that the Labour party will prevail, however the question arises how much of the hypocrisy and dishonesty of Starmer and his mini-me Sarwar has penetrated the electorate’s consciousness? (not much I suspect).
The Starmer/Sarwar labour party has made a complete hash of its response to Sturgeon’s GRR bill, i.e. whipping his troops in Holyrood then being tripped up by Starmer’s pathetic flip-flop regarding his belated acceptance of the definition of a woman.
The Sturgeon mantra – ‘Transwomen are women’ – has left her and the SNP utterly discredited but I cannot say how much that has penetrated the consciousness of SNP supporters. Yousaf has not acted decisively to dispel the negative effects of the GRR imbroglio, but then he has boxed himself into a corner he can’t now escape from.
The other unknown is the effect of all the chaos and compromised leadership in the SNP. Many people like to follow their previously favoured party – i.e. the loyal diehard SNP support – but it is hard to believe there won’t be a major reaction to serial SNP ineptitude, fully whipped up to stiff peaks by the unionist print press and HIGHLY biased BBC.
The polls are indicating a Labour win but this by-election is a difficult one to predict. It is one where the result will be very informative about the many unknowns in Scottish politics.
DG: “The Sturgeon mantra – ‘Transwomen are women’ – has left her and the SNP utterly discredited but I cannot say how much that has penetrated the consciousness of SNP supporters.”
I find it hard to imagine anyone bases their vote chiefly on one politician’s views on trannies. They would have to be pretty obsessed with the subject to give the thumbs up/down to a party due to views on that one subject.
disagree – the subject, and SNP policy is very important. It will be an important factor. Sturgeon was a lynchpin for SNP support. Now it (she /he) has gone the whole snp clamjamfrey is at risk of unravelling.
You may well be right, but I – personally – cannot understand why that many people would get so worked up about what is surely a fairly trivial issue in most people’s lives.
It isn’t trivial, because anyone who insists that TWAW is denying that actual women have sex-based rights that need to be protected. Most people haven’t realized that yet – they would if the GRR bill had become law and the consequences had started to be apparent – so they will not yet be factoring it into their voting decisions, you’re right about that.
What’s also not trivial is that identity politics have replaced independence as an SNP priority (they always were more important for the Greens), which might become obvious rather sooner.
Glenn, it’s NOT trivial. You can argue that at some small individual level it is unlikely to have an impact, but this entire philosophy is designed to unpick centuries of well ordered social interaction.
Every single man taking a woman’s place undermines society.
Every single cancellation undermines democracy.
Every single child persuaded they are “in the wrong body” creates a life long drug dependency and profits for billionaires.
Every single woman dismissed for “badthink” creates an oppressive culture of cowardice and silence.
The radical TRA movement is specifically funded to undermine every decent social criteria. Please wake up
glenn_nl…it is trivial in most peoples lives as you say , for SF it’s not trivial , for me it is trivial.
Let’s act on the decision of the majority
SF: I didn’t say the subject was trivial. But it’s hardly the foremost issue for the vast majority of voters. Which was my point.
—
Tony L: Again, I didn’t say it was trivial. Kindly read what I actually said.
But I quite understand how some beady-eyed zealot could interpret it that way, were they so fanatical and whacked out enough to actually believe – even in their most fanciful moments – that “Every single child [is] persuaded [that] they are “in the wrong body”. ”
Of course, there is no reasoning with people that silly. It’s doubtless a product of religious delusion, and such people cannot be reached by reason or logic.
Indeed. The notion that people are basing their vote in Hamilton on this is bizarre,
Only the Tories voted against the amendment in Holyrood, but it was the Tories who passed the present 2004 GRA giving the present right to change legal gender,
So I hesitate to say it (in case it gets them votes) thatt ALBA are the only party who have set out to politically weaponise transphobia, It was depressing to see Salmond and Craig sell their conciencess so cynically. Thankfully, it hasn’t worked for them 2% and falling? Not even a mess of potage.
What I can’t understand about this kind of comment
SF:” It isn’t trivial, because anyone who insists that TWAW is denying that actual women have sex-based rights that need to be protected. Most people haven’t realized that yet – they would if the GRR bill had become law”
What I can’t uunderstand Is the hangup about the GRR and why you target the Scottish Government? The Gender Reform Act was passed by Westminster two decades ago, so since then the law says transgender women ARE legally women (and similarly for transmen – there’s more of them). Why has there been no fuss about that? Did nobody notice?
All the Scottish amendment would have done was fall in line with many other countries by making the application process less bureaucratic. All the fuss about which prison trans are allocated to etc arises from the present UK law.
So why has it been made a stick to beat Scotland with? This being Conspiracy Central I’ll suggest that it was just another Unionist plan to discredit the SNP. However, a perhaps more likely explanation, is that the dozy journalists in our MM had not noticed that trans women have been legally women in UK for about 20 years. Presumably, the lack of discernable impact from that led them to overlook it.
I think any half-political voters in Scotland will more than likely look at the SNP’s record on such issues as ferries, airports, spine road (A9?), self ID, then look at the party that can’t find £660,000 lost down the back of a sofa, and walk on by.
I believe that the issue of independence will be well down the list of voter concerns. It seems Labour will be a shoe in for the seat…. will anybody notice the difference if Labour get elected… will anybody really care?
Alba should stop posing and stand on its own ground. It’s time they were called out.
I don’t have any skin in the Indy movement one way or the other…_
So why are you commenting?
DiggerUK , oh yes you do , that’s why you are making these silly comments
The SNP governments ferry fiasco certainly isn’t over.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2023/08/22/ferry-serious/
I am sure Craig is right on this issue, there is no point in voting for a party that is against the very principle you desire most, in this case independence from the rest of the UK. The SNP has managed to create enough hurdles to prevent independence occurring already without encouraging voters to split from a rival party in the name of unity, a unity that would thwart the central plank of Alba while propping up a self serving regime that that is doing nothing for independence. It is true that in the short term a tactical arrangement with a rival party might have a small advantage, but such collusions have had dire consequences in the long term if the history of the Liberal party is anything to go by. My advice – not that you want or need it – is only vote for the party that is unambiguously for what you actually want.
Craig is on the right track as per usual.
The SNP colonial administrators are finished in Scotland and could soon collapse at the ballot box, perhaps as suddenly as did Scottish Labour Branch before them, and previously the Scottish Landed Toadies. If people want independence they cannot afford to align with any colonial party and that is what the SNP now is.
The only realistic hope for Alba making (any?) ground at this by-election is if its leader Alex Salmond stands. This is perhaps an ideal opportunity for him to re-connect with ‘ordinary’ folk and raise the profile of Alba. They might instead consign him to the dustbin of political history, that’s their choice, but I doubt it. Either way it would be good to know.
The key thing is that Salmond’s candidature could not be ignored, even by a unionist msm. Anyone else would be reduced to a footnote, if that, a waste of a deposit even, the end result making Yousaf and other unionists grin. Yes, a big Salmond/Alba loss would also make unionists grin. But what is the likelihood of that? What is also a point of note for independence supporters in the constituency is reminding them that Alex got us a lot closer to independence than any of his dubious successors who have only led the people up blind alleys.
Alex Salmond should stand for election but not one like Rutherglen it’s too late in the campaign diary for a new entry
Nobody has voted yet. An independence leader has to be prepared to lead the people, no matter where. A positive result could re-invigorate the independence movement and help establish Alba. Polls suggest many supporters of independence will stay at home unless they have someone or something worth voting for, as occurred in 2017 when the SNP said that election was not about independence and they lost seats.
I agree with you Craig.
By standing Alba would provide a home for protest voters unwilling to vote for a unionist party.
Saving their deposit would be a good win.
Craig
Scotland United was dead before it even began to be honest. The SNP were never going to go for it in any way and they are a unionist party now in all but name. I think Alba is playing this for a few hoped-for gains with the voters, they knew the SNP would never go for it, and they hope that they will benefit from angry SNP voters. The idea will show the SNP for what they are but there will be little or no gain for Alba at this point – longer term there might be but I am not convinced: Alba are just not radical enough and feel like they are playing by the rules that keep Scotland a colony. The fact that, allegedly, Alba also did not reach out to ISP regarding Scotland United is not a good look either. Labour may well win the Rutherglen seat; I suspect it will be more down to SNP incompetence and independence supporters not turning out to vote than anything else. We need a new message to break through the apathy and fear that many suffer from. How we do that I am not so sure other than keep trying to educate, keep banging the drum but we need to be looking at all the options and having some sort of coordinated approach.
“As I have consistently explained, Westminster will never consent to lose Scotland’s resources. Independence will have to be taken.
“Anybody who believes that we need permission from London for Independence, by definition does not believe in Scotland’s right of self-determination”.
I am surprised to see Mr Murray express that opinion. Does he then believe that, as set forth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, any people has the right to secede from its government and set up a government of its own? Or does he accept President Lincoln’s cynical proviso, “having the power” – meaning that a people can gain independence only if they can make it stick by winning the ensuing war?
Where does that leave what I understand to be the Washington/London/NATO doctrine that no part of a nation can become independent without the consent of the parent government?
If Scotland has the right to become independent – with or without having to fight – did Crimea and Donbass have that right? If not, why not?
“Where does that leave what I understand to be the Washington/London/NATO doctrine that no part of a nation can become independent without the consent of the parent government?”
Presumably that’s only true when the parent government is part of NATO.
Tom Welsh Crimea did have that right and held elections to do so but then Ukraine stepped in to stop them
“what I understand to be the Washington/London/NATO doctrine that no part of a nation can become independent without the consent of the parent government?”
What gives you that idea? Have you forgotten Yugoslavia and Syria. to name a couple of examples?
Where are you with the suggestion that Alba’s only viable candidate is Alex?
“Today, the SNP is what Alex Salmond made it – a pro-business, socially liberal, pro-EU and NATO globalist party. Inter alia, this is why it isn’t very good at fighting for Scottish independence: the transnationalism of the SNP has made independence, well, dependant. It requires a certificate of approval from a host of institutions that will never grant one. It may be comforting to think everything was going grand until the devious Nicola Sturgeon took over – but it wasn’t. Sturgeon was handed a dodgy prospectus and made it worse…”
An interesting proposition from David Jamieson. He says all sides in Scotland now endorse Salmond’s ideology and “cannot see how it has issued in the polarisation and futility of the culture war.”
https://www.conter.scot/2023/8/13/the-alex-salmond-consensus/
I think Alex cut a number of deals with the devil in order to try to sneak through Independence in 2014, especially on NATO, which he is definitely personally against. You may recall he was the only person in the UK parliament to speak against NATO’s bombing of Serbia, and Alba is explicitly anti NATO and for Norway style EFTA membership, not for EU membership.
That’s good to hear. He has a job on though to roll back NATO and EU worship as mainstream commonsense in Scottish political debate. He was key in entrenching it as commonsense among independence supporters.
Joel, I think things are changing. 10 years ago I would have been (more or less) in favour of NATO and the EU. Today I’m not. NATO has become just a tool of USA aggression, and the EU has morphed into some sort of bureaucratic monster with social manipulation overtones.
I want access to the market, but not to adhere to all of the new wave suspicious social manipulation.
So, for me an iScotland should be a Republic, an Economic powerhouse (EFTA), and a genuinely independent military power which supports HUMANITARIAN intervention NOT military ones.
Others of course will disagree!
I don’t think he was the only one to speak against the NATO bombing. Perhaps he was the most forceful, or received most abuse from the tabloids, but Tony Benn, Alice Mahon, even Alan Clark spoke against it.
Strangely his contributions when MP for Banff and Buchan for 23 years seem to have largely disappeared from Hansard online.
@joel, David Jamieson presents a good perspective, one of the best I have seen on Scottish matters.
It always seemed odd that Salmond just resigned, always seemed a mystery. If there was any push or jump it has been a well kept secret. A most pertinent comment was his “Sturgeon was handed a dodgy prospectus and made it worse”
If ALBA don’t stand they will have to be written off as piss poor tribute act…_
The ancient amongst us will recall this as the Roy Jenkins Hillhead dilemma.
What dilemma was that Craig? I was a student in halls of residence in Hillhead (in 87) and voted for Roy (what can I tell you I was a student) for him only to be unseated by some guy called George Galloway, or Gorgeous George as he was known back then with his perma-tan (versus the Twat-in-a-Hat as he is known now).
To be fair to Galloway he was the only one to personally visit all the different halls of residence during that campaign, give a speech and take questions. I recall he turned up with two of the roughest guys I have ever seen. I am not sure if they were labour apparatchiks or minders or both but they looked like they just walked out of Bar-L no exaggeration.
I have no interest in sending another Scottish MP to Westminster, when UK Parliament rejects the fundamental principle that Scotland’s people have the right of self-determination (so do not require prior permission from Westminster MPs to exercise self-determination).
I believe the Scots in Scotland are sovereign and so Scots politicians should only swear allegiance to the people of Scotland: so should not swear fealty to King Charles. The new MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West would be refused their MP seat in the House of Commons if they refused to swear fealty to King Charles.
But, Scots MPs should not be going there anyway, for as long as Scotland’s people continue to be treated like colonial subjects of the British Empire or like the feudal serfs of King Charles. King Charles who was crowned on Edward’s Chair and the reputed to be plundered Stone of Destiny, to symbolise the crushing of Scottish independence by English Crown military conquest.
It’s well past time our Scottish MPs realised that they are the sole representatives of the sovereign Scottish founder of the Union in the Union’s parliament, and they are there expressly to act as the agents and ambassadors of the Scottish kingdom in the debates and decisions that constitute the joint governance of the Union’s two kingdoms.
Being agents and ambassadors of a sovereign kingdom in a forum containing two such groups it is obvious that the Scots MPs cannot be in the least obliged to submit to any English MP majority on any matter negotiated in that parliament, since Scotland and its MPs owe no fealty or obeisance of any sort to England, and nothing in the Treaty requires them to. England’s MPs only represent the English founder of the Union, and neither group can represent the Union on their own; they can only do that together.
Once that is understood, it becomes equally obvious that valid Union decisions can only be those that were approved by both MP groups, and not just by the larger one on his own. Understanding this is not hard; but to accept it requires integrity, something that has always been in short supply.
There must have been a lot of arm-twisting, bribery or both for the members of the Scottish Parliament to accept a deal whereby, instead of them making their own decisions for Scotland, they became a minority in a combined parliament where they could always be outvoted on Scottish matters by the more numerous English and Welsh MPs.
That’s my whole point, the relative numbers of the two groups of MPs don’t matter, because neither group has any legitimate authority over the other, and only an over-simplistic interpretation of democracy gives any pretence of English superiority through its MPs’ greater numbers. As far as Scotland is concerned England’s MPs can’t outvote the Scots, they can only provide an English Yes or No in a vote, to be matched against a Scottish Yes or No.
England has no legitimate authority over Scotland, and it never has, and the Treaty didn’t change that, and it certainly doesn’t specify that a simple majority vote of all MPs would settle all Union matters. And even if that was just assumed by the negotiators, then since it wasn’t specified in the Treaty, it was never ratified by either of the former parliaments, meaning that assumption has no legal standing, and therefore the Scots MPs are under no obligation to submit to any English MP majority.
Remember that the Treaty created a brand new parliament for the Union, and there is nothing in the Treaty to require that all of the rules and procedures of England’s old parliament would apply in it. Even simple common sense should tell you that there is no particular reason that the Kingdom of Scotland should submit to the Kingdom of England in any matter of their joint governance. So what if England is ten times larger than Scotland, who cares? It’s still not entitled to run Scotland.
Besides, every Scots MP is worth ten of England’s MPs, and even David Cameron accepted that, hence his need for EVEL to even things up a bit. 😀
independence well prepared in advance and ripe is sth taken from a collection of fairytales. when and if it happens, it happens overnight, in a go, almost on an impulse. not “long ways” and associated bullshit. craig himself admitted pretty recently nats totally missed a couple of very rare, very good occasions to wrestle the power. it was up for the taking, but craig was… writing nice analytical pieces on going indi stead of going out in the cold and actually taking it…
I agree with Craig’s assessment here. Whether we like it or not, we’re in a long game and though that seems incredible, given the perfect storm of Westminster ineptitude since 2014, we are where we are. That said, the Alba policy of EFTA/EEA over full EU membership may go some way to reconciling with the YES/Leave demographic; Ashcroft and many in the YES movement acknowledge 35-40% of SNP voters voted Leave, despite significant pressure from Sturgeon and her cohorts to back Remain. The internet was also awash in 2016 with tactical voters who were Eurosceptic, but saw a democratic deficit as the golden ticket to a second indyref.
What also hasn’t gone unnoticed is the EU apathy towards Scotland since 2016. Sure, their neutrality in the run-up to 2014 was understandable, in not wanting to interfere in the domestic politics of a then-member state, nor to jeopardise the transition period after 2016, but why their continued silence today, long after the UK has left? Is the carrot of a PR coup over a seemingly disloyal UK not enough? Or the chance to share Scotland’s continuing oil & gas wealth and/or its future renewable energy potential? Clearly something is afoot with the EU and its silence suggests leaving one union for a much larger (arguably no more democratic) one isn’t the smartest idea.
Craig, Hi,
It appears that Dominic Cummings also realises that progress is never ever going to be served and servered by current conventional and traditional status quo bodies/entities and thus are the likes of Albanians [a new set of people with new ideas?] the necessary seed bed from which stout oaks and brave hearts will grow. And now we have all of the many greater powers of Generative AI to harness and wield in the greater service of future humanoid managed mankind, although that does appear to be something of a worry with many a soul concerned that such be an extremely valid existential threat rather than accepting it can be just as likely an almighty treat?
Amanfrommars – Unreadable spam
Perhaps Alba has already been infiltrated.
Johnny, it would be a dereliction of duty if the UK-SS had NOT placed agents in ALBA, or for that matter ISP and other pro-Independence parties. It’s what their job is – i.e. Defending the United Kingdom. If they were willing to impregnate women in Greenham Common, who thinks they AREN’T inveigling there ways into ALBA et al?
I am English and although I respect and support Scottish independence I have no real understanding of why you want it. Are you sure you do want it?
The reason I ask is that I voted Remain in the EU and at the time I similarly had little understanding of the Leavers. Years having now passed since Brexit delivered their wish I do not know a single Leaver who is content. They seem deeply and massively disappointed that their hoped-for and expected improvements in their lives (whatever they might have been) have simply not happened, and are not going to happen. Why would Scotland exiting the UK be any different?
Nobody has ever wanted to return to rule by London. You can go back centuries and choose from dozens of independent nations and hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. Moreover I have never met (or even heard of) anybody who is deeply and massively disappointed that Brexit has not improved their lives. I sincerely doubt you have either.
OK Carl I will defer to the views of a Scot. I notice you declined the opportunity to explain the reasons behind desire for independence, perhaps because you don’t know what they are. I do indeed know many severely disappointed English Leavers and they entirely blame a succession of Tory Prime Ministers and Tory governments (especially the current one) for failing to pursue what Leavers consider would have been the right policies and actions post-Brexit. My question remains; why would an equivalent “Scottish Exit” be different.
I can’t answer of Carl. My reason for wanting an Independent Scotland is simple. I believe that the best people to resolve Scotland’s specific problems are people who are invested in Scotland. WM politicians’ focus is on London and the SE England. Fair enough, but that doesn’t help us in Scotland resolving OUR problems, which are not the same.
Scottish decisions should be made IN Scotland BY Scots.
For me it’s that simple. And if we elect idiots, WE can remove them. But we CAN’T remove idiots elected by England.
What independence means and why it is necessary is explained here:
https://salvo-cor.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf
Re: ‘As I have consistently explained, Westminster will never consent to lose Scotland’s resources.’
The British Empire had far more resources, both in terms of minerals and people, than Scotland does. Nevertheless, it had mostly gone within a twenty-year period. Was it because our forefathers had seen the moral error of their colonialist ways? No, it was because it was costing them too much.
On that note, the latest GERS figures* are upon us. They show that even in spite of substantial windfall taxes on energy companies arising from the War/SMO in Ukraine’s raising of energy prices, Scotland still spent £19 billion more on public services etc, than it took in taxes.
Despite Rishi recently promising to establish more fields, Scotland’s oil & gas is running out: less than half the number of barrels of oil per day are being produced compared to 15 years ago. Sure, Scotland has a lot of wind, and even some sunshine on occasion – but so does the rest of the UK, and even if it didn’t, uranium-235 atoms exist.
Unlike Labourites, most Tory MPs are not sentimental, and the ones that are aren’t particularly sentimental about Scotland. Many of them can also do maths, as well as realising that offering another Indyref might win them much-needed seats in Scotland at the next but one GE. So, all might not be lost on the referendum front.
* I know that many on here are of the opinion that the GERS figures are completely wrong and that Scotland actually produces a substantial surplus every year. How is that? Please show your working.
“Was it because our forefathers had seen the moral error of their colonialist ways? No, it was because it was costing them too much.”
Thus the colonial government was replaced by “independence”, where the ex-colony now bore the cost of their government, but the UK was still able to access the natural resources at the same profitable rate as before. If ex-colonies took the idea of independence too seriously and started to demand a fair price for their natural resources, then there ways always the option of regime change to install a government more attuned to the needs of the ex-colonial power.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. Yes, that was true to a significant extent. The problem for Scotland though is that, unlike with rubber, bananas etc, much of what it exports (e.g. financial services) can easily be carried out in the rest of the UK.
Scotland’s economy is far more than financial services. See our food/drinks industry and its contribution to “UK” exports. See our natural sciences, or IT, or Tourism, or Education, or future renewable energy potential.
The MSM would have you believe Scotland is totally inadequate to survive economically, but at the same time politicians tell us that Scotland’s O&G will provide the support the UK needs to get over its current crisis.
Schrodinger’s Scotland: at once an economic wasteland AND the UK’s savior.
Thanks for your reply Tony. Financial services comprise around 10% of Scottish exports and are mostly to the rest of the UK. Scottish food & drink exports are currently about 1% of total UK exports. Scottish ‘natural sciences’, IT and education exports are minimal. Of course an independent Scotland could survive economically, but it would have to either cut public spending substantially or raise taxes.
Most of the countries do it including UK (apart from idiotic Russia?). We are all about 100 % debt to GDP while “fiscally responsible” Putin and RF is at 10-15% of GDP. Anyway what’s your point??
Scotland could have a choice to borrow money from Scottish central Bank and spend it on whatever they want instead of asking BoE.
Will they go down that route, I doubt! They will adopt neoliberalism dogma?! Only game in town!!!
Even our host is the old nationalist and neo-liberal school with human face.
Anyway “Independence means independence”. What do I mean?
Independence means independence no ifs or buts?.
Alba should be sort of UKIP. No seats but truth/ or perceived truth and push SNP into independence agenda. (I know there are more important issues than independence – too many to mention ?)
Alba has IMHO only one task: “Independence means Independence”, no ifs or buts.
I forgot the Irish.
What is Irish debt/GDP/GDP per capita etc.
Sorry for bit of racism but Irish are not much smarter than Skotish but Scots are (paradox) more progressive than the English.
I ❤️ you English and Scots and (why would I put Irish in this statement).
From “East European” perspective we are just “East Europeans” and all of you are fucking English ?.
Thanks for your reply PE – and for the emojis. According to the GERS figures for financial year 2022/23, the fiscal deficit for Scotland was 9% (even with the windfall taxes), compared to 5.2% for the UK as a whole – that’s a big difference. Any country’s central bank can just print money and give it to people. The problem is that it leads to inflation, which is what’s happening in most of the Western world now. Irish debt-to-GDP is currently only about 40%, mainly due to significant economic growth over there in the past decade. I’m not ****ing anything at the moment – sticking to cigarettes.
If you are really serious about Independence which I’m sure you are Craig then the idea of going to Westminster and swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch and his successors should be a non starter the Independence Movement must stand on a abstentionist platform just like Sinn Fein did in the 1919 general election and take their seats at Holyrood instead
Powerful, Craig. Well argued.
Although I agree with Craig ‘s position, this will need to be a more nuanced approach than most by election campaigns.
Labour and the SNP will fight this by election like two walruses, each using their inertia to nudge the other out of the way. It will be fought on their own imagined pictures of their past records. It will not be fought, if they can manage it, on any ideas of a way forward for the future.
Calling for a Scotland United approach with only one issue presented at the ballot box is essential, but it requires the SNP be held to account for their unwillingness to mobilise and organise their supporters to bring pressure to bear for independence or even, some of the other proposals presented in the 2014 Scottish White Paper..
The Scotland United approach will have to be of longer duration than one by election. This requires fighting a by election fighting for unity while simultaneously fighting for many of ALBA’s distinctive policies in a way that can get them into the popular mind.
At present, far too many, in spite of the glaring evidence, still believe the SNP is a party committed to national independence and refuse to accept it has settled for becoming a devolution party. Agitation to clarify this folly is still required but has to be done in a manner that avoids throwing blame.
Amusingly, the Greens, the SNP’s add-on, are also fighting this by election. It reveals how little both the SNP and the Greens really value this coalition. They can’t even find a united candidate.
The fight for ideas may be the way forward. ALBA does have distinctive policies that can give it a sharp cutting edge. This has to be done while blunting that sharpness with a call for unity to very unwilling forces. ALBA’s recent poster of Rishi/ Dracula should be used to promote the Sovereign Wealth Fund advocated in the Scottish government’s 2014 White Paper, rather than just a comedic cartoon. After all, neither the Tories or Labour have any intention of supporting this demand and the SNP have done nothing to even make any advocacy for this project.
ALBA’s refusal to join NATO and to seek membership of EFTA instead of re-joining the European Union as an alternative would extricate a future Scotland from many of the traps that the SNP has now fallen into. These are some of the many points that have to be promoted while still calling for unity.
No, stick to your guns and vote SNP. One thing is for sure: Starmer’s Labour won’t allow Scottish independence.
“Starmer’s Labour won’t allow Scottish independence.”
Neither will the SNP so long as its strings are pulled by the same people as Starmer’s.
Much as postcolonial theory explains: https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2021/07/18/scotland-in-the-21st-century-4/
A coup against the snp leadership cabal would be the answer to getting back to the snp being the political wing of the independence Movement…and not currently simply another political party whose aim is self preservation.
We can at that point be like the co op party and Labour party. Its to all our advantages to retry the proposal for the 2026 SP GE Alba is supported by the SNP for list seats. If it has not happened by then for sure ALBA must stand in all CA and List seats. But standing in Rutherglen is precipitate and damaging to the new born baby that is Alba.
You were right Ian. As Alex says, lets see if the SNP “can successfully fly solo”.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23749572.salmond-says-alba-will-not-contest-rutherglen-by-election/