I have pleasure in sharing this letter which sets out the route to advance our cause rather than just waiting for England to sell us a pup with a flawed referendum once they exhaust their fun with the Scottish First Minister begging for a Section 30. It was handed to Ian Blackford MP yesterday.

9th October 2021
Dear Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament,
We, the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group (SSRG hereafter), are writing to share our informed collective view on how Scotland could become independent within a short period of time, join the European Free Trade Association, rejoin the single market, and subsequently build the constitution and institutions of the new Scottish State.

The SSRG has observed with increasing alarm the stated strategy of the Scottish Government, to hold a referendum within the current parliamentary term under a ‘Section 30’ order from the UK government. For the following reasons it is our view that this approach to achieving independence is fraught with risk, could result in independence not being achieved in our lifetimes, and therefore as a nation we must pursue other peaceful and democratic means to rapidly achieve independence.
A. The Conservative UK government has reiterated numerous times that it has no intention of granting a Section 30 order to hold a referendum.
B. Holding a referendum outside of a Section 30 order would be subject to legal challenge, likely boycotted by the Unionist Parties, and not recognized by the UK state.
C. Even if a Section 30 order were granted, holding a referendum under the auspices of the UK electoral commission would be highly problematic for the following reasons.

  1. The referendum would be held using the franchise of local elections, which would allow for part-time residents and those with vacation homes to vote in what should be limited to Scots and those who permanently make Scotland their home. Many countries with a written constitution limit the franchise on constitutional matters to its citizens and permanent residents.
  2. It would also allow the UK government undue influence in the timing, framing, and execution of the referendum. Given the UK’s stated opposition to Scottish independence, it is inevitable that this influence would be calculated to damage the prospects for a successful referendum.
    It is also our view that the situation could not be more urgent for Scotland to become independent, achieve international recognition, rejoin the EU single market, and effectively recover physically and economically from the Covid pandemic. The recent UK Supreme Court ruling over the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law as outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament only underscores this urgency. This is why we at the SSRG have developed the following legal, democratic, and peaceful means to rapidly achieve independence and international recognition.

I. Pro-independence Scottish MP’s withdraw from the 1707 Treaty of Union
When the Treaty of Union was negotiated and ratified in 1707, it was to be a Union of equals between Scotland and England. Scotland retained its own legal and educational system, and under the terms of the treaty the UK Parliament could not interfere in Scots Law. Scotland did not renounce its sovereignty, which had been legally established in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, the Claim of Right in 1689, and reaffirmed numerous times including by the UK Parliament as recently as July 4, 2018.
It is the informed view of the SSRG that there is nothing in the UK unwritten constitution that prevents a majority of Scottish MP’s, representing the Scottish party to the Treaty of Union, to collectively vote to withdraw from it. This would mean that if 30 of the 59 Scottish MP’s voted to withdraw, the Treaty of Union would be annulled. While it may be argued that only the full UK Parliament may vote on such matters, English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) set a precedent under which Westminster Parliamentary procedure can allow MP’s from the UK nations to vote on issues uniquely concerning that nation. Scottish MP’s can do likewise in voting to withdraw from the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Previously, this was essentially the view held by Margaret Thatcher and politicians of all political stripes, that if in a general election Scotland elected a majority of pro-independence MP’s to the Westminster Parliament, this would constitute a mandate to dissolve the Union. This has now occurred in three general elections: 2015, 2017, and 2019. Based on this view, this incontestably represents three mandates in a row to withdraw from the Treaty of Union. Nothing in the unwritten UK constitution prevents this method to achieve independence from being employed.

II. The Scottish Parliament Reaffirms the Sovereignty of the Scottish People and declares that it is the only Parliament which Represents their Sovereign Will
It has been legally established and is beyond doubt that Scotland is a Sovereign Nation and that the people of Scotland are a Sovereign People, and that they and they alone can determine the form of governance they so choose.
The current Scottish Parliament was elected by the Scottish People in a general election on May 6th 2021, and comprises a majority of MSPs whose parties declared their support for Scottish Independence in their manifestos for that general election.
This majority has empowered the Scottish Parliament to seek independence, and the Scottish Government has indicated that it will pursue the referendum route to achieve that end, whether the proposed referendum is held with or without a section 30 request to the UK Government. However, by the power vested in it by the sovereign Scottish people the Scottish Government can choose to use whatever democratic means it deems suitable to achieve independence.

The Scottish Parliament should declare that it is the only parliament which represents the sovereign will of the Scottish People. To this end, it should pass a motion to declare that Scotland as a sovereign nation is withdrawing with immediate effect from the Treaty of Union with England, citing the myriad of ways in which the UK (English) Government has broken the terms of the Treaty over the years, and continues to do so in respect of Brexit and the Internal Market Bill among others.
It could be argued that the independence majority in the Scottish Parliament was not elected with a mandate to withdraw from the Treaty of Union, and therefore cannot pursue this route. However, elected governments are empowered, and indeed duty bound to take whatever actions they see fit to best serve the interests of their electorate and the nation they represent. Achieving independence in a post- Brexit UK is clearly in Scotland’s interest.

The Scottish Government is on record with frequent declarations that independence is the only real solution to the serious problems facing the country. They should be aware that as these problems increase and UK constitutional obstacles continue to impede progress, they already hold the power to implement the solution they continually advocate.
III. Withdrawing from the Treaty of Union and assertion of Scottish Democratic Parliamentary Supremacy to be followed by a 2-Year Transition Period to Full Independence
During the 2-year transition period between the assertion of sovereignty and full independence, commissions will be formed by a national assembly to perform key tasks, including but not limited to the following.

  1. National Assembly
    The Scottish Government should establish a National Assembly comprising all the talents from the MSPs and MPs (MPs recalled from the House of Commons) and representatives of all facets of Scottish civic society, research groups, business, industry and the law to manage and implement the changes required during transition.
  2. International recognition
    Widespread International recognition is essential to Scotland being recognised as a sovereign independent nation. Dissolution of the Union, the reassertion of Scottish sovereignty and affirmation of the supreme governance of the Scottish Parliament will confer the competences necessary to negotiate and ratify international treaties and the powers to abide by them. The Scottish Government shall immediately seek recognition from other nations and international organisations, clearly explaining and emphasizing the peaceful and democratic nature of the means whereby full independence was achieved.
    International law is silent on how the independence of a nation can be legitimately achieved, leading to international recognition. The 2010 Kosovo case is instructive regarding how this method of Scotland achieving independence would be perceived by the international community and organizations.
    The following are excerpts from the written statement by the United Kingdom over the request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the question “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the provisional institutions of self-government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?” By a vote of 10 to 4, the ICJ advisory opinion of 22 July 2010 on Kosovo held that “the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence'”
    5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor State‟s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.

5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in which the secession is occurring.
5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond the scope of already conferred power.
Therefore, according to the UK’s own submission in the Kosovo case, UK law cannot determine the legality of Scottish secession under international law. Whether the UK government grants a Section 30 order or not is irrelevant. It is up to individual states and the wider international community to determine whether this means of achieving independence is a peaceful, democratic means of self-determination, and whether or not to recognise Scotland as an independent state. This submission also holds that Scotland can act outside the Scotland Act to achieve self-determination and independence.
Because self-determination is applicable to all peoples, it would be illegal under international law for the United Kingdom government to prevent this democratic expression of self-determination. It could not legally prevent other states from recognising Scotland and establishing bilateral and multilateral relations. Nor will it be able to prevent Scotland from building the state in the form it chooses. Furthermore, as a successor state, Scotland will be under no legal obligation to assume any of the UK debt.

  1. Membership of EFTA and re-entering the European Economic Area (EEA)
    Upon dissolving the Union and reaffirming the sovereignty of the Scottish people, the Government should immediately apply to join EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which currently comprises Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. EFTA membership will not prevent Scotland from joining the European Union at a later date, if that is the informed will of the Scottish people.
    Recent expert advice from EFTA has informed the SSRG that Scotland would be rapidly accepted into EFTA, provided the Scottish Government has the competences to negotiate and ratify international treaties and the powers to abide by them. Scottish MP’s withdrawing from the 1707 Treaty of Union, and the Scottish Parliament reaffirming the sovereignty of the Scottish people and its democratic legislative supremacy would fulfill these criteria.
    The support of the EFTA members of the European Economic Area (Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein) will enable Scotland to rejoin the EEA. This will allow Scottish producers to export into the EU Single Market without the need for customs tax or tariffs, in effect free movement of goods and services, thus beginning to reverse the damage inflicted on Scotland’s economy by Brexit.

The Scottish Government should agree protocols with the EU covering Scottish Agriculture and Fisheries. This would give Scottish producers access to the EU Single Market. Given that Andorra, Turkey, and Monaco are members of the Customs Union but neither members of the EU nor EFTA, Scotland could probably negotiate membership as well.
EFTA and the UK signed a free trade deal in June 2021 which means that when Scotland joins EFTA it will be a party to that trade deal and effectively be in a free trade arrangement with England.

  1. Freedom of Movement
    Membership of the EEA will reinstate reciprocal rights of EEA citizens and Scottish citizens to freedom of movement and other rights. Scottish companies would be able to hire workers from EU and EFTA countries to fill the vacancies in key sectors of the economy brought about by Brexit.
  2. Erasmus and other Common EU Schemes.
    Membership of the EEA will enable full reinstatement of the full benefits of the Erasmus Scheme for Scottish students to study in the EU and EU students to study in Scotland. Scotland would be free to participate in the other common EU programs in research and other fields of their choosing.
  3. EU/EEA Scotland Trade Links
    Scottish Trade with the EEA requires direct transport links with the EU Single Market. The Scottish Government should support the establishment of direct sea ferry links between Scottish ports and EU and EFTA markets. (Ireland has successfully established direct ferry routes to the EU following the UK Brexit.)
  4. State Pensions
    The Scottish Government will introduce measures to increase the Scottish State Pension to the level of the EU average pension within a reasonable period of time. (The UK currently has the lowest State Pension in Europe.)
  5. Free Movement between Scotland and England for People and Trade.
    The Scottish Government should support free movement of people across the border between Scotland and England during the Transition Period and thereafter. As a result of the June 2021 free trade deal between EFTA and the UK there will be a free trade arrangement between Scotland and England from almost the very start of the transition period, and this would naturally continue following the transition period
  6. Building the Infrastructure of Government
    The newly independent Scottish Government should build all necessary Scottish state infrastructures, including defence, taxation and welfare, international relations, currency and competent economic management. During the 2-year transition process, shadow ministries should be created for reserved responsibilities to work alongside the currently devolved ministries to design the institutions, ready and able to properly function on day 1 of full independence.
  7. The Scottish Constitution. The Scottish Constitutional Convention will create a written constitution based on current international best practice and work already carried out. The new constitution will be subject to a confirmatory referendum, then the Scottish Government shall adopt the Scottish Constitution ultimately developed and ratified. Elected officials should play a very limited role in the process.
  1. A Confirmatory Referendum
    At the end of the 2-year transition period, as a sovereign and fully independent state the Scottish Government would hold a confirmatory referendum on whether the Scottish people want to remain fully independent and adopt the Constitution developed, or enter into a new treaty with England. Particular attention should be devoted to the franchise, specifying what criteria would define a Scottish National in line with international best practice. The UN ‘secondary criteria’ as used in New Caledonia could be a model to emulate. Voters in this confirmatory referendum will have full knowledge of what they are voting for unlike the situation in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
    We are publishing this letter on our website (scottishsovereigntyresearchgroup.org) and in the press with a view to generating wider political debate across Scotland and the independence movement as we seek to help establish the means to achieving independence in the shortest practicable, peaceful and democratic way. We in the SSRG have worked with members of the Common Weal, the Constitutional Commission, Constitution for Scotland and others, and will enthusiastically continue to do so in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation.
    Above all, it is our sincere hope that the Scottish MP’s and MSP’s avail themselves of this opportunity to become recognised as a fully independent state within the international community. Otherwise Scotland will effectively continue to be a Westminster vassal state for the foreseeable future. Scotland has nothing to lose by pursuing this strategy, and everything to gain.
    Yours for Scotland SSRG Team

    This is a worthwhile outline alternative that allows progress to be made and finally ends the humiliation of the begging bowl mentality to Independence that the FM thinks is a gold standard, legal way to Independence. I like many others view it as a death warrant on our aims, given it would be based on a disastrous franchise that hands the No side a huge advantage.

I can only hope somewhere, someone in the Scottish Government might like to have a stab at sensible action rather than vacillation.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.


Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.


  1. I hope we all get behind it. We may even get some support from the not fully indoctrinated NuSNP members currently with no voting rights or voice.
    Although in reality I expect a parade of the Sturgeon loyalists telling us how bad an idea this is with full on Sally Magnuson scowls in place.

    Liked by 16 people

    1. I. Pro-independence Scottish MP’s withdraw from the 1707 Treaty of Union

      This step 1’s the big, big stumbling block with our current bunch of SNP MPs.
      Good luck convincing them to make a move!

      Liked by 10 people

    1. Agree we you they’re not doing anything tho! More waiting we them for our Grandbairns this needs done now..❤️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

      Liked by 7 people

      1. We need it done now – the younger generation can make their own mistakes – just like we did. You cannot predict the future so live and act for now – not for a day you will never see.

        Liked by 12 people

  2. I do like a plan. Especially one that sounds plausible like this one.

    Whilst it has been, and continues to be, really important to point out the flawed ‘approach’ of the Scottish Government and those who timorously ‘advocate’ independence, it is essential to be constructive as well.

    Well done to the SSRG team.

    Apart from sending to MPs and MSPs how can we get this advertised more widely?

    Liked by 23 people

  3. Well i’ll no haud ma breath for a response from the SNP. Nikla disnae do other folks ideas, does she. Blinkered one way traffic, my way or the highway, that’s her.

    At least it would gie that wee windbag Blackford something tae splutter ower.

    It would be nice if this could be better spread and a decent debate follow wouldn’t it.

    Liked by 20 people

  4. Good to see this outlined in easy to understand steps and processes. It needs the YES movement to put pressure on the ‘political wing’, the SNP, to accept or adapt this as a way forward. Starting by withdrawing the MP’s from Westminster, where they serve no useful purpose. Of course, most of them, will scream out how valuable they are and the great job they do on a daily basis.
    However, I wont hold my breath waiting on the SNP taking this forward.

    Liked by 16 people

  5. Wonderful.
    Only there can be no independence whatsoever for Scots or anyone else if we consent to the Covid Passports they want to bring in before Christmas.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Yep.

    That looks like a very nice piece of work. And something to work from. A 2-year transition to independence is just what the doctor ordered.

    Liked by 11 people

  7. Now would seem an especially opportune time for Scotland’s elected national majorities to declare independence Iain, as Mark McNaught’s and David Henry’s et al. excellent SSRG initiative well sets out, and while the whole world is closely watching Scotland during COP26.

    If Nicola Sturgeon really desires to stand on the world stage and become a truly historical figure (despite aw the SNP dawdlin and muckin aboot), there could be no bigger stage than this surely, by Declaring Scotland’s overdue independence to the entire world at the time of COP26 in Glasgow on the basis of the many treaty breaches.

    Scotland would then be welcoming the world’s nations here as an independent sovereign state. Scots micht e’en hiv a chair tae sit on at COP26 in oor ain laund! The world’s nations would then be invited to recognise a democratic and independent sovereign Scotland, in which the insightful EFTA application also helps a great deal.

    Time to turn the screw on the oppressor for a change. What say you Ms Sturgeon? Are you Scotland’s leader, or Scotland’s liability?

    Liked by 23 people

    1. alfbaird,
      Sturgeon has become Scotland’s liability without fear of contradiction, forbye that, facilitator of our continued oppression.

      Liked by 13 people

      1. It certainly looks that way, Robert. Whether liberator or liability, its her choice. But this may well be the last SNP Scotland majority of MPs the people will allow her to do nothing with.

        Liked by 14 people

    2. An excellent idea, Alf! Present it to her (or her party) at COP26 & dare her in front of the world, to ignore it! Let the ‘world’ see the plan, which is perfectly legal, so no excuses & no reason would be valid to throw it out, If she did, it would prove to the world she does NOT want Indy… and would thus reduce her standing in the Global community. It is HER choice.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. My initial thoughts are positive, but I hope that the SSRG intends to take steps in the very near future to recruit more women – a ratio of 7 men to 1 women is not going to impress in the current climate where women are, rightly, very critical of a conspicuous lack of female representation.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. I’m just interested in good ideas. I don’t care where they come from.
      This idea has a lot of Commonweal in it and quite a bit from a number of keen Indy thinkers.
      It should be a goer!

      Liked by 17 people

    2. I think, if this plan was to go ahead, women would support it, if they were assured that their grievances re GRA were going to be acknowledged & sorted out to THEIR satisfaction. I don’t think they’d care about women/men ratios as long as their concerns were addressed. But we need this plan to be actioned, whether men put it together or not. Indy is too important not to have.

      Liked by 8 people

  9. Hello,

    Very good plan.

    Pursuit of a Section 30 would be a disaster with all its pitfalls.

    I am happy for all Independence-supporting MPs to withdraw from Westminster. Surely this is the constitutional route.

    However, IMO the plan should not involve future trading associations with the EU. That’s a political decision in which an independent Scotland would would be sucked into the Brussels Empire. Our plan should involve Independence and a Constitution – nothing more. Talks with EFTA, possibly EEA, would be fine but let’s stop there!

    Liked by 9 people

    1. “I am happy for all Independence-supporting MPs to withdraw from Westminster. ”
      I would be too but remember they were not elected on an abstentionist ticket.
      Irish SF members of parliament ARE.
      Their voters are well aware that SF MPs will never take their seats in the HOC and will never swear an Oath of Allegiance to Elizabeth II (hopefully Elizabeth the Last)

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Independence-supporting MPs who withdrew from Westminster would be doing so in order to withdraw from the 1707 Treaty of Union. Unlike SinnFein MPs they would no longer be serving as UK MPs or claiming an MP’s expenses.

        Liked by 12 people

      2. Well, it may be they weren’t elected on the promises of refusing to take their seats. But they WERE elected to make Indy happen. And as Sec.30 isn’t (and never was a go-er), we have to do it by other means. I’m sure many Indy supporters expect & hope that is the plan. The SNP was elected to do Indy. That is their Raison D’etre & all people know what they stand for. Thus if SNP were to say, ‘we’re leaving WM & coming home’, then… I think their voters would see that as a rational, alternative way of doing Independence.

        64 countries have left UK. Not one of them did it with a Sec.30 but ALL did it LEGALLY & were GLOBALLY accepted. So I think we have to agree that 1) other legal methods exist, 2) we can use the same methods to achieve the same result and 3) the SNP deciding to use one of these methods is something we not only have to accept, but agree to do.

        A government’s first role is to protect their country they govern. To protect the people in that country. Part of their remit is to not let other countries harm their people. And if one of the 64 methods of attaining Independence means the people of Scotland will not longer be under the present WM regime that are systematically allowing people to die through COVID, through starvation, through no welfare help, then Scotgov are HONOUR BOUND to take us out of this union & declare it NO LONGER FIT FOR PURPOSE.

        Scots are sovereign. I believe that with their 10 years of majority seats in HR, Scotgov could, whether elected on that ticket or not, lawfully withdraw from WM to do what is best for Scots and Scotland.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. I agree with practically everything you have written Katie.

        “But they WERE elected to make Indy happen .. . . . using Art 30, which is SNP policy.

        “And as Sec.30 isn’t (and never was a go-er), we have to do it by other means.”

        This is your opinion, shared by many no doubt, including myself. but the SNP have not, AFAIK, agreed to use any of the other methods for achieving independence.

        I agree Scottish MPs could/should withdraw from Westminster, especially now as there are proposals to reduce their number . I don’t think the current ones ever will

        Liked by 4 people

      4. I agree Ben, that SNP haven’t agreed to or even tried to find another way that suits them more than a Sec.30. But I’ve read any awful lot of articles by many eminent people and they’re of the same persuasion that there ARE many methods that are Legal & Globally accepted, which is what Scotland needs.

        My argument in my comment was, really just that not standing on an ‘abstentionist ticket’ isn’t really a block to using the SSRG method of attaining Indy. They COULD go ahead and walk away from the union without a backward glance, in spite of what/how hard the unionists in Scotland might shout. As I said, a govt’s first responsibility is to prevent/stop any harm being inflicted on their country & it’s people. That’s high up in UN constitutional statement. And so I think the global acceptance would still be forthcoming, on that using of that method. And I think SSRG are in agreement, given they’ve approached Scotgov to use it.

        But I also agree with you completely – I don’t think the current members of Scotgov (both MPs & MSPs) will ever do so. Independence just isn’t their ‘thing’.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. I have arrived to the conclusion that Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP have been bullshitting us since 14 November 2014 non-stop. All what they have been doing is underrating and managing the expectations of the yes movement and cutting our wings in order to stop independence, never to deliver it.

    Why do I think this?

    Well, let’s turn back the clock to the campaigning for GE2015. Everybody and their dog knew at the time that the SNP was expected to win by a landslide. At one point it was even presented the possibility that the SNP was going to win the 59 seats. You would think that a genuine pro independence political strategist worth their salt would capitalise on that fact and AT LEAST, cover her back by introducing the pursuit of independence in the manifesto of the party if there was a remote chance that such a number of SNP MPs were going to be obtained.

    What did Nicola Sturgeon do? The precise opposite. Alarm bells of all shapes and colours should have been ringing there.

    She removed the independence factor from the manifesto, so when they actually got the landslide of SNP MPs they could come back to the voters and say, that because those MPs were not elected on a mandate for independence, they could not simply dissolve the union as would be accepted even by Margaret Thatcher and many senior tories. I may be a cynic, but that is a critical point in history where it become clear that Nicola Sturgeon may be wearing the colours of Scotland, but she has no intention to bat for the team.

    On 8th May 2015, it was clear as day that the people of Scotland had had enough of the union, yet, Nicola Sturgeon and the british state dormant units within the SNP went to gravity defying verbal acrobatics and bullshit to state that 56 SNP MPs, were not enough to end the union. Re-writing of history at its best. They were managing our expectations and attempting to brainwash us by stealth. They were holding the yes movement on a tight leash. 56 SNP MPs were more than enough to end the union, right there and then and that is what should have happened should Nicola Sturgeon had been a real pro indy leader. There was never any need to call a referendum. Nicola Sturgeon and her handlers came up with the nonsense of “the need” for another referendum to deliberately delay independence.

    In the HOlyrood election 2016, Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP campaigned for a referendum “if a material change in circumstances happened”, when an earth shattering material change in circumstances had just happened a year ago: the first time in 300 years of UK history when an absolute majority of MPs representing a political party whose raison d’etre was to terminate the union were sent to represent Scotland. Yet, Nicola Sturgeon was trying to undermine THAT material change of circumstances and further than that, delegitimise the idea that a majority of SNP MPs was sufficient to end the union. She was yet again, deliberately managing our expectations and pushing independence back.

    In 2016 we had the EU referendum. The result was another earth shattering change in material circumstances. Yet, STurgeon, the queen of procrastination, rather than deliver on this infamous referendum she kept bleating about, she kept pushing independence back. Now it was no longer sufficient with a material change of circumstances to exercise our democratic mandate or, heaven forbid, declare independence. Now, she made up the need for knowing what the end result of brexit would be. In other words, this con artist kept managing our expectations and pushing independence back against our interests.

    This political con artist kept us still in the union and waited for the 2017 election. Again, she used the same con trick that she used for the GE2015. It was known that given the circumstances, a majority of SNP MPs would be sent to Westminter. Again, should she be a real pro indy leader instead of a political fraud pretending to be one, and she would have included the delivery of independence in the manifesto. She didn’t, so she could lead us all along for another few years more and stop independence.

    Yet another GE in 2019 and instead of making it a plebiscite election TO DELIVER what she had been promising for five years, she chose not to, so she could use again the excuse not having a mandate to keep an overwhelming majority of SNP MPs in Westminster legitimising England’s abuse of Scotland and still not lift a finger to deliver independence.

    She did the same in the last Holyrood election. She refused to use it as a plebiscitary election simply because this political fraud knew she would win and would have to deliver independence. The bullshit of the referendum continues to this day, with the added bullshit of the section 30. This is particularly telling now that her 100 days of comfort zone she gave herself to avoid talking about independence are well and truly over. Of course now her excuse is covid. Covid is not an excuse to stop the COP26, but hey, it is an excuse for Nicola Sturgeon to continue pushing independence back because any excuse if good for Nicola Sturgeon to continue pushing the ghost referendum back and stopping independence.

    When people was getting restless with the wait, along come Nicola Sturgeon’s helpers in the unionist parties to claim that there was not a real mandate for indyref, ignoring of course the oversized and overweight, massive elephant in the room: there was never a need to hold a referendum because we had 56 SNP MPs in Westminster. History continues to repeat itself. Every time the political con artist is in a pickle, along come Alistair Jack, Douglas Ross or another useful idiot tory to the rescue the status quo and restore the credibility of the political fraud with some bullshit or another to distract us and suddenly get behind “the leader”, because “the alternative is just worse”.

    When that bullshit did not cut it either, along brings Sturgeon even bigger bullshit: the need for the referendum to be “legitimate” with a section 30 order. I am still waiting for the reasoning of this independence procrastinating “genius” on how on earth can suddenly, in a one to one, bipartite union of equals, based on an international treaty and where Westminster is just a dependent by-product whose legitimacy to continue acting on behalf of Scotland can only be decided by Scotland itself, be now the job of England’s MPs, with no mandate from a single vote from Scotland, to decide if or when Scotland can exercise its lawful right to choose the permanence of Westminster, where, incidentally, those England MPs sit. I am also waiting for this constitutional “genius” to explain to us all how on earth in a one to one union, asymmetric devolution between Scotland and England can ever be lawful, as how on earth can be lawful that in such a union England MPs own more of Scotland’s sovereignty than the sovereign people of Scotland themselves.

    But in her frenzy to peddle the need for the section 30, she seems to have forgotten on actually explaining the legitimacy of such thing.

    The material circumstances have changed a thousand times since the Holyrood election 2016. Yet, this political fraud has not stuck to her word. All what she has been doing is finding more and more and more and more excuses to stop independence when the yes movement grew tired and fed up of the previous ones she used.

    Now we have the greens doing the dirty work for Nicola Sturgeon. And by dirty work I mean taking over her vacuous waffle, meaningless platitudes and tacky lip service to independence. We hear an awful lot from these people and the rest of the amoebas sitting in Holyrood and Westminster under the SNP and Greens flag about how much Scotland needs independence. But in seven years of majorities in both parliaments, we see no action whatsoever from these people to achieve this. None.

    We have a situation where there has been an absolute majority of pro independence MPs from Scotland in Westminster for now SIX years, we have had uninterrupted pro indy majorities in Holyrood for more than TEN years, material changes of circumstances enough to create a second trans-siberian railway, enough mandates to build a bridge between Scotland and the EU, enough majorities to build a tunnel to Ireland, and yet, this gang of bullshiters still have not a single action to count under their belts to prove they actually want independence or have any intention whatsoever to deliver it. The only proof they have provided to us is that they sure as hell like to talk about independence in order to retain their seats and their nice income and pensions, but that is as far as they go with very, very few exceptions.

    We have been bullshited by this lady and a handful of SNP individuals for seven years.
    All what this master bullshiter has been doing for seven years is trying to change our minds about what we want and trying to undermine and delegitimise our legitimate right to terminate the union. Sending 56 MPs to Westminster was enough to terminate the union. Sending 35 SNP MPs was enough to terminate the union. Sending 45 pro indy MPs to Westminster in 2019 was enough to terminate the union. A pro indy majority in HOlyrood is enough to call a referendum. This was true today as it was true in May 2016. Sending an absolute majority of SNP MPs to Westminster is a democratic mandate to end the union. Dragging us out of the EU against our will, stealing our powers, taking control of our assets against our will are material changes of circumstances. 100 days have already passed since her party won the last Holyrood election. So the question that should be put to Nicola Sturgeon is:

    What the hell are you waiting for and how dare you leading us on like this? End the union and be done with it or move aside and stop wasting our time. You have wasted it and our resources for long enough.

    Liked by 29 people

    1. Fantastic. It’s time this nationalist in unionists clothing was exposed for what she is, a traitor to Scotland and her people. A great piece Mia.

      Liked by 17 people

    2. Bravo sister . Even by your own superlative standards , that is fckn outstanding . Every note hit with finely tuned , razor sharp precision . Nailed to perfection the abject failures , usurpers of our aspirations , the pretenders who took advantage of our deep desire to be ourselves again – after we picked ourselves up from the disappointment of Sept 2014 : while we were looking up to * them * for leadership , they were looking down on us : for our hunger , our need for change : that could wait , * they * had other , more important things to consider . The like of which could make a corpse laugh .

      Sturgeon took the baton – an enthused , dynamic . ever-increasing membership/support – gifted to her by the stewardship of Alex Salmond and handed it straight to our oppressor .

      Brilliant Mia . Thanks for that .

      Thanks too Iain , we really need sites like this . They act like a kind of underground resistance : to the seemingly inexhaustible reserves of bullshit we’re subjected to not only from our historical opponents , infuriatingly, also from those we had assumed shared our vision .

      Liked by 16 people

    3. BRILLIANT response, Mia. Every single word of it! Just what I have been thinking and saying!!

      64 countries have left the UK and NOT ONE OF THEM used the ‘gold standard’ – whatever the hell THAT is! There is NO ‘standard’, just A method of obtaining independence. But as 64 other countries have demonstrated, there are other successful & LEGAL, methods! Time to use one of them!!

      Thank you for this response. This is EXACTLY how many of us feel!

      Liked by 9 people

  11. Excellent article. Can I suggest that everyone who agrees with this sends it to their local Yes groups and activists in the hope that some progress is made to achieve this proposal?

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Sent it my MP, my MSP, the FM and my local YES group. My MP and MSP are not too well in replying to me when I contact them so I don’t expect anything there. But at least I hope it annoys somebody to read the truth

      Liked by 9 people

  12. Here we have the answer staring us in the face on how to exit this rancid union for good without holding a dodgy indyref, I’d wager that Sturgeon and Harvie know this fine well and could’ve implemented the withdrawal from the Treaty of Union quite easily, so why haven’t they.

    The answer must surely be that they don’t want to, they obviously want to remain in power pushing their own agendas at our expense.

    Liked by 15 people

  13. Leave the union the way we went in, no voting no consultation just get the hell out.

    I am of the belief that the union is illegal anyway the sovereign Scottish people were never consulted. Those in power on the day knew full well that they were acting illegaly and every institution in Scotland has continued to this day in this manner. Crimes against the people.

    Liked by 15 people

  14. “… At the end of the 2-year transition period, as a sovereign and fully independent state the Scottish Government would hold a confirmatory referendum on whether the Scottish people want to remain fully independent and adopt the Constitution developed, or enter into a new treaty with England… ”

    No, no, thrice no. No new Treaty of Union with England as it will all just start again. They will ensure this time that we are completely locked in and can never escape. This is the very thing warned against by both the late Professor David Walker and Professor Ian Campbell. It would be a politically and constitutionally fatal move, as would any renegotiation of the Treaty to bring it into domestic law. Its strength lies in the fact that it is a bilateral, international Treaty that cannot be undermined by the Supreme Court and must be adjudicated upon in the international court. If England decides to challenge, so be it, but it will have to make its case in the international court, which it does not control, albeit it might try to.

    We have to get the Treaty into the international court of the UN now, before we embark on independence. Yes, use the three mandates. Will the SNP do this. Never in a month of Sundays. So, form a people’s committee (small but representative) and place the Treaty with the UN, stating our case (already there with this letter, plus a few tweaks). It may take a few years, although I think it would be fast-tracked if we made our case watertight and urgent in light of Brexit and the Internal Market legislation, but, crucially, the SNP government will be put on notice, as will Westminster. If the former does not move on the mandates already given, they will have to call another SE before the GE and they cannot afford to lose either. ALBA is ready and waiting to pick up the slack. It took Alec Salmond seven years to get the referendum of 2014 up and running, after negotiations with David Cameron. Nothing at all has been done to pave the way for a second, by Nicola Sturgeon, and the promises no longer fool the majority of independence supporters. We elected them to take us to independence. They have dropped the baton along the way and forgot to pick it up again.

    Liked by 19 people

  15. Coincidentally, I commented a few days ago in response to a National article about Nobel Prize-winning Professor David MacMillan, who now works at Princeton University, and which mentioned Will Storrar who teaches Theology at that insitution.
    I met Will Storrar through my second husband (different name) and was very aware of his work with the Scottish Constitional Convention and Common Cause in the early 1990s. In the comment I mentioned others such as Alan Miller, William Macilvanney, Joyce MacMillan and Neal Asherson and expressed my regret that there seemed to be no such group now!
    I realise not all of these are with us now but some may be available and interested in the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group’s initiative. I very much agree with the comment that more women are needed and would hope that some of the women who joined Alba and were brave enough to put their names forward for election to Holyrood might get involved.
    The emergence of this group gives me and, I am sure, others, hope at this dark time when we are facing not just a winter of discontent but one which will bring real hardship to many in Scotland and in the rest of this broken Union.

    Liked by 18 people

    1. Will Storrar is a personal friend (entirely my privilege). He was a central dynamic, both in theory and on the ground, leading to the securing of our Scottish Parliament. There are few active at that time that he does not know. Here he is (along with Scott Hames) interviewing Tom Nairn, a thinker Will rates very highly indeed. Among those alluded to are Iris Murdoch, Gramsci, Hamish Henderson, and MacDiarmid. The 2015 interview (text only here) was published on Open Democracy in July 2016 –

      ‘Scotland and Europe, Iris Murdoch and Antonio Gramsci: an interview with Tom Nairn’


      Liked by 3 people

  16. The British constitution is legal pseudo-science, and Westminster clearly determined to write Scotland’s constitutional identity out of history. So it’s actually a national embarrassment that our political and legal Establishment feel compelled by Westminster’s inadequate claim to legal authority over Scots.

    Embracing the tension between national and international human rights law: The case for discordant parity

    Liked by 7 people

  17. This is the most cogent and clearly written ‘roadmap’ I have seen. We all must do everything we can to get behind it.

    I agree with Lorncal’s proposal to set up a Scottish Sovereignty People’s Committee (SSPC) to put this case before the UN. Scotland is now being illegally held prisoner within the United Kingdom. with the UK government flatly denying Scotland any legal route to independence. But we do not need them to create a peaceful, legal, democratic route to independence, as the SSRG have outlined.

    The one part I would take issue with is the ‘confirmatory referendum’ at the end of the transitional period. Even if for the sake of argument, we agree with the principle of a confirmatory referendum – if it took place after the transitional period this would be year 0 of independence! We do not even judge governments until after they have had 5 years in office.

    However we have to ask ourselves this: if we have reached the stage of having incontestable evidence that independence is the democratic will of the people of Scotland, if we have hence gone through an arduous period of negotiation with rUK and the international community to finally achieve true legal and governmental sovereignty – why would we, after all of this, invite our people to consider a complete U-turn?

    The objective is to test the will of the people and then implement it. If we do so as the SSRG outline, it is job done. A referendum after all that would be entirely redundant, indeed it would only invite ridicule from around the world.

    The only scenario which would invite revisiting the question would be a very prolonged period of majority support for Unionist parties.

    Well done and thanks to the SSRG team.

    Liked by 16 people

  18. The treaty of union cannot be abrogated simply by a majority of Scottish MPs votng against it. The HoC will not allow unilateral succession. This is just another piece of flawed wishful thinking.


    1. How many times has that been said during the history of the Empire by London? The UN Right to Self Determination makes it is quite clear that the HoC has no say in it. We are not a region. We remained a Nation in a Union.

      However you already know that don’t you.

      Liked by 17 people

    2. “The treaty of union cannot be abrogated simply by a majority of Scottish MPs votng against it”

      It was a majority of Scottish MPs who brought Scotland into this political union under an international treaty, therefore a majority of Scottish MPs should be enough to break that treaty and take Scotland out of it.

      “The HoC will not allow unilateral succession”

      If the Uk is the result of a political union between two sovereign kingdoms under an international treaty, then the HoC is only a byproduct of said union. The legitimacy of the HoC only remains in place for as long as those two sovereign kingdoms continue to give legitimacy both to it to act on their behalf.

      A majority of Scotland’s MPs demanding the treaty to end means that one of those two kingdoms is no longer giving legitimacy to the HoC to act on its behalf.

      If only England and England MPs can determine the permanence and legitimacy of Westminster, then this is not a political union at all and for 300 years all the political parties in the UK have been lying to the Scottish people.

      If this is not a political union, then Scotland is a colony and the United Kingdom does not exist. The “united kingdom” in that case would be a misnomer. What we call the “United kingdom” would be at all practical effects the Kingdom of England and its dominions. If that is the case, then Nicola Sturgeon’s referendum and her section 30 order are even more bullshit than we initially thought. If Scotland is a colony, then what Nicola Sturgeon should have done from 14 November 2014 instead of waffling about a referendum and a section 30 she knew we would never get, is to pass in Scotland’s parliament the issue of an official request to send the UN to ask for the decolonisation process in Scotland to start under the watch of international observers.

      “This is just another piece of flawed wishful thinking”
      You think?
      I direct you to the comment of Carwyn Jones, the former FM of Wales and member of the unionist labour party regarding the idea that the Westminster Parliament “is sovereign”. He is on record saying that this is only a convention. A convention that, bizarrely, Nicola Sturgeon appears determined to force down our throats. The ex FM of Wales is also on record acknowledging that it is accepted in Scotland that it is the people of Scotland who is sovereign, not Westminster.

      Either this is a bipartite union of equals and Scotland alone can end it, or Scotland is a colony and therefore it has at its disposal the opportunity to approach the UN and demand the beginning of the decolonisation process.

      Either the sovereignty of Scotland lies with its people and therefore the Claim of Right 1689 under which the present English monarch can continue calling herself Queen of Scots is still valid, or Scotland does not have sovereignty, therefore that claim of Right is a worthless piece of paper and the present monarch has no longer right to the Scottish crown.

      Take your pick, Edwin. You cannot have it both ways simultaneously.

      Liked by 11 people

  19. The perfect detailed reply to Sturgeon’s “I’ve got time on my side”. She has, Scotland doesn’t. The longer Scotland remains outside the EU’s trade rules, the further the divergence in standards will grow and the harder it will be to meet the standards, that at the moment, Scotland will already largely meet. Scotland is the only part of the UK with a healthy EU trade balance (compare figs 6 &4 on the link below), something that will become harder to maintain as UK/EU trading standards diverge because of Brexit. That is the polar opposite of time on our side.

    It’ll be interesting to see what the SNP’s response to this is and if any of the SNP legal big wigs will comment on this approach.

    Click to access rts_q2_2021.pdf

    Liked by 13 people

  20. jim4indy

    I agree with you about the transition period. If Westminster knew there would be a vote after a time, they would use that time to try to persuade our people that independence was a bad idea. They would be ruthless in doing so because so much is at stake.

    Liked by 12 people

  21. Anyone who thinks indy is a good idea while fascists are in charge needs their head read. the fairytale nonsense about what Scotland would be after indy is simple fantasy. What are your ideas for dealing with this rather large elephant in the room?


    1. The idea David is to chase the f###rs out of any/every position of power – if not the country itself – for the damage they’ve already inflicted . Personally , I very much doubt Independence will ever happen under this current mob of hopeless cases , in the unlikely event it does , they’ll be slung at the first opportunity/election

      Liked by 11 people

  22. In line with the excellent SSRG paper, as the FM is attending the high level Arctic conference in Iceland later this week she should seek to secure provisional agreement on Scotland’s rapid entry into EFTA with the PM’s of Iceland, Norway etc. That would also fulfil international recognition of the new Scottish state post any declaration.

    This would seem an opportunity for the FM to then follow it up with a DECLARATION OF SCOTLAND’S INDEPENDENCE address to the global msm and countries attending COP26 in Glasgow. Such an opportunity to make an announcement directly to the assembled global msm and international community of nations will surely never arise again.

    Brexit makes Scotland’s UK exit now an imperative and we should expect the international community fully understand this, in addition to the essential constitutional aspects of Scottish sovereignty and ending of a breached treaty by the democratically elected majorities of Nationalist MPs and MSPs who represent and must exercise the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

    Or will Scotland’s destiny be to wait ever so hopefully for another ‘Section 30 Order’ and the possibility of a further dubious referendum, meantime left out in the COP26 corridor whilst the world’s nations ponder why we never use our successive elected Nationalist majorities, or Scottish sovereignty?

    Liked by 15 people

  23. This is an excellent, well thought out Plan, and I’m in agreement with almost all of it! (I’m getting stuck at the 2 year then confirmatory Ref… I’m not for that. I think it’s been plainly stated by the election results of the last 7 years, what Scotland wants and its time to accept that unionist parties in Scotland STRUGGLE for even embarrassingly little numbers of votes).

    My thoughts have always been along the lines of this Plan. 64 countries have left the UK. Not one of them used an IndyRef and not one of them is clambering to get back into the ‘safe haven’ of the bumbling WM government. If 64 countries were able to find & use a LEGAL method of seceding from WM & obtaining GLOBAL acceptance, why on earth are Scotgov not looking at their methods & choosing one to use to gain OUR independence? It’s LUDICROUS they are sticking to a ‘gold standard’ – and of which there is no such thing! It IS clearly, given their behaviour re Indy, (as well expressed by ‘Mia’ above!) procrastination on their part.

    I’ve been watching the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group, reading what they put out, listening to them talk… and have been very heartened by the work they’ve been doing. Seeing The Plan in print is wonderful & it gives me hope that I may actually live to see Independence!

    Thank you to every single member who has had input to the Plan. I am extremely grateful!! Even if it isn’t implemented, at least you are talking, thinking, planning… DOING something to facilitate an Indy Scotland!

    Liked by 10 people

    1. Katielass, thanks for the link above to Carwyn Jones’ speech at the Welsh Senneth on Sovereigny.
      Well said the former First Minister of Wales, though I feel it is shameful and deplorable that we have no one in Holyrood who will express this concept here in Scotland.
      it is time to remember the words of Edwin Morgan on the Opening of the Scottish Parliament on 04/10/2004, just 17 years ago. Speaking of the people of Scotland he said –

      A nest of fearties is what they do not want,
      A symposium of procrastinators is not what they want,
      A phalanx of fore-lock tuggers is not what they want.

      Let’s tell our representatives in Holyrood that currently they are not what we want and they must radically change their ideas.

      Liked by 10 people

  24. A half-hour vimeo interview with author of new book on decolonisation of Ireland.
    Worth a watch. Many obvious relevances to Scotland —

    Bill Rolston: ‘Ireland, Colonialism and the Unfinished Revolution’
    from Northern Visions NvTv on Vimeo.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Excellent discussion with Prof Rolston, many thanks Fearghas. His book adds to earlier works describing Ireland’s colonisation (e.g. Edward Said) and indeed the UN’s similar view. This also adds to Prof Hechter’s ‘Internal Colonialism’ thesis depicting England as ‘core nation’ and the exploited under-developed Celtic periphery of Wales, Ireland and Scotland and their imposed Cultural Division of Labour. To this may be added Adam Price’s ‘Wales: the First and Final Colony’, plus Grouse Beaters essays on colonialism, and my own theoretical framework based book ‘Doun-Hauden’, each of which explains how colonialism exploits and destroys our peoples and nations, not least through, as Prof Rolston noted, the ‘colonial mindset’, which relates to Fanon’s ‘disease of the mind’. There is a race now between the three UK colonies as to who will be the last to remain under English domination, for which Brexit seems to have given added momentum and impetus for a rapid exit as the core nation continues its inexorable slide downwards, dragging the ‘peripheral’ nations down with it, unless we press the ejection button. Ultimately such works are important if the people – and the SNP elite for that matter! – are to understand the nature of their oppression and inequality, the deceit of the union charade, and the need to bring this to an end as soon as possible.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. Doun-Haudin is an invaluable contribution to said literature. Tragically, by its non-appearance on Waterstones shelves, despite the availability, under ‘philosophy’ of Memmi’s 54 year old classic, it would appear that your work has been effectively censored. You, of course, will have the ins n oots on that one.

        Liked by 7 people

      2. Anti-colonial literature does tend to be censored, or at least is never promoted, in a colony, as indeed was the case with Memmi, Fanon and many other writers. Decolonisation is necessary to liberate the people as well as their thinking, their literature, and especially their language and culture.

        Liked by 8 people

  25. This is more like it. Thanks to the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group for writing the plan and Iain for publishing it.

    Liked by 7 people

  26. Fascism has occurred a few times in the comments here.Fascism, you mean like Mussolini and Hitler?Nah.

    But fascism in my Oxford dictionary is defined as authoritarian. The treatment visited upon Marion Millar, Craig Murray, Alex Salmond I never believed would occur in my homeland,Scotland. It seems to be fascism clear and simple.

    Where are our heroes and heroines (OK to write heroines?) within the SNP willing to face up the to tragedy that has visited the SNP under Sturgeon?

    Why within the Police wasn’t there someone to speak out and call a halt to the expensive vindictive pursuit of Alex Salmond? Career and earnings considerations?

    Money, the root of all evil. You don’t take your possessions and money to your grave, you take your behaviour in your life.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Velofello,

      Well done with one “correction” (I think).

      It’s not “Money is the root of all evil” as money can used for all manner of good things. It’s the “LOVE of money being the root of evil” which is the correct quotation – a completely different matter.

      Similarly, I think of “power and control” which can be used for many good things but it is the LOVE of power and control, as in Nicola Sturgeon’s unchallenged hands for example, which can lead to corruption and fraud.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. Postcolonial theory (Memmi; Cesaire; Fanon etc.) tells us that:

      – colonialism involves prejudice and racism, and is at root fascism, and;
      – a dominant National Party makes an ‘accommodation with colonialism’

      Liked by 7 people

  27. Point 7 – Pension provision is a political choice for whatever government is elected post-independence. Our State Pensions are low but large sectors of the population have other pension provision which does not happen in other EU countries. Basic rate taxpayers, if they have auto-enrolled pensions, will be having up to 38.75% of their pay deducted at source next year. In order to double the State Pension to £360pw for Scotland’s 800,000+ pensioners (including MP’s, judges, hospital consultants) to get near to the EU average, spending would have to increase by £8bn pa.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Thanks for posting this. I have enjoyed listening to David Henry talking about it. I’m doubtful there will be enough elected Scottish officials to back it but it is important to keep plugging away.
    By rights, the next step for the SNP should simply be to legislate for a Holyrood advisory referendum. No doubt this would be challenged but that in itself would act as another nail in the union coffin. Of course they’re not going to do that anyway.

    NS’ narrative has been much more damaging than London. Here reference to ‘Wildcat’, ‘illegal’ referendums and ‘gaming the system’ etc make her much more of a barrier to independence than WM. She is the one denouncing Scottish sovereignty.

    Liked by 8 people

  29. The FM’s choice of language is clear indication she either hasn’t a skooby about Scotland’s history or the nature of sovereignty, or she is simply ideologically hostile towards the legal requirements of open democracy. Though that doesn’t particularly differentiate her from the rest of Scotland’s political/legal Establishment.

    Human rights and the social construction of

    Liked by 5 people

  30. In fact, Scotland’s democracy has been atrociously let down by ‘our’ legal Establishment, many of whom couldn’t follow legal method if their life depended on it. Which it kind of does in the face of covid-19 and Brexit. We’ve even got legal academics supposedly on our side, who are clearly milking the “independence industry” for all can, by punting dodgy legal opinion that is itself defined by the legal pseudo-science that supports British constitutional practice.


    Liked by 2 people

  31. Excellent article. As someone said above we must all keep plugging away with ideas such as yours. If not NS, then at least others in the SNP may finally find the guts to put your proposals into practice.

    Liked by 4 people

  32. @Moone33

    If I am not mistaken, that speech from Mr Carwyn Jones in the video above was in January 2020. As it can be heard, in his speech he said how this attempt to force Westminster sovereignty on the Scots was a direct attack on the Scots constitution and the treaty of union 1707 itself.

    Isn’t it an embarrassment of cosmic proportions that we had to hear THIS from a unionist FM from a different country because the disappointment that passes for Scotland’s FM, who claims to be pro independence but acts as if she is more unionist than Michael Gove, cannot/will not find the backbone to condemn it?

    Mr Jones says in that speech that “he leaves to the Scots the fight of this”. Clearly the “Scots” he had in mind do not include Nicola Sturgeon or any of the SNP MPs or MSPs amoebas. Because, frankly, what have they done in the last year and a half since that speech was delivered to reassert Scotland’s sovereignty and to denounce that assault on the treaty of union?

    As far as I remember, there was only ONE SNP MP who had the gumption and integrity to open her mouth regarding this, and it was more to do with the encroaching of English law on Scots law and the fact that both should remain independent in line with the treaty of union than with our sovereignty. That MP was Joanna Cherry. But from Nicola Sturgeon’s mouth, not a peep has ever come out on this.

    There are two very interesting facts that can be extracted directly from that speech of Mr Jones and that we should not overlook:

    1. According to Mr Jones, a unionist former FM, The Treaty of Union is alive and well, despite the continuous assaults by England MPs and their continuous attempt to transpose, by the back door, the characteristics of the old English Parliament onto the UK parliament.

    2. Mr Jones states that the sovereignty of Westminster is a convention and was never included in law in 300 years. It was now, for first time, that it was attempted to do so and that is a subjugation of Scotland. This is clearly ANOTHER material change in circumstances to add to the mile long list that Nicola Sturgeon chose to ignore.

    From Mr Jones’ words it is obvious that this assault on Scotland’s rights and on the treaty of union is a major thing. Yet, the sorry excuse we have passing for Scotland’s FM is more worried about helping a minority of males to encroach on women’s rights and to fabricate division among the yes ranks to distract us from what she appears to be helping Westminster to steal from us than to condemn, or heaven forbid, avoid this massive constitutional assault on Scotland.

    Can we swap labour’s Carwyn Jones for Nicola Sturgeon, please? Mr Jones speaks and acts as the FM of a nation with its own parliament, history and government. He has no problem in that speech saying clearly and loudly that the conservatives do not represent Wales. Nicola Sturgeon on he other hand bleats, wimps, follows orders like an obedient sheep and only walks off the line when Westminster holds her hand.

    Scotland needs a FM, not another hopeless Westminster’s useful idiot.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Mia
      You make some excellent points in your commentary however Carwyn Jones is a Welsh member of the British Labour Party, a bastion of the unionist Westminster establishment. The Labour party in Wales by supporting the status quo the Union represents has sought to deny the Welsh their Independence by failing to combine with the one party in Wales committed to Welsh Independence, Plaid Cymru.

      Carwyn Jones makes no case for a combined assault on the Westminster Colonial base, rather, a dignified objection to a Tory presence within the Welsh Senedd. The Scot’s must fecht thir ain sel’s!

      Scotland first and foremost requires a political party COMMITTED to Independence and a a leadership SWORN to deliver on behalf of the Nation. The SNP with Sturgeon as an ICON continues to deny Scot’s that opportunity.

      Liked by 6 people

  33. There is a missing step, Step 0, which is the preparation to deal with the UK government’s reaction. You can imagine that reaction including:

    * the BBC being put on a war footing,
    * the Queen denouncing the action as illegitimate,
    * agent provocateurs whipping up unionist reaction,
    * withholding payments due to Scottish Government and councils,
    * organising counter-referenda in Shetland and the Borders,
    * occupation of key roles like head of the civil service and judiciary by avowed unionists, and key assets like oil refineries and ports by the army,
    * offering some sort of concessions or joint commission to discuss the issues and buy time.

    Step 0 would include:

    * creating a Scottish media to replace and counter the BBC (had broadcasting been devolved, I believe we would have voted yes in 2014),
    * endorsing an independence manifesto created by one of the pro-independence think tanks,
    * negotiations with foreign governments to canvas support, especially from the EU, Ireland, France and Germany,
    * creation of a state bank,
    * setting up a counter-intelligence operation.

    On the other hand, if we wait to have Step 0 in place first we could be waiting a loooong time. So perhaps some precipitate action without any prep is what is required, and we will just deal with the events it sets in motion as they come.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Just a thought, if Scotland were to initiate this process during Cop26, when many world leaders and world press would be present, the Westminster government would perhaps be less able to apply some of the examples of suppression which Craig P suggests as the resulting publicity would be very negative, particularly for a country which has lost both trust and friends as a result of the Brexit negotiations.

      Liked by 4 people

  34. Great stuff Iain , but just don’t get too enthusiastic about the EU , that’s for an independent Scotland to decide about at a later date.
    It’s a great pity our nationalist representatives don’t have your guts .

    Liked by 4 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: