WHAT ROAD SHOULD WE TAKE?

BEWARE MAJOR’S PLAN..ITS A TRAP!

The newspapers were full of John Major’s suggestion that the UK should offer Scotland two referendums, one to establish the wish for Independence and then a second confirmatory one at the end of Independence negotiations to check we really wanted to go. What was not explained was whether everyone in Scotland would get a free set of donkey’s ears if they were daft enough to accept such a plan. This was one road to Independence we must never take.

It’s a trap. We are not dealing with the great white hunter here, it so obviously a trap it deserves red neon warning lights round it.

When we decide we want Independence it needs to be decided in one decisive vote that makes clear from the off that Scotland has left the Union…for good!

Why is this important? Well anything else hands a huge advantage to those negotiating on behalf of the RUK as they know the less palatable they can make any settlement with Scotland the best chance Scots in the confirmatory referendum might reject the terms when it is put to the test. How different those talks if Scotland has left the Union, making new arrangements to cooperate with the EU or EFTA AND TAKING OUR PLACE AT THE UN AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL BODIES? Bodies that we should involve in the divorce settlement.

Those talks have as a priority the smoothest and least divisive separation of Scotland from the Union creating the most amicable basis for a positive ongoing relationship as opposed to the confrontational, combative arguments that would arise if RUK believed there was still any prospect of forcing Scotland back into a Union by making any settlement punitive and disagreeable, ignoring the enormous damage such a stupid move would have on future relations.

My view is that once the decision is taken, and taken on the basis that it is a final decision, then both Scotland and the RUK will both recognise that there is nothing to be gained domestically or internationally in dragging out matters. I think it would help achieve the best result if we involved other nations in the process. My own view is that our nearest neighbours should be asked to help. Perhaps members from the Irish, French, Dutch and Norwegian Governments (or others) could be involved as observers and advisors to ensure both sides keep our close neighbours on board with any settlement. By broadening the talks in this way it would hopefully reduce the possibilities of confrontation and lead to a smoother process. It will also reduce the opportunities for skullduggery.

If for any reason RUK are against involving our neighbours in the talks on a neutral basis then Scotland should still extend invitations for them to sit in, but then on our behalf as our advisors.

I don’t think there is any prospect of Mr Major’s offer being acceptable in any circumstances and I see it as just another Intentional confusion added to distract attention away from the fact that Westminster has no intention in facilitating a referendum anytime in the next decade. They intend to dour it oot. It’s up to us to come up with an alternative strategy to a Section 30. Give me a shout when we decide to try.

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND.

Free subscriptions to this site are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website.

11 thoughts on “WHAT ROAD SHOULD WE TAKE?

  1. Major put this idea out over a year ago and it created little interest then. I wonder why the Herald is now pushing it again at this time. (Rhetorical question.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It conjours up the fiasco of the last three years with the Brexit negotiations, giving the impression that we’d have to relive it all once more. I’m sure this is a calculated move, given the wear and tear on people’s well-being that dealing with the pandemic is causing, to wear down the resolve for independence.

      It was the same thing with defence and trident. Throw out the big ticket items in an attempt to weigh down the opposition to the Union. I fully expect the currency issue to be next with some announcement that using Sterling would be illegal and because oil is a significant part of the economy we’ll have to use Venezuelan bolívars instead.

      Now that negotiations with the EU are at an end maybe they should try the confirmatory referendum on themselves. I’m sure once we see what a good idea it is we’ll all be happy to sign up for the Grey Man’s plan.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. There’s only one route.
        We the people decide not politicians.
        We make it happen then our politicians, you know, the ones with spines can negotiate
        Afterwards.
        Anything before that is supposition.
        We know what a constitution looks like.
        We know our currency.
        We know all the infrastructure needs for transition.
        We know the amount of work it will take from all of us.
        If you can find ways without obstacles, it probably leads nowhere.
        Ché.
        Onwards and upwards
        🐼🐼

        Like

  2. I think current SNP top brass could like Major’s suggestion. As Iain suggests, it’s a sure way to lose the referendum and allow them to get on with their well-rewarded careers, undistracted by AUOB marches, Common Weal, and other troublesome fringe elements. Not that they’d say so for now, but as always timing is everything with these things ..

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, and I bet Pete Stockholm-Syndrome Wishart loves the idea?

      Healthy dose of suspicion from Mr Lawson here, and so long as we have such – and so long as we have Tory/Empire/Establishment – we’ll not be biting. Anyway, why would any country require one of the partners in a union to make the conditions for withdrawal? Why do we need to progress by another ‘rule’ introduced by them? Why do we even need their permission?

      I bet Joanna Cherry, like Iain here, sees right through their garbage, and considers it not a threat, but an insult?
      Good try, Major.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. YES it IS a Trap! The Auld Grey Man is hoping that a Majority will Not agree with the Negotiations!
    The BitterthrGether Mob Will Lie Now, during Negotiations And at the End of the Negotiations!
    1 IndyRef2 is All We Need, by 31 October 2021 Latest!!!

    Like

  4. It would appear that the electoral process in Scotland continues to be viewed as a variable by those in the Dominatrix of all Parliaments.

    The original Scottish Devolution referendum was subjected to numerical interference at the suggestion of a renegade Scottish MP called Cunningham. Recently, Michael Gove has suggested that ex-pat Scots should be allowed to vote in any future referendum (a process which worked so well with the Brexit vote?). Now we have Major Legover reappearing from the woodwork with yet another suggested contortion.

    Give it a rest.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Why not simply terminate the Treaty of Union?
    It’s justified under internayional law.
    We do not need permission.

    Check this out:
    United Nations Convention on the Law of Treaties
    Signed at Vienna 23 May 1969, Entry into Force: 27 January 1980
    Part V – Invalidity, Termination and Suspension of the Operation of Treaties
    Section 3. – Termination and Suspension of the Operation of Treaties
    294
    Article 62 – Fundamental change of circumstances

    Liked by 2 people

  6. If only I’d known that the Cairn O’Mount was the road to independence!!! Strange that as it leads in that direction to Andrew Bowie territory! Or do I need to climb Clachnaben (The Nipple Hill as my late Godfather used to call it)? I’m sure the dog would love a hike to the top!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Nothing wrong with holding a referendum as long as the participants agree on the question put by The Electoral Commission, with the agreement of The Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Simple!

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: