There is a genuine disagreement about Plan A, the Section 30 route, by those who retain a belief, albeit faint, that there exists within a Tory or any future Labour Government a sliver of morality, capable of recognising the democratic right of the people of Scotland to determine the method of governance they wish for Scotland’s future and are therefore willing to concede a Section 30 order. Very few people I know still believe this. Those I know who still support it do so out of loyalty to Nicola, not any real belief it has any prospect that it will be successful. That is a position that will completely collapse after May 2021, if not before, if it is not strengthened by creating wider options.

Likewise, there is no agreement about what strategy should replace Plan A. The reason for that is that such discussion has been very much discouraged, indeed suppressed.. That must come to an end and it will this January to some extent when the SNP plan a National Assembly that will for the first time permit some discussion on the various alternatives. It will of course lack any power to change current policy as a National Assembly is but a talking shop, not a Conference, and therefore lacks the power to change policy. Strangely enough, I think that is probably a good thing in a way, as these decisions need discussion, but, it needs to be the right options that are picked. It is more important to be the right decision than an instant one. There is an urgency of course, but, taking a few weeks to get it right is the way to go. A comprehensive plan is needed not more tinkering.

Please note I use the word options, not option. We need complementary strategies, operating with varied pressure points, some short term, some longer term, some legally based through the courts, some political actions and also organisational strategies based round indentifying total Independence support in Scotland then using that knowledge to put in place the absolute proof of Scotland’s demand for Independence. We need to bring all sections of the YES movement together. To do that everyone in the Yes Movement, including the leadership of the SNP must be willing to seriously consider all constructive ideas, irrespective of who makes them.

Another important element if we want constructive debate and consideration is that the my party, right or wrong brigade, who regard any suggestion that Section 30 is not working as a direct condemnation of Nicola, need to pull their horns in and take part in a constructive fashion with the rest of the Yes Movement. It is this section of the SNP who are creating the problems for Nicola. They are seen by everyone else as backing a strategy that inspires no confidence but the way they seek to defend it is by being hugely aggressive and turning every discussion into a stupid “loyalty test”. The fact they need to do this, throw abuse and accusations of treachery, rather than attempt to debate or explain how securing a S30 will be successful should tell them how weak the “strategy” is and make them question it themselves. Instead by turning every one of the growing army of people who doubt the prospect of a S30 success into a “enemy and disloyal” independence supporter, they are doing a lot of recruiting for any anti Nicola forces. Totally counterproductive and divisive.l

If the truth is told there are many in the SNP themselves who have no faith in Section 30 but who hope Nicola will bury it rather than them being forced to concede it being a losing strategy that can never work in forcing a morally bankrupt Tory Government that will never concede the measure unless it becomes their only way out. Unionists know that any referendum would be lost. Therefore, they have one tactic. It must not happen. We are not going to win if we need Westminster’s voluntary permission. Mr Starmer has also just stated that as well. There is no hope in that route on its own.

Now, there are the important words “no hope in that route on its own”. We are tackling this problem in the wrong way. There is no right or wrong way to Independence. What we need to find is the effective way. In my opinion that will not be any one route. We need to mount a campaign of multiple routes and pressure points. So I advocate operating plan A with plan B at the same time. There is no need to scrap the S30 request while at the same time opting to adopt Plan B and use the constituency vote in next May’s election as a plebiscite referendum. Promoted properly they compliment each other.

Likewise I think we need at least a further three complimentary strategies working alongside the above. I think we need a legal strategy. We need that whether the Keatings case is successful or otherwise later this month. I think we need Joanna Cherry QC to lead this effort and to put together the best legal team to examine and then progress the various legal options available to us on an International basis.

Another absolute must is an International strategy. We need an International Committee involving both elected representatives but also other Scots and other nationalities with international experience and contacts. They should come from both within the SNP and wider YES movement. They should be tasked with educating other countries in Scotland’s case for Independence and building support for Independence abroad. This should be a highly visible and active organisation. If the SNP don’t organise it shortly then I will certainly, along with others, get busy getting it organised and up and running. It is something however best organised by the SNP. It would benefit from being a creation of the Government Party. I hope they will. I don’t understand why they have not done so already. I don’t know any country in recent times who have won Independence without devoting time and effort in winning international support.

We must also prepare for the minute when it becomes possible and safe to get marches underway again. AUOB have displayed their ability to organise multiple marches all over the country and I think they do build morale and also provide highly visible evidence of the growing demand for Independence. I applaud their efforts to build a grassroots organisation across the country as well. That creates a much wider base for Independence activities and that must act as a driver outside the restrictions of normal party politics that can only benefit the movement as a whole.

What will these various tactics achieve? Well, firstly it will reunite the Independence movement. It will create a campaigning base where everyone can campaign for what they believe will be the most effective way, knowing others are working alongside them on other complementary, not competing strategies. We will be maximising efforts while involving our widest base and expertise. A wide range of activities which unionists, with their much smaller and passive support, while find impossible to hold back. We have the advantage in numbers in being capable of fighting on multiple fronts. It is an advantage we must exploit much more effectively.

It can’t come soon enough. Steps need taken NOW to bring the movement together we badly need unity. Do nothing and there are big risks in the weeks ahead, not least from the Parliamentary Inquiry. None of us know how that wiil play out but there are many people who despair at the blocking and delay tactics being employed by the Scottish Government. A standstill Independence strategy alongside a blatantly dishonest strategy of avoiding admitting a great wrong will not result in anything positive in the weeks ahead. 

Opportunity still exists but it is a closing window. More voices must be given access to helping determine strategy. Why? Because what is currently happening, more accurately not happening, is not acceptable and must end with new, better, more effective tactics.

The alternative is an unnecessary failure and the blowing of a great opportunity.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

If you appreciate this article why not take out a free subscription to this blog which are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. You will be very welcome.


    1. And the whole ethos of the article is blown apart by the first post. Having said that, the title is pretty “divisive” for an article that calls for unity.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. 😂. Everyone must agree with the Malcontent fringe or be called “divisive”. That’ll be the echo chamber again 😉.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Ian, The lack of democracy in the party goes back at least to 1988 when the slogan, “Independence in Europe” was foisted on the party on huge lettering over the stage at conference in Inverness. No debate and, given the loss of Sovereignty involved, no amendment to the party’s constitution which would have required a two thirds majority. An attempt to suspend Standing Orders and Agenda to enable a debate was rejected. Since the aforesaid slogan is not the only option, particularly in light of the present situation is this not the time for inclusivity of all the options and a return to the position once printed on every membership card that the raison detre of the party becomes the “Restoration of Scottish National Sovereignty. A campaign of information about the implications of the new UK position and proper discussion of the new options before the Scottish people urgently undertaken. Good to hear tha National Assembly is happening once again. Such openness and choice would give meaning to the “homeless” million and a half potential voters who voted “Leave.”

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Agreed, it should be “Complementary,” rather than “Complimentary.” However, from 3,000 miles away, it seems like the infighting is counter-productive. So maybe “Complimentary,” works.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. Great article. The only thing missing was using the ‘ring fenced’ independence monies to help set up some of these ideas. It could start with a donation to either or both AUOB or a legal fighting fund.
    Unfortunately, the majority of the Westminster group will ignore everything here!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I agree with all of this but would add that the SNP need to start looking like an independent Scottish Government in waiting and not just a UK limited one. That means addressing the economic issues that were at the heart of the No vote in 2014 and to a large extent, at least with 60+ age group, still appears to be so with them. While some of the economic issues from 2014 have already fallen apart thanks to brexit (eg the pound), the main remaining one as I see it is the (GERS) deficit. To date this has not been seriously rebuttted by the SNP. Saying that it doesn’t reflect the public finances of an independent Scotland is nowhere near enough. Much work has been done by others (BfS, Richard Murphy, Wings, Craig Dalzell etc) to show that the GERS reports are misleading. This is a key point. The complete exposure of the GERS figures manipulation and the resulting and loudly shouted ‘deficit’ is vital. Too many people I suspect that could be classed as ‘soft No or unsure’ voters may well still see this ‘deficit’ as a major constraint. It probably then leads to doubts about other key issues such as funding the NHS or pensions etc. Allowing the annual GERS figures to go largely unchallenged by the SNP is like ignoring a cancer. The GERS reports matter because of the falsely negative effect it probably has on many soft No or unsure voters and especially with the 60+ age group.

    But maybe the biggest factor is that by proving beyond reasonable doubt that the GERS figures are manipulated to deliberately make Scotland’s public finances look bad, it would highlight the utter deceitfullness of the UK Government (yet again). Shatter the deficit myth and so many other ‘financial concerns’ would reduce in importance since they could be assessed based on reasonably accurate information as opposed to deliberatlely falsified information in the GERS reports. Sadly however despite what others have done, as it stands, the deficit myth may still be the key to winning independence.

    The future Public figures for an independent Scotland will be a forecast and therefore have a significant degree of estimation, more so than for an on-going forecast. But if the SNP can show, as they should, that the current figures are misleading and then show them as close to what they should be, without any UK biased misallocation of revenues to rUK & debts to Scotland, then the level of trust regarding the calculation of future finances would be much greater. That’s what I mean by looking like a government in waiting.

    Establishing an objective view of Scotland’s Public finances would then allow the discussion to move onto the at least equally important international Trade figures, where Scotland’s position is already clearly much healthier than anywhere else in Britain, not that you’d know this from the media.

    As for rUK being Scotland’s biggest market, well Scotland appears to be rUK’s second biggest market. Are the Unionists seriously suggesting that rUK would stop trading with Scotland! Besides the shift in trade partners for Ireland, moving hugely from largely UK to largely EU shows where the future of trade would lie.

    So whether it’s Public or international trade figures that are considered, the sane decision regarding independence for Scotland can be based on very solid ground. The same most definitely can’t be said of the UK.

    May 2021 as a plebiscite vote on independence.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. I would prefer debating round what other countries,, once free of Westminster have achieved also attacking the “form” of Westminster in lying to countries they controlled of their true wealth. Never going to win a debate about Gers when it’s controlled by them and based on “their estimates”.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We understand GERS to be a false, inauditable set of accounts so why is it not challenged as such. Today’s computerised accounting demonstrate the lie that is “estimates” used in GERS – would any large business get an audit certificate if they were to prepare accounts in such a way? A couple of years ago someone did an expose of how the Scottish accounts have changed over the years from being accurate, albeit with specific, but fully transparent, estimates, to the GERS of today. It showed the surplus provided by Scotland to the Treasury in every year up to devolution and the changes in the accounting methods and charges leading to today’s GERS. I do not understand the lack of challenge to GERS which allows the unionist purveyors of such lies to enjoy the resultant uncertainty they give to the undecided.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. It’s not so much about winning or losing a critique of GERS, it’s about creating an official counter to it to cast doubts about it’s validity. Some may continue to accept GERS as it is, some may have doubts about it’s validity, but to date the SNP have tacitly accepted it as being a true reflection of Scotland’s public finances right now. That’s an inaccurate and weak position that needn’t be so and importantly, it hides the deceitfulness of the UK. Brexit will have already exposed this trait to a considerable extent, so it’s not breaking new ground. Far from it. There are plenty of other examples of places that were, according to the UK at the time, unable to become independent and survive, yet thrived once independence was achieved – Singapore, Malta etc, so use that too. If they can thrive as an independent country, then why not Scotland. Same goes for Denmark etc.

        As for GERS itself, why is there no equivalent for the other three parts of the UK. Doesn’t that sound dodgy in itself? It’s full of holes that should be highlighted instead of allowing it to have a free run. You know it needs to be countered whenever you hear or read the word ‘deficit’. No, it doesn’t apply to an independent Scotland, but too often to some, it does right now and that’s enough for them to have doubts and not back independence. It shouldn’t just be ignored as unimportant or unwinnable. Besides just as the currency was used as a main attack in 2014, I can see the ‘deficit’ being endlessly used the next time. The support for independence may be at it’s highest ever level, but 55-58% isn’t safe ground. If it’s the over 60’s that are the key group to convince to get well above 60%, what are their concerns? Too often, ultimately I only hear one word from them. Deficit. Imagine how you’d feel if we narrowly lost the chance of independence in a vote because of a blatant lie.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. There is no argument about Gers. It was a rigged assessment from the beginning. Why? Because Ian Lang, it’s creator openly said so from the beginning. If you want to discredit GERS dig out those quotes.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. If one considers GERS an being nothing less that what the MSM is then you will understand why it is just an extension of the MSM / BBC et al.

        Giving Erroneous Results to Scotty. It’s a sport that been played relentlessly to us.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. GERS is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the Indy debate. It seems to have gone largely unnoticed in recent years as people have increasingly come to view them, correctly, as not being relevant to an independent Scotland. In my opinion, if you bring GERS front and centre now, it would only be a welcome gift to unionists who would relish a “negative” to focus on. It is something that is too “truthy” (to use a word coined (maybe) by Rev Stu) to easily argue against in a pithy way, and long-winded explanations are a voter turn off.

        I like to answer it using a paper published in 2013 by Professor Brian Ashcroft called “Has Scotland Already Spent It’s Oil Fund” (which I have just now discovered has been expunged from the web – even the author’s “previous publications” makes no mention of it – suspicious). He hoped to spike the guns of Indies who argued that Scotland had not been able to benefit from the oil in the way every other oil producing country had. He did this by adding up all govt expenditure and revenue in Scotland between 1980 and 2012 and comparing the two figures. As they were relatively close, he pronounced Scotland HAD benefited from the oil.

        However, the sums involved were £1,357bn spent compared to £1,425bn raised. That is, while the UK ran up a debt of nearly £1.5trn in that time period, Scotland had a surplus of £68bn. An independent Scotland would have been dud money from the rUK in 2014, not the other way round, making a mockery of GERS and the “subsidy junkie” myth. No doubt that is why it has recently been expunged from history. Very sinister.

        Unfortunately, not a “pithy” answer.


  3. If you’re in a position to organise the building of support internationally then I’d get on with it if I was you. That’s something I’d be happy to donate to. Wait for the Feeble 48 and their equally reticent comrades at Holyrood and it’ll be the Twelfth of Never before anything happens.

    The “leader” has painted us all into a corner and her ego won’t entertain the notion that she might’ve been wrong.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. The idea that there’s no harm in requesting a Section 30 order is dangerous nonsense. The greatest harm of all would by that the request received a positive response. Getting a Section 30 order is worse than not getting it. A British Prime Minister will only grant such a request if they are assured of being able to sabotage the process at a later stage. If it is maintained that they won’t say yes if there’s a chance we’ll win then the obvious corollary is that they will only say yes if there is no chance they can lose.

    But asking the British Prime Minister’s permission to exercise our inalienable democratic right of self-determination is harmful regardless of the response. The right of self-determination is intimately and inextricably bound up with sovereignty. To ask permission of what is effectively a foreign government is to compromise the sovereignty of Scotland’s people.

    If the people of Scotland are sovereign then only the Parliament elected by the people of Scotland can have the rightful authority to sanction a constitutional referendum. Popular sovereignty and the democratic legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament are the two pillars of Scotland’s statehood. We do damage to them only at great peril to our identity as a nation.

    How many times must it be said? NO SECTION 30!

    Liked by 10 people

      1. I don’t care whether we get independence with or without a S30. The main thing is we get independence. So long as no lives are lost I’ll be happy with any route. I doubt any countries furth of our shores will give it a second thought either.


    1. The most harmful thing that came out of 2014 was ever believing that a second referendum would solve our problems, Peter. The first one was necessary (with the S30 Order and Edinburgh Agreement) because, had we won, it would have been a matter of course to reach the goal of independence, even if the negotiations were strewn with caltrops. International law will come into play whatever we do because so much concerning territorial, terrestrial and maritime rights have become a matter of international law and international convention. I feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall when I keep saying this. Neither the SNPG nor Holyrood have the slightest intention of going any other route than the S30 Order route because they both know that it will keep us occupied and interned in the UK for years until they are at last able to emasculate the parliament to the extent that it becomes nothing more than that parish council they talked about. They mean to starve it to death with the diversion of funding to other sources, being disbursed via Lizzie House and all those (English) civil servants.

      I see no movement on the part of the SNPG, prior to May (and she might even postpone that election for her own ends, pleading lockdown to tackle the new Cover strain; I wouldn’t put anything past her now) to do anything other than wait endlessly for another S30 Order which will never come. All those loyalists will suck it up and grin vacantly as they witter on about ‘the right time’ and ‘not upsetting things with impatience’ as if anything were actually happening, as if there is a plan to rescue the Scots from colonialism. There isn’t, but she will have been granted more years to make sure that we don’t escape the colonialism.

      My rely to you, P{ever, would be: NO SECOND REFERENDUM that we can so easily lose again. I will repeat myself: no PRE independence referendum has ever been won in the past fifty plus years, not one. Quebec(lost twice via Anglophones); Catalunya (lost once via Spanish state); New Caledonia (lost once via French settler community); Scotland (lost once via amalgamation of Scottish Unionists (minority) and outside interests (minority) not indigenous – that is the word used by the UN, incidentally, to highlight the unwarranted interference by people not born in the place seeking independence – to Scotland). The UN refers to this as colonialism.

      My own absolute adherence to, and support of, human rights and civil rights of all inhabitants means that there is no way I could sanction or support a withdrawal of the vote from any of our people, whatever their origins, or try to direct their vote, and there is no way that I could sanction or support withdrawal of citizenship from those who have made Scotland their home, whatever their origins. On the other hand, the Scots also have human rights and civil rights, and they need to make others aware of those rights under international law. That requires that those who have no been born in Scotland are made aware in any campaign that they are breaching international law and the UN Charter by voting against independence. An abstention is the only option in those circumstances for those who have a conscience or you leave yourself open to accusations of colonial interference. An Australian or New Zealand immigrant from Scotland would not be expected to vote for the return of Australia or New Zealand to British colonial rule, and, if he or she did so, it would be met with justified anger. The situation is no different in the UK. Scotland and England are different countries with different cultures and customs, languages, etc. 313 years of Union have not changed that, and we entered a Union, not a colonial trap. Too many in 2014 didn’t understand that. I, for one, see no need to allow them a second opportunity to shaft us when we have a perfect, political, legal rights to depart the Union.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. What we need as a matter of urgency is a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION for Scotland. The groundwork is already there, and something based on this plus the more recent work of others should form the basis of an Interim Constitution agreed by a Convention of the Scottish Parliament and having the force of law. This could then be used to reassure everyone that if they vote YES their civil rights would not only be protected, but actually ENHANCED compared to their present status as subjects bound to the will of the Queen in the Westminster Parliament, which has no permanence, changing from one from one govt to the next. This is no way to run a modern democracy, which should be subject to the will of its CITIZENS, and it needs to change. It is particularly urgent given Johnson’s clear contempt for legal custom and practice (proroguing Parliament, flouting International Law), plus his Brexit vandalism (rejecting ECJ , EU labour law etc). If we could have this legal Scottish Constitution document in our hands to circulate at meetings and on doorsteps it would go a long way towards reassuring wavering voters, and is in my view a crucial precursor to any successful bid for Independence. To quote John Drummond, ‘even turkeys won’t vote for Christmas’ – though given what happened at the last election in England, I’m not so sure (!!), but I do think we the People of Scotland are much more savvy and will respond to rational argument and a genuine truthful response to our legitimate concerns. The best way to beat the tabloid propaganda is with an AGREED INTERIM CONSTITUTION.


      2. This is a crucial point Lorna, and the movement would be in a much better position to make the case for complying with International norms, rather than British(English) preferences, if it were made much more widely known.

        I would recommend all here to buy and read (professor) Alf Bairds recent and excellent book:
        “Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence”

        Which describes, among other things, the relevant United Nations DeColonialisation process, and how this could be applicable to Scotland.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. “ If the truth is told there are many in the SNP themselves who have no faith in Section 30”

    Then it is those people that need to be standing up to their boss surely? If they don’t, then they are as complicit as she is in being there just for the salary. They should be representing their constituents, not dancing to the leadership incase they lose their job. They must have family, KIDS, Grandkids that are more important to them, in Regards to their futures than their own.

    Liked by 9 people

  6. YES Iain, The Problem is I am reliably Telt is Peter the Mole Murrell. Nicola keeps on saying that Her SNP CEO has “Nothing to do with Scottish Government Policies”
    Aye Right!
    The Murrells won’t go down the Catalonia UDI for fear of Prison, Peter wouldn’t last a Month in the Big Hoose, so they’ll Block that. My suggestion rings with Yours in that the Main / Only Item in the May 2021 Manifesto is to make it An Official Vote For Independence, and When We get at least 67% for All Pro-Independence Parties then put it to the Fat BoJobbie to Agree to a Section 30 Order, which He Will Refuse.
    Then Go through the Courts, and IF We lose then Mass Civil Disobedience Will be Required. e.g No Water, Electricity, Food OR People to or From England!
    If that doesn’t work then I am Willing to go down the Irish Way, like 1916-22!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. ALSPALS01 How much burning Irish tarmac have you driven over?. I’ve done a bit, and I can tell you it’s not pretty and even after all the blood and guts you STILL have to negotiate. I agree though that after trying ALL legal avenues of appeal both at home and abroad and still getting nowhere, we shouldn’t just stop – given that we have a majority. But then and only then would be the time for direct action. Hopefully though it wouldn’t come to that. If it did, then once again, ‘Round the world the truth will echo/ Cromwell’s men are here again/ England’s name again is sullied/ In the eyes of honest men,’ Pray to God it doesn’t happen. For all our sakes. That should give even Boris the Bad pause for thought. England’s international reputation is bad enough already, surely?

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Lorna Campbell, I just wanted to make a general comment regarding everything you’ve written here & elsewhere: you invariably make an outstanding contribution to any conversation on Scottish Independence that you choose to comment on. Thank you. Please tell me you have a blog somewhere.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Like you I very much appreciate Lorna’s contribution. She has already featured on my blog as a guest writer and I extend to her an open invitation to do so again whenever she would like. Lorna writes very well.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Another excellent well thought out article.

    My only concern is that another full lockdown may be on its way which will put everything on hold – for how long? – what will be impacted. The Scot parliament Inquiry- Salmond and Sturgeon due to attend on 19 and 26 Jan. Will the Inquiry be completed before the May election? Will the May election be postponed?

    Remember Sturgeon was due to attend the Salmond criminal trial in March 2020 but the virus intervened.

    Remember the Scot Parliament Inquiry was due to start in Jan 2019 but Salmond getting charged by the police put it on hold.

    It is often said it is better to be a lucky politician than a good one.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It hasn’t taken long for the Britnats to say that neither the election in May or any indyref should be taking place in 2021 due to the virus.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I noted that Paul Hutcheon of the the Daily Record said at the Daily coronavirus briefing that there was a case to be made for cancelling the May election. Yes the Britnat case.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. My immediate concern is the short time to the May election. No matter what Nicola says on indyref2 or independence, the Unionists will make it constitutional and the same arguments on currency, debt, borders, pensions, embassies and all the usual stuff will be trotted out aided and abetted by a compliant media freed from Brexit and the end of Covid may be in sight. Full concentration on saving the Union from the Scottish separatists.

    Most of all, the time wasted since 2014 in not re-building the SNP army of members (once our most valuable weapon) equipped and trained to deal with what is going to be thrown at them is an absolute disgrace. I only hope the National Assembly in January fares better than Keith Brown’s previous National Assemblies which turmed out to be a complete waste of time building up false hope.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. “…..including the leadership of the SNP must be willing to seriously consider all constructive ideas, irrespective of who makes them”
    I just can’t see that happening. I can think of numerous Indy initiatives that would be considerably more successful with the support of the SNP, but it would seem that they’ll only do something if they think it was their idea.
    One of the very best Indy initiatives in the last few years was The Indy Pledge as it gave us a set of principles to campaign under and discouraged infighting. I try and live by it in all that I do politically, but I look at senior SNP people who seem more than happy to be divisive and have no problem with openly criticising fellow Yessers.
    It’s a sad state of affairs and it has to end.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Yet again comes the shout of “Yoon” when you cast doubt on Nicola Sturgeon’s intentions. I never did like loyalism as it’s akin to blindness.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. The constituency vote is the wrong one. Party vote on the List with declared Yes/No parties the route. The constituency thing is the SNP not wanting to play nice with the other Yes parties. It’s pitiful.

    The ISP has already committed to Yes in a plebiscite election on the List.

    Liked by 4 people

      1. And for the occasional intelligent comment you make, MBP, the one to Muscleguy is typical of the type that marks you out, first and foremost, as an asshole.

        “And the whole ethos of the article is blown apart by the first post. Having said that, the title is pretty “divisive” for an article that calls for unity.”

        I don’t know, some folks’ weans?

        Liked by 2 people

  12. Careful Brian I am going to leave your post up for an hour so some folk can see what you wrote. Then it’s heading for the bin. Making false allegations like that can land you in serious trouble you know.


    1. Iain I respect anyone’s right to disagree with any political party leader direction vision etc.
      Its their democratic right
      Until the Tories take it away that is.
      However that right also brings with it the potential for others to disagree and moreover to point out the similarities between what’s being suggested and what others are putting forward on their sites as part of their political discourse.
      I neither like nor particularly dislike our FM
      I feel however that to ditch her now would be catastrophic for Indy.
      This outcome would be one held dear by SIU.
      Thus in my mind to support one is to support both you become fellow travelers.
      SIU as we know have as their main weapon social media posts and as such the responses in your forum become at the very least potentially within the realm of SIU activity.
      It’s your blog though and you must be guided by your own credo and beliefs.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Happy to read this more balanced response Bryan even if I don’t agree. Freedom of speech and thought is important and trying to suppress it is always a mistake. Much of what I write is far more critical of the Union than the SNP. I have supported Independence for many, many decades. Unlike many others I have knowledge and experience of how small European nations, prepared, secured and made use of their Independence. I know about the planning, the structures, the tactics they employed. I am concerned that there is little evidence of the same in Scotland.


  13. Great stuff, Iain Lawson. What we must avoid if and when we do settle on other options is that they do not cancel each other out. For example, we can have a partially or fully plebiscitary (partially would be more sensible) leading on to an invitation to Westminster to negotiate our withdrawal from the Union on terms that are consistent with prevailing international law; if that is refused or they try to pull the ‘we’ll decide’ strategy, we then still have an open route to the UN via its own Charter and/or via the Treaty (which would require to be ‘sound’ in Scots Law first, I think. If we have another PRE independence referendum, there is simply no way to go after that because the people (whoever they might be and whatever their loyalties, individual, group and national – remember 2014) will have decided and that would be taken by the UN or any other international arena to mean independence will be laid to rest for at least a generation, probably much longer than that, having had two referendums on the same issue.

    It is looking more and more evident that we will require to have an international and legal element to our going if we are to succeed and if we are to be recognised by the international community thereafter. I have been saying that for years, since 2014, and I believed it even before that, albeit that, had we won in 2014, because of the Edinburgh Agreement, Westminster would have had to negotiate with us in good faith (no, don’t laugh). I can see where Nicola Sturgeon is going with another S30 Order, but she must know that it is dead in the water now unless Westminster has a massive attack of conscience – an extremely unlikely event.

    We must be aware of our constitutional options – we should have been aware of them after 2014 – but we must also be pragmatic and realistic about what the SNPG is about: saving itself forever an a day, just like the two main parties in Ireland, which, together, are like George Galloway’s ‘two bum cheeks of the same a**e’, Labour and Tory, which work together to keep the status quo. The SNPG is one cheek and the Unionist parties the other. I never thought I would ever mention them in the same breath, but that is what has happened. In order to keep itself in power in Scotland forever, the SNP hierarchy actually works in the same arena as the Unionist parties. The SNP does virtually nothing to temper any diktat from Westminster, makes no effort to bat away the adverse propaganda, and never actually does anything pro active to bring about independence. It is a game of bluff that many have bought into willingly so the dance continues until we are all dead and gone and no one remembers what Scotland was, who the Scots were or what they signified. Fear of actually doing anything keeps many in thrall as the opportunities pass and are lost forever. It has all been about acquiescence since 2014, and acquiescence will never regain our independence.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. Good points made there Iain, firstly Johnson has an eighty majority in the HoC, and the polls are still in our favour why on earth would he consent to a S30, knowing fine well he’d lose, and along with it a third of the UK’s land mass and all the very important assets that go with it, including Faslane. No Johnson won’t back down, I think we can all see by his actions and words that he’s not an honourable man.

    Sturgeon has said she wants consent from Westminster to hold an indyref, why is she persisting on going down this futile route, when its patiently obvious Johnson has on intentions of complying. As for the Nicola faithful, who choose not open their eyes to the real world when it comes to Sturgeon’s actions, or lack of them when it comes to independence, the inquiry might open their eyes for them, if she has to resign.

    No country that ever became independent asked for and was granted its independence, no they actively took their independence, whatever Plan A to Z that entails is the route we should take.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Don’t miss a five star rammie about Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in the second half of today’s show.

    We begin the show by reviewing the new Covid regulations outlined by FM Sturgeon. Few surprises there.
    There’s a brief summary of the political headlines from a Scottish viewpoint including Assange and Trump.
    Then we pull together articles by Iain Lawson, James Kelly and Peter A Bell then conclude with a heated but informed ‘debate’ about Nicola Sturgeon.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Great article Iain and something I have been saying on this blog and others for ages. Reading your blog today was uplifting but then I read the comments and a mood of depression came over me again. The usual “holier than thou” Sturgeon haters advocating manning the barricades etc.

    We are 3 months from the Holyrood elections in the middle of a deadly pandemic. No mention of how we take the ordinary voters with us through all this at the same time as constitutional change. People have other problems like staying alive and getting enough money to pay the bills.

    The word missing in all this is “practicality”. We have to be practical about how we proceed. We are still in a good place with the polls and the likelihood of an SNP majority in May. We all have to make this happen by voting SNP 1st vote with the 2nd vote for other indie party. A large indie majority at Holyrood will still keep all options open.The people on here will not like this but it is the only way forward at the moment.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Good Evening Iain,
    Very welcome and pertinent blog. I should add that I am not an SNPmember but am keen to see Scotland make her own way in the world.

    I like your idea of pressure being applied internationally and if I can help in any Wayne any future organisation to further that aim please count me in. I live part of the time in Catalonia so do have a little knowledge of the difficulties of achieving the will of a nation against an obdurate Government.

    Kind regards
    Nick Johnston

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: