“It really depends what you mean by a majority”
A majority of MP seats is a majority. The UK is a parliamentary democracy, ergo a majority of the seats is all the majority you will ever need to end the treaty of union. Sinn Fein declared independence of Ireland on a majority of the seats, not on the majority of the vote. And guess what? you don’t even need that all the seats are from the same party. All what you need is a majority of the seats being held by pro indy parties.
Here is a link to what Ruth Davidson had to say in 2011
“I think you go to have a look at what means to be winning. We do have clearly set out between the parties whether they support independence for Scotland or whether they don’t. You don’t get a referendum for free, you have to earn it. So if the Greens and the SNP and the SSP or any of the other parties who declare an interest in independence get over the line and can make a coalition can make a majority, get the votes in the parliament, then they will vote through a referendum. That is what democracy is all about”
So, what exactly changed in 2015? Why is the union still standing today? It is standing today because Sturgeon removed the wheels from the SNP by claiming a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence. Sturgeon’s SNP is not a pro independence party.
“Certainly the SNP won seat majorities in the 2015, 2017 and 2019 general elections, and in the 2011 and 2021 Scottish elections, the latter with the Greens. But they’ve never won a majority of the people”
And? I invite you to read again what DAvidson said in 2007. A majority of the seats in parliament for pro-indy parties is all what was ever needed, not a majority of the vote.
In 2015 there was already more than 50% of the vote for pro independence parties. If we are not independent today is because Sturgeon did not want to and the SNP refused to hold her feet to the fire. We have been betrayed.
“I’m a believer in the will of the people being judged by how they actually voted, not how these votes were subsequently converted into seats through whatever electoral system had to apply at the time”
It does not matter what you are a believer of or not. What matters here is that the UK is a parliamentary democracy and therefore what determines the mandate to end the union is the number of seats, not the number of votes or what one individual or another believes in or wants to see.
Sturgeon’s SNP has had 3 absolute majorities in Westminster. With each of the three it could have ended the treaty of union, but they refused to do so hiding behind one excuse or another. The only conclusion one can take from this is that the SNP under Sturgeon is no longer a party of independence and is using our votes to preserve the union.
“Basically, if we want the world to recognise our right to independence, we first and foremost have to show that a majority of people living here want it”
Nope. We don’t need the world to recognise anything. What we need is our pro indy Mps to end the treaty of union. It is an international treaty that has been breached countless of times since its inception. Besides, there have been material changes of circumstances enough to stop the earth spinning. Material changes of circumstances and breaches of the articles of the treaty are all what the world needs to know as to the reason to end the treaty. because those are recognised in the Vienna Convention as valid reasons to terminate a treaty.
In the same way that a majority of Scots did not vote to enter the treaty in the 1706, a majority of Scots is not needed to end it today. In any case, a majority of Scots already voted for independence in 2014. It was the non natives who frustrated the yes vote.
There have always been two routes for Scotland’s independence:
Route 1.
Scotland acts as one of the two signatories of the Treaty of union and exercises its legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the treaty and in doing so automatically terminates the legitimacy of Westminster to continue acting as the UK parliament. In other words, under this route, there need of a referendum and an S30 are a mere fabrication and tools to delay independence.
To end the treaty you need one of the following
a) proof that the fundamental principles of the treaty have been breached, or
b) proof that our partner has acted in bad faith, or
c) a material change in circumstances
We have all three.
How could you end the union through this route?
1. Exactly as Sinn Fein did: you get a majority of pro indy MPs in a general election that then refuse to swear allegiance to the queen and refuse to take their seats in Westminster and instead they form a parliament in Scotland. If I am not mistaken, in line with the treaty of union there is a requirement for 45 MPs from Scotland to be in parliament. If there are not enough MPs, then the election must take place again or the treaty ends.
2. You get a majority of pro-indy MPs and get them to vote to end the treaty. Eight years have shown to us that this route does not work because MPs who swear allegiance to the Queen can not be trusted to represent the people of Scotland fairly.
Route 2.
Scotland ignores the treaty and the fact it is a constituent part of the UK that can simply terminate the UK and the sovereignty of Westminster. In other words, it demotes itself to the status of Catalonia, as if it was a region trying to secede from the United Kingdom of Great Britain rather than dissolving it and its parliament as it is its legitimate right to do.
This route assumes WEstminster’s sovereignty and therefore the need to request “permission” from WEstminster. to secede This route clearly tries to preserve the permanence of Westminster as the UK parliament after Scotland has seceded and therefore automatically acknowledges the Kingdom of England as the UK successor state.
I am convinced this is the route the political fraud is forcing us to take.
In my view both routes have disadvantages:
Route 1
Scotland needs to be prepared in every aspect to act as an independent country from day 1, and that includes the currency.
Scotland needs to assume part of the UK debt because the UK will cease to exist
we don’t know what happens with the trade deals This route may leave Scotland and the Kingdom of England without trade deals. Scotland needs to have something already in place, like membership of EFTA or EU single market, ready to jump in as soon as ending the treaty.
Unless there is a successor state, the NATO and UN seats will be lost.
Route 2
Scotland is totally at the mercy of Westminster. They may impose conditions, like for example to retain the area where Trident is, to retain some of our oil fields, or for Scotland never enter the EU again, or something to do with the standards and the ability of England to continue flooding our market with its products.
The UK establishes the rules of negotiation
The Uk establishes the rules of vote, for example in a referendum and the conditions to grant independence
As the Kingdom of England becomes automatically the successor state, all the assets of the UK are automatically UK’s, and that may include for example the embassies, the NATO and UN seats. In other words, we have to take the crumbs we are given.
We also don’t know if Scotland may be obliged to continue with treaties/trade deals it entered as the UK.
In my view both routes have advantages
Route 1
Scotland takes control of the timeline of independence
Scotland automatically takes control of all its natural assets and territory and borders
Scotland sets up the rules of negotiation
Scotland has a shot at being the successor state.
Embassies, agencies, the Bank of England, civil service, NATO and UN seats, tax havens and military equipment for example are all common assets to be divided between Scotland and the Kingdom of England.
Route 2
Scotland will not need to take on any of the debt.
the UK must ensure Scotland has the required infrastructure to act as an independent state on day one of independence. The problem is that the time line of this is not determined by Scotland but by Westmintster., meaning it could take decades until the UK deems our infrastructure is ready. By then they could have already exhausted our assets. Also, all the infrastructure will be established to benefit the Uk and UK partners, not the Scottish people.
In my personal opinion, the route Scotland needs to take is Route 1 and should have taken this route in 2015. Sturgeon either is taking us away from independence and into the deception of FFA or she is forcing us to take Route 2. This would explain her embracing of Westminster’s sovereignty, her handing of Scotland’s assets, her insistence on an S30, her allowing Scotland to be entered into toxic treaties, her allowing our standards to be decreased and the gerrymandering of our policies to separate us from the EU policies making it very difficult of us to get back.
“Personally I think we’d have a better chance with a referendum than a plebiscite election”
I couldn’t disagree more. A referendum implies following route 2, meaning Westminster sets up all the rules, like the franchise and the electoral commission that determines the question in the ballot. Under the present franchise there is nothing stopping Westminster sending a couple of hundred thousand union activisits to vote in Scotland and frustrate the yes vote, just as it happened in 2014.
A plebiscite election however implies folloiwng route 1, where the only thing that is needed to end the treaty is a majority of pro indy MPs who are prepared to refuse allegiance to the Queen and to refuse taking their seats. With a plebiscite election Scotland controls the timeline and the rules. With a plebiscite election you do not need a majority of the vote that Westminter will always ensure we will not get. The only thing the parties need is to include it in the manifesto and then get a majority of the seats.
It is not only that the plebiscite election is the best route. In my opinion, it is the only route and one that has already been tested by Sinn Fein and proven to be adequate.
Sturgeon’s referendum unicorn has already wasted us 8 precious years. and a hell of a lot of money. How much money was extracted from Scotland’s oil and gas fields and renewable energy infrastructure in the last 8 years? How much of England’s debt has Scotland been paying? How much renewable energy has Scotland put into the grid and got not a penny for? How much extra money has Scotlnad being forced to pay for putting energy on the grid compared with England?
That is money the SnP has wasted us with their obstinate and unforgivable inaction.
MY COMMENTS
As we enter a period of electoral activity all the signs are there. The SNP are falling over themselves to talk about Independence. The Nicola can do no wrong Messiah band are oozing loyalty from every pore. Never mind what has gone before, don’t mention GRA, who cares about ferries and around £500 million squandered…so far! No everything is going great and we have a strong message to unite the YES MOVEMENT.
Except you must vote SNP 1 and 2 AND you must under no circumstances vote for any other Party other than the SNP. All that is missing is we want you to help elect Unionist councillors because make no mistake that is EXACTLY what you will be doing if you follow the instructions.
Should you care? I think so because what will happen is the minute the elections are over the Unionists will form coalitions on councils all over the country to block Indy control of their councils and the SNP directive will mean there are insufficient other parties and Independents to join with the SNP elected to stop them. What does this mean? It means Unionist control of every council where the SNP fail to win over 50% of the seats under the PR system. Why would she do that? Power to her is all, there must be no other Independence Messiah but Nicola. So we get a rerun of the Scottish General Election where SNP 1 and 2 resulted in dozens of Unionist MSP’s being elected to Holyrood.
I really fear Nicola’s end plan, agreed with WHOEVER in the UK is pulling her strings is that Boris grants her the Section 30 and a new and final referendum is organised using the completely flawed franchise, with the Yes Side laboured with a leader who has no intention in winning and who has intentionally made no progress in setting out our positions on currency, pensions, Efta, Eu providing open goals for the Unionists to win again. That is the very real danger of the Nicola fan club, because they are completely blind to these very real risks.
We live in very dangerous times for the Independence cause.
BEAT THE CENSORS
Sadly some sites had given up on being pro Indy sites and have decided to become merely pro SNP sites where any criticism of the Party Leader or opposition to the latest policy extremes, results in censorship being applied. This, in the rather over optimistic belief that this will suppress public discussion on such topics. My regular readers have expertly worked out that by regularly sharing articles on this site defeats that censorship and makes it all rather pointless. I really do appreciate such support and free speech in Scotland is remaining unaffected by their juvenile censorship. Indeed it is has become a symptom of weakness and guilt. Quite encouraging really.
FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS
Are available easily by clicking on the links in the Home and Blog sections of this website. by doing so you will be joining thousands of other readers who enjoy being notified by email when new articles are published. You will be most welcome.
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND 
I wonder if Mia actually read what Davidson had to say. She stated that a majority in the Scottish Parliament is enough to warrant a referendum. She did not say or imply that a majority of SMPs could end the treaty of union, and nor could they.
LikeLike
They could Calum. if the will existed the Treaty of Union is a international treaty and therefore governed by the Vienna Treaty. Did you not read where Mia mentioned that?
LikeLiked by 13 people
Er, what “treaty” of Union?
The Articles of Union were negotiated in treaty-like fashion by the Commissioners, but Queen Anne never signed any Treaty with herself in her two capacities as Queen of Scotland and England.
The only things she signed were two Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland and England, which merged those two bodies into one.
The only way to repeal those Acts is by a majority vote of the merged Parliament.
Which will not happen without a majority referendum vote.
LikeLike
Rest assured I have listened to that clip dozens of times since 2016, Callum.
If a majority of pro independence MSPs is sufficient to warrant a referendum, why is it that we have not had one despite continuous mandates over a period of SIX YEARS, Callum?
Did you hear Ruth Davidson in that clip mentioning anything at all about a section 30 or having to ask permission from Westminster? I did not. That was 2011. She could not say anything about seeking permission because if this was the case she would have never been able to say “and this is what democracy is all about”. Because there is nothing democratic about having a majority in Scotland’s parliament for independence and this being frustrated by England MPs who do not hold the mandate of a single vote from Scotland.
If in 2011 Scotland did not have to ask permission from England MPs to hold a referendum, then we did not need to ask for permission in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and we do not have to ask permission in 2022.
So why are we told we have to? Why have 8 years of Scotland’s time and revenues from its assets been wasted?
What exactly is the difference between 2011 and 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022?
The difference is that in 2011 we had a real pro independence leader commanding the SNP., a leader who truly believed in Scotland’s popular sovereignty, a leader who truly sought Scotland’s independence. A real pro independence leader who sought to protect Scotland’s assets and Scotland’s infrastructure. A leader who cared about Scotland. And that is why Mr Salmond had to be ejected from the SNP and from Scotland’s politics.
Since 14 November 2014 I am not sure who has been leading the SNP, and if the SNP has been led from Scotland or from the sewers of London, but what looks like is that the Westminster designer PR product who claims to lead it has no interest at all in independence only to stop it, and to force New Labour’s policy on to the SNP.
Claiming Scotland needs a S30, or even pretending to seriously seek one when it is Scotland’s legitimate right as one of the only two signatories of the treaty of union to unilaterally end the treaty after so many breaches of the articles and after the many changes in circumstances, is deliberately undermining Scotland’s popular sovereignty and frankly a dereliction of duty.
To claim that the referendum is the only route to exit this union is a lie.
To let our democratic mandates expire or to even suggest we don’t have one is undermining Scotland’s popular sovereignty and democracy.
To claim that the war in Ukraine or COVID is more important than pursuing independence It is undermining Scotland’s political sovereignty. Neither Covid nor the war in Ukraine has stopped politics in England nor Sturgeon handing over our assets or taking selfies during the Cop26 with international dignitaries, so why have they been used as an excuse to stop independence?
Ruth Davidson does not need to say that a majority of pro independence MPs is sufficient to end the union because this has been known since the SNP’s inception. Entering at treaty or leaving it is a political decision. It was a majority of Scotland MPs in 1706 what brought the union about. This was against the will of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland, yet, a simple majority of MPs is all what it took. It was an undemocratic event where some MPs who would vote against were not whipped so they did not attend and others were bribed to vote in favour of the union. It was a dishonest vote, done dishonestly. If that was enough to bring the union about, a simple majority of MPs voting to end the treaty is all what it is needed.
It was only around 2007 that the SNP changed its policy from a majority of SNP MPs being a mandate to terminate the union to requiring a referendum. Looking in retrospective, one has to wonder if Westminster’s dormant cells within the SNP were already forcing a policy change at the time because they predicted a win by the SNP and were starting to lock the doors to avoid a real pro indy leader ending the treaty. The referendum is not a legal requirement, and it never was. It is simply a political choice by a political party. A choice that the collusion of Sturgeon’s SNP with the other political arms of the British state have abused for the last 6 years to deliberately delay and deny us independence.
“nor could they”
Yes, they could, yes they can and yes they should have. And that is why Nicola Sturgeon rushed in 2015 to remove the wheels of the SNP by claiming a vote for the SNP, the party of independence, was no longer a vote for independence. She did that because as the party of independence those 56 MPs should have either not taken their seats or vote to end the treaty. If she had not said that, not ending the treaty would expose them as the unionists they have become. Go on, ask her why, according to her, a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence even when the seeking of independence is the main article of the SNP’s constitution. My bet is that this woman never had any intention of delivering independence and all what she was after was to supply seats to Labouor in Westminster, hence her interest in aligning SNP policiy to Labour’s.
There were polls already in October 2014 predicting a landslide for the SNP. If Sturgeon was a real independence leader she would have never said that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence. She would have said the precise opposite. So why didn’t she? In my view because she was conducting damage limitation on behalf of Westminster.
The SNP could have ended the union in 2015, in 2016, in 2017, in 2018, in 2019, in 2020, in 2021 and since January 2022.
So why didn’t they?
Because Sturgeon’s SNP is no longer a party of independence. They have become New Labour ‘s trojan horse in Scotland’s parliament and New Labour back up seats in Westminster.. I wonder how long is going to take for Nicola Sturgeon to take over from Gordon Brown and claim that all what we need is Devo Max.
The SNP has had EIGHT YEARS to deliver independence. They have FAILED miserably. Hell, they haven’t even tried. Eight years should have been more than enough to set up all the infrastructure Scotland needs to act as an independent state. Instead, Sturgeon has used those 8 years to hand over control of our assets and continue to haemorrhage our revenues into Westminster’s coffers.
Time for the SNP to be ejected from the MP seats they have totally wasted playing by Westminster’s rules instead of Scotland’s rules. Time for other candidates who are serious about independence to take, or rather, to refuse to take, those seats.
LikeLiked by 21 people
Yet they all everyone of them fail the folk who put bums in seats #SnpNoActionPartyDestroyingScotland.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Never have truer words been written. Excellent article enhanced by Iain’s comments.
LikeLiked by 13 people
At an open meeting in Stirling run by Alba last week, Alex Salmond said that the Section 30 route was only one route, not the only route. He had used it because it was the easiest route at the time. But now the SNP had turned the Section 30 as the Holy Grail when it was INDEPENDENCE that was the Holy Grail.
LikeLiked by 20 people
sorry, the SNP has turned a Section 30 INTO the Holy Grail.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The thing I take issue with is the nation that Scotland should take a share of the UK’s debt. This is wrong on two counts.
First, if ‘England’ is the successor state then it is entirely legally responsible for the current debt, and this was confirmed during the 2014 campaign by Osborne himself.
Secondly, taking on a share of a debt which is not legally ours incurs ‘moral hazard’ and would affect Scotland’s credit rating.
It sounds like a nice, reasonable thing to do, but it is entirely unnecessary.
LikeLiked by 10 people
Dave, the debt the UK has generated will not simply go away. Who assumes it depends on who becomes the successor state, and that very much depends on the route towards independence we take (or we are forced to take)
Under route 2 it is obvious that the successor state will be the Kingdom of England and therefore it should assume the debt, but also take on all the goodies, for example the UN and Nato seats, the infrastructure, the Bank of England (called of England but being in fact the Bank of the UK), the currency, the army and army equipment, or the trade deals already in place for the UK.
Let’s remember that under this route Westminster retains full control of the process of independence and negotiation of the assets, meaning that the Kingdom of England might try to dump some of its debt on us during the negotiations in exchange for something that might have belonged to us anyway if we had taken route 1.
The perks that come with becoming the successor state are assets. Under route1 Scotland and England will be negotiating as equal partners when dividing the assets, therefore there should be several possibilities. How feasible each one of them will be is a matter for discussion and will of course depend on both the skill and the intentions of the negotiators acting on behalf of Scotland:
Possibility 1.
Scotland agrees for the Kingdom of England to become the UK successor state, meaning the Kingdom of England assumes the debt but also inherits the NATO, UN seats, embassies, tax havens, army and other infrastructure already in place in the UK (civil service, HMRC and other quangos, Westminster, etc) and trade deals the UK is already part of.
This position would leave the Kingdom of England with the debt but in a much less uncertain position than Scotland. Scotland would have to have something already in the pipeline prepared to jump into, like membership to EFTA or the single market to be less exposed, because it would walk out without trade agreements unless one with the Kingdom of England is agreed as part of the negotiations. It would of course have to have a National Bank and a currency in place.
But having the Kingdom of England as the only trading partner, and a demanding one at that, is, in my view, a massive risk that could seriously curtail our freedom to cut deals with other countries/unions
Possibility 2.
The Kingdom of England agrees for Scotland to become the successor state of the UK of Great Britain. Remember that the United Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from a bipartite union with only 2 signatories. Each one of the two has the exact same right to become the successor state. Becoming the successor state and all the perks associated with it should therefore be open for negotiation under this route. This option would give more certainty for Scotland, but together with the perks of being the successor state come also the inconveniences and the obligations like the debt and other agreements with the international community that were cut by England’s representatives, not Scotland’s. I do not think this is the best route for Scotland at all.
Possibility 3.
There is no agreement on who of the two partners becomes the successor state of the UK of Great Britain, or neither of the two actually wants to be the successor state. In that instance, the UK as such disappears and both, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland become the successor states in terms of the debt and the obligations, unless these are lifted. All the perks get dividend between the two partners.
Possibility 4.
During the negotiations, independently of who becomes the successor state, all the assets that are not natural assets and linked to the geographical location and obligations and debt are divided on proportional parts. But for this to ever work you need two honest partners. I am not sure the kingdom of England, with a vested interest in keeping control over Scotland, its territory and assets can ever be considered an honest partner.
Handing over to the Kingdom of England the title of being the UK successor state has its advantages but also disadvantages. And there would be a difference also on the outcome depending on what position Scotland starts the negotiation from.
In my personal opinion, Scotland has a much better chance if it starts the negotiation as one of the two equal signatories of a treaty who is exercising its legitimate right to terminate the treaty of union on the basis of its breach and on the basis of a variety of changes in circumstances. Both perfectly legitimate reasons under the current Viena Convention of the law of treaties to terminate a treaty.
At present, however, Sturgeon and the SNP carcass she claims to lead appear to be forcing us to enter a cul de sac where our perfectly legitimate right to terminate the treaty as one of the two signatories of the treaty is being denied and substituted for the fabricated “privilege” of having all the inconveniences and none of the perks of acting as a region of the UK of Great Britain that is attempting to secede and has stupidly put itself completely at the mercy of a parliament and courts controlled by our partner.
Scotland’s borders have not changed since 1706 so there is no reason, in my opinion to justify tying ourselves to route 2 other than if it represented a clear advantage for Scotland. 8 years of no movement towards independence, 8 years of unlawfully denying us our exercise in self determination, 8 years of continuous haemorrhaging our natural resources revenues into the UK’s coffers so England can continue enjoying the largest part of them and two years of witnessing thousands of unnecessary deaths due to COVID because we did not control our borders, show that the few advantages of taking this route have not been capitalised at all nor there is any intention from the SNP to ever capitalise on them.
Under route 2, Scotland should have had after 8 years clear evidence of infrastructure progress towards becoming an independent state. We should have progressively taken more and more powers. and control of our assets. We should have started to enter negotiations for trade deals. What we see is the exact opposite, suggesting the SNP under Sturgeon is either not progressing independence at all and locking us into this union even more, or they have irresponsibly handed over all control to Westminster to build our infrastructure as an independent state, meaning we could be waiting a whole century before that ever happens.
At this moment in time, after being lied to and deceived for 8 years by Sturgeon’s SNP, I suspect the only viable route left to us is route 1
Let’s remember that under Route 2 we are subjected to “UK” law and UK courts. Under route 1, the legitimacy of Westminster to create more laws/rewrite the present ones “on behalf” of Scotland is terminated the moment the treaty is ended, the same as the legitimacy of the so called “UK Supreme Court” to enforce those laws or to challenge our bills, and the same as the legitimacy of other UK quangos like the Electoral Commission to dictate the franchise or question in the ballots.
In my opinion, the only reason why we are still being threatened with Westminster or the so called “UK” Supreme Court challenging legislation passed in Holyrood for a referendum, and why the UK Electoral Commission has a say in the question in the ballot or the franchise is because Sturgeon and her SNP carcass had placed us in a suspended limbo in between Route 1 and Route 2 where we get all the inconveniences of Route 2, but none of the perks, one of these being the actual, tangible progress towards building adequate infrastructrue to be in a position to act as an independent state.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Mia, I get annoyed sometimes when people refer to the UK as “England”, although often it arises through ignorance. You should really know better but you’re basically doing something very similar. If Scotland leaves the Union, that doesn’t only leave “the Kingdom of England”; it leaves the rest of the UK, including Wales and Northern Ireland. It really is quite insulting to these countries to ignore tham and merely include them in “the Kingdom of England”.
LikeLike
davey: the original UK was only Scotland and England (and Wales). NI decided to remain part of the UK after Ireland left. Our case would have to be against England (and Wales) because that is encompassed by the Treaty. Ireland actually joined the UK, after its establishment by the Treaty, as did NI, and they had no hand in founding the UK. They must make their own cases, separately from ours, I’m afraid.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Daveytee19
The term “united kingdom” refers to the kingdoms of Scotland and England because both Wales and Ireland were already under the control of the crown of England when the treaty of union 1707 was signed.
If I am not mistaken, from the Act of Annexation in 1542, Ireland passed to be part of the dominions of the King of England. Ireland therefore entered the Treaty of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England not as a signatory partner or as a fundamental constitutional part of the treaty, but as a dominion of the Kingdom of England.
Wales was annexed to the crown of England in 1284 and incorporated in 1536. The same as Ireland, Wales entered the treaty of union not as a signatory party but as a dominion of the Kingdom of England.
As far as I know, but I am happy to be corrected if wrong, neither Ireland nor Wales have the equivalent to Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689 by which the people of Scotland could depose a monarch. In other words, unless they declared themselves a republic they would be stuck with England’s monarch in perpetuity.
The Treaty of Union was therefore between only 2 signatory partners, which are the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. The anexes of each of them are not “the rest of the UK”, they are the anexes of the Kingdoms of Scotland or England and, unless they ceased to be dominions, upon terminating the treaty they will follow their respective kingdoms. Neither Wales nor NI so far have seceded from the Kingdom of England. This may well change in the future.
The way I see it, there are only two possible scenarios here:
1. If Scotland exercises its right as a signatory of the treaty of union and unilaterally ends the treaty of union, then unless it is agreed that the Kingdom of England and its dominions becomes the successor state, what remains after is the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. The concept “rest of the UK” has not place.
2. If Scotland takes route 2 and “secedes” from the UK of Great Britain and NI, then what is left is not Scotland + “the rest of the UK”. What is left is Scotland + the UK of Great Britain and NI or whatever name they choose to give themselves thereafter.
LikeLiked by 6 people
A stance that Richard Murphy shares.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indy will not happen until we have a leader who wants it more than money, power and celebrity status, settle in its going to be a long haul.
LikeLiked by 12 people
“Settle in”? That’s got a familiar ring. We don’t have time to settle in and a long haul is exactly what Westminster is depending on.
LikeLiked by 12 people
I certainly don’t have time to settle in , I’m far too old and before I pop my clogs I want my country independent for the children and grandchildren of Scotland.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Supporters of the Union or the current status of limbo, will dance on the head of a pin to argue increasing complexities in achieving Independence.
The simple reality is that you need leadership resolutely committed to the objective of Independence. They do not join the endless technical debates such as currency and borders.
Every debate on the topic has one objective – it asserts that Scotland requires London to approve, consent, acknowledge, agree, grant etc etc
When you have a “Leader” who divides Scotland’s YES movement and loudly proclaims that her Master in London has to approve a Referendum then the cause is already lost.
The current SNP organisation is the last remaining hurdle to Independence.
The Union was created through bribery, blackmail and threats. A few thousand people had the vote to elect a little over a hundred mostly wealthy landed gentry members of the Scottish Parliament. The Sovereign People of Scotland had no say in the Union.
London created a “New” English Parliament by adding a few seats and calling it the UK (part of the bribes to Scottish individuals.An English permanent majority of 10 to 1 fixed.
The UK was born in corruption and we are still giving the Elite of the old Empire the authority to decide if we can even raise our voices.
We need the Leaders we deserve and not the SNP business Manager we have.
Every topic you prepare a case for in detail such as currency, trade, borders, Pensions etc will alway be refuted by “We won’t agree”. The Bank of England, The Major Companies, The Civil Service, The MSM are ALL at the summons of the Elite.
The same battle has been faced by several dozen Countries in the past….you either want Independence or you don’t but if you do remember the History of these Counties then pick leaders who want Independence even more than you do.
LikeLiked by 16 people
I would pursue a multi-stranded strategy with options in order of preference (not an STV system!):
1. Treaty of Union breach(es)
Scotland could rescind the Treaty of Union due to many breaches since 1707, most recently Brexit.
2. Claim of Right (1689)
We could simply assert the supremacy of Scotland’s political representatives (of the Scottish sovereign people) in a National Convention of MPs, MSPs and Councillors.
3. Plebiscite Election
Stand pro-Indy candidates on the single issue of statehood for Scotland at Holyrood and/or Westminster.
4. Decolonisation
We approach the United Nations claiming that dominance from our English neighbours effectively makes Scotland a colony and that we wish to decolonise.
Note:
Should the SNP ever agree a S30 referendum with Westminster we must boycott it as the British will ensure that it is gerrymandered and undermined.
LikeLiked by 9 people
YES Duncanio showing the True Aim of Alba – sabotaging IndyRef2!!!
LikeLike
What IndyRef2?
🎼She marched them up to the top of the hill…then She marched them down again 🎼
LikeLiked by 15 people
Avoiding participating in a referendum whose terms of reference i.e. question posed, answer options, electoral franchise, plebiscite timing and vote counting inspectorate are set or influenced by a foreign government or third party country has nothing to do with Alba but everything to do with not engaging with an undemocratic and fraudulent process.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Bill Tosh, Indyref 2 was sabotaged the very day Sturgeon claimed an S30 was required for it to take place. Further sabotaging has been the placing in the hands of an UK quango the supervision of the question in the ballot. But the biggest sabotaging has to be locking Scotland into a flawed franchise designed to leave the backdoor open for Westminster to get hundreds of thousands of union activists from outwith Scotland to cast their vote in the referendum so the yes vote can be frustrated.
Needless to say that continuous immigration into Scotland and emigration of our fellow Scots away from Scotland looking for the opportunities they cannot find here, exacerbates this problem with every new year that passes us by because more and more native population is being substituted from population coming from elsewhere and with no allegiance to Scotland.
There are sufficient articles in the MSM showing that in 2014 Scotland’s natives voted yes to independence, but their vote was frustrated by those coming from elsewhere. A “professional”, ethical and principled “leader” of the independence movement who is in the position of FM would have immediately burst the obvious loophole that allowed the self-determination of Scotland’s natives to be frustrated in 2014.
Eight years after the loophole of the franchise became evident and the pretender in post hasn’t even bothered in looking for the pin to burst that loophole. Never mind other obvious loopholes like the one allowing political parties and other entities with HQ outwith Scotland to use funds raised elsewhere other than Scotland to frustrate our exercise in self determination.
Where does Labour, Tories and Lib dem raise most of their funds? Where do the funds used by the propaganda unit in Scotland’s office come from exactly? Where do the funds from “Better Together” or its rebranding version come from? How can ever funds provided by voters in England, Wales, NI or outwith the UK be allowed to be used to frustrate Scotland’s exercise in self determination, and yet those tasked with the delivery of a fair referendum still keep the pretence such flawed referendum is a lawful exercise in self determination ?
LikeLiked by 9 people
I don’t agree with taking on a share of the debt either. rUK will demand successor state status, they crave the UN Security council seat and we should let them have it with the debt and the WMDs as no new state is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Even if we are both successor states, Scotland had no control over spending and thus the running up of debt so why should we take it? The McCrone report stated that Scotland would have an embarrassing surplus and be one of the world’s richest places. Norway with less oil and few other resources compared to Scotland is set for life. We shouldn’t take the debt and they should think themselves lucky we don’t ask for reparations given how much they have extracted from us over the years!
LikeLiked by 9 people
Oops that was a reply for Dave M – how did it end up here?
However for Duncanio I would put decolonisation before plebiscite election personally. I don’t trust them not to find a why to sabotage an election.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Just to be clear I do believe in popular ratification of actions of our political representatives. We do need the backing of the common folk … it’s just that the rules for the plebiscite should be made in Scotland, not Westminster.
LikeLiked by 9 people
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19208656.richard-murphy-financial-times-gets-wrong-scottish-independence/
LikeLike
Boycotting referendums or elections seldom if ever achieves anything at all.
LikeLike
I would agree, Duncanio.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Iain, Our 1st Minister has Stories on You!
But Unlike You She is Too Professional to Spout about You on Twitter!
All She has to do is what Comrade Johnson has Done on wee Rishi!!!
LikeLike
Why don’t you follow the example of your “too professional” leader and leave the innuendo to others.
LikeLiked by 11 people
Or perhaps Tosh could learn that we are debating ideas not playing the man here. Even if Iain were discredited that would not change one iota that arguments that are being made.
LikeLiked by 10 people
“Iain, Our 1st Minister has Stories on You!”
And what 1st Minister will that be, Bill Tosh? The empty vessel claiming the credit here in Scotland or the actual “ghost writers” sitting in London and pulling the strings of the vessel, you know, those who arranged for crucial evidence to be suppressed from the public, from the Fabiani’s Farce and from Mr Salmond’s trial?
LikeLiked by 14 people
Such powerful and dramatic information that Sturgeon has only shared it with Bill Tosh her closest confidant…..do you realise how stupid that sounds 😂😂😂
Who is the one paying massive sums to keep HER secrets out of the press by use of the Law. Eh Bill?
LikeLiked by 11 people
You are learning Bill. That type of thinking and tactics could get you top of the SNP these days. You are becoming mainstream, readers should take note and look forward to Mr BT being the next alphabet witness.
LikeLiked by 13 people
Sounds very much like our Bill Tosh is threatening you Iain.
Seems that your blog must be annoying Nicola Sturgeon and her clique. Seems that Nicola Sturgeon has stories on you and that all she has to do is release them. All part and parcel I am afraid of how Sturgeon and the apparatus of state operate.
Make up stories about Alex Salmond, or Mark Hirst. Drip the poison. Even use the police and prosecution as malign political weapons too. it’s all in the Sturgeon playbook and Tosh tells you so. He’s giving you the gypsy warning. It’s the way Sturgeon and her husband do politics. Nasty and vicious. But those who live by the sword, live by the stiletto, usually die by it too.
Sturgeons time will come to an end. She and her rancid filthy ilk have held back independence but they have not stopped it. And their threats now will not stop it.
LikeLiked by 15 people
It does sound like that. Then it’s coming from Bill Tosh so pardon me for not getting overexcited over his “threat”. You are right though it gives us all a glimpse of how the SNP are expected to behave these days…even by their own supporters.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Indeed, ‘hatred’ is the currency of the SNP leadership and their supporters. It’s all they know and all they have to offer.
LikeLiked by 9 people
It is not only that the plebiscite election is the best route. In my opinion, it is the only route and one that has already been tested by Sinn Fein and proven to be adequate. Great get geared up for the next General Election and turn the SNP votes into Alba votes – job done.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I’m afraid that my knowleldge of Irish history is not good and Google has not helped me, so could you please tell me when Sinn Fein successully had or used a plebiscite election. As things stand they seem to be advocating an all-Ireland referendum in 2025.
LikeLike
Ooops, got it now I think – presumably you’re refrerring to the 1918 election when Sinn Fein achieved not only a landslide visctory in term of seats, but also one in terms of people, with 65% of those in counties that subsequently formed the Irish Free State voting for Sinn Fein and its policy of independence. Not entirely successful, of course, as it was followed by a 3-year civil war and then by dominion status for nine tyears, but certainly the first substantial step to independence. Mind you, I don’t think it would have been anything like such a strong signal had more people voted agaist them than for them, regardless of the seats won.
LikeLike
A key role of the colonizer, according to Albert Memmi, is to ensure that the native never seriously views his liberation as being a remote possibility. You appear to be doing a good job in that regard, daveytee19.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Controversial? Of course…..but too true, if you’re willing to remove the blinkers and see the whole picture ________________________________
LikeLiked by 4 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
To me it is the psychology of the Sturgeon SNP that is deficient. It does not act the part. Someone with an English accent tells it to «sit» and, however reluctantly, it does.
Is that not a pavlovian colonial response, reproducible wherever the colonist has set foot?
There is a kind of exceptionalism in the system that in view of Scotland’s rôle in the British empire and its many contributions to Englishness, to invoke the term colonial in regard to the relationship is misplaced. That merely indicates a blindspot as to the cultural workings of colonialism and its ability to absorb what it considers useful and disdain/caricature the rest. Ape the colonist but do not presume to be yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ireland and Scotland were not classified as colonies because they sent MPs to Westminster
“Real” colonies like India and African states did not have any MPs.
Of course Ireland was treated as a colony and Scotland still is
Prof Baird has illustrated Scotland’s “colonial status” in many articles on this site
LikeLiked by 5 people
However defined the colonial mindset is essentially a psychological condition. One of its debilitating side effects is resignation to ones «fate» for fear of taking the initiative. Many Scots hide behind the condition.
This is a situation where you either put up or shut up. The «Scotch whinge» is a joy, tiresome, but a joy nevertheless to the opposition. It suggests «no change» anytime soon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The colonial set- up includes not just its psychological effects (mindset) as you described but also English and Scottish Unionists occupying top positions in administration, the judiciary, universities, quangos etc.
Whatever the indivdual difficulties one may have in overcoming the Scottish cringe mindset, they are nothing in comparison with obstacles to getting Independence-supporting Scots into these key strategic positions
LikeLiked by 3 people
Iain/Mia: the Vienna Convention does not and cannot, cover the Treaty because it covers only modern treaties, mainly post WW II. There are special tribunals that can deal with old treaties. What we need to do first is to have the Treaty ‘sound’ in Scots Law, the build a case on its having been misinterpreted since 1707 by the English MPs and Lords – not the Commissioners and not Queen Anne, both of who acknowledged its partnership qualities. Two very eminent men, professors in Public Law (constitutional law) have done much work on this, and a first-rate constitutionalist could build on their groundwork. They are David Walker (sadly deceased, but his work lives on) and Ian Campbell. Their work is accessible in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland. It is that misinterpretation, those breachings and the ultra vires workings of Westminster vis-a-vis Scotland that require to investigated and a case built on those.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You can be strong and convinced that you CAN.
You can be reticent and be certain that you CAN’T
You will be right either way.
I don’t want to be a CAN’T like Sturgeon.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Lorna, I refer to my comment 16th Mar 2022 at 7:34 pm
“Article 4 (“Non-retroactivity of the present Convention”) starts by:
“Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention”…
The principles of “Ex consensu advenit vinculum” (principle of free consent to enter the treaty), “pacta sunt servanda” (all agreements must be respected), “Rebus sic stantibus” (unenforceability of a treaty due to fundamentally changed circumstances), “Res inter alios acta” (a contract cannot adversely affect the rights of one who is not a party) and “Bona fide” (acting in good faith), are universally recognized as being fundamental part of International law independently or not if they are also included in the Vienna Convention. The principle of non-retroactivity of treaties is also customary rule in international law before establishing the Vienna Convention.
The breaches of the conditions of the treaty of union would fall within “pacta sunt servanda” because those conditions are part of the agreement. You breach the conditions, you breach the agreement.
,
The material changes in circumstances resulting from forcing Brexit on Scotland, for example, would fall within “Rebus sic stantibus”.
The deliberate misinterpretation of the treaty of union as a way to continue exploiting Scotland and take control of its resources for example, would fall within the breach of the concept of “good faith”.
Those principles are acknowledged in the articles of the Vienna Convention, but they were also part of international law before the convention was established, hence applicable to the Treaty of Union.
These principles are currently applying to the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 which is also an “old treaty” and a contemporary of the Treaty of Union 1707.
This is a quote rom Lord Elton and it was taken from the debate “Membership of the House of Lords: Scottish Peers (n9)” which took place on 22 June 1999:
““It takes two sides to make a treaty …, and if one side loses its rights so does the other. That is something that the Government cannot afford to do either, because if they abrogate the treaty in any way they will soon find the Government of Spain requiring them to abrogate the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, with incalculable consequences for the nationality of Gibraltar”
Lord Elton was of course referring to the potential for accidentally breaching the fundamental principles of the Treaty of Union and tells us that the treaty of union may be old, but the pacta sunt servanda still stands with regards to its articles. Lord Elton was very aware, as are others, that the Spanish are watching like hawks for any opportunity to declare the old, but extant treaty of Utrecht void and regain Gibraltar.
Furthermore, there is the matter of consistency, If an state becomes a signatory of the Vienna Convention, as the UK did in April 1970, and embraces the convention in its body of law, as the UK appears to have been during debates in Westminster regarding the Withdrawal agreement and the NI Protocol, then it cannot simply go for the inconsistency of demanding its treaty partners to fully abide by the Viena Convention for some treaties and then itself discharge all its responsibilities under the convention for others. This would leave the state with no credibility at all as a reliable partner.
So there may not be a theoretical obligation to follow the convention on the aspects not included in general international law before the Vienna Convention was conceived with regards to this treaty, but certainly there is a practical one.
LikeLiked by 5 people
“I really fear Nicola’s end plan, agreed with WHOEVER in the UK is pulling her strings…” -IL
———
Might that WHOEVER be none other than the Crown Agent? He after all has the lowdown in the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in the Alex Salmond stitch-up.
If Nicola has the choice of bowing out of Scottish politics with a big UN sinecure or ending up in HMP Polmont, which will she choose? And what price that choice?
But there really will be no need for such an overt vulgarity is, “pulling strings”. Read Craig Murray on how the British establishment functions and you can be sure that Nicola, now well embedded in that establishment, has got the message.
LikeLiked by 6 people
“Might that WHOEVER be none other than the Crown Agent?”
it might. But then the question becomes: “who is pulling the strings of the Crown Agent?”
Who controls the controller? Who does the Crown Agent report to? Who instructs the Crown Agent what to do? Who instructed the suppression of the evidence? Who instructed the Crown agent to take the rather unconventional step of passing Mr Salmond’s case onto the police? Would the case have grown arms and legs at all and would it have involved so many police agents investigating it if it was the civil servants who passed it to the police instead of being the Crown Agent? Who authorised such an enormous expense and the allocation of such a huge amount of police resources?
The Crown Agent is just another chain link . Where the chain is attached to is what we need to find out if we want to get to the bottom of it.
LikeLiked by 8 people
“who is pulling the strings of the Crown Agent?”
——-
The clue is in the job -title.
But the Crown, as we are told, acts on the advice of ministers.
His responsible minister, the Lord Advocate, has been in the job for about 5 minutes. The minister SHE reports to is NS herself.
Given what Harvey knows about Sturgeon and her #Metae cabal, who do you think is in the position to pull whose strings?
LikeLiked by 2 people
The sombre comedy of the new normal,
https://off-guardian.org/2022/04/09/ukraine-a-new-battle-in-the-old-war-of-the-new-normal/
If a conflict stoked by a decade US meddling and forced ukrainization can be passed off as unprovoked Russian aggression the promoters of Scottish independence will have to choose their allies very carefully.
Separatism, secession, bad, very bad, totally evil.
But who cares, just get on with the job before anglicization makes of Scotland a Puerto Rico or Hawai’i.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Facepalm
LikeLike
Whatever that means, burying complacent head in sand perhaps,🤡
LikeLiked by 2 people
No other country that has become independent has taken on their colonial masters debt why should we.
300 years of being plundered, Genocide and Ethnic cleansing. How much free Oil, Gas and Electricity have they extracted from us , we subsidise the UK .How many millions of Scots over the years of the Union have lost there lives for Empire . We should be seeking reparations from the UK not paying for our own freedom.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I think we’d have a choice. We could indeed refuse to take on any of the UK debt, but in that case we wouldn’t get any of its assets either. Alternatively, we could negotiate a scheme where we’d take on some of the debt and also get some of the assets.
LikeLike
I think you missed the Treasury Statement in 2014. They had to calm the markets and stated that they were fully responsible for the full UK dept in the event of Scottish Independence.
We paid for all those Assets. CrossRail, Thames Barrier etc we are allocated £4 Billion a year for interest on Money spent in England. We are allocated £4 Billion a year for Defence share etc etc etc
LikeLiked by 5 people
“We could indeed refuse to take on any of the UK debt, but in that case we wouldn’t get any of its assets either”
What do you mean by “its” assets? Those are assets Scotland paid a contribution for. They are as much Scotland’s as they are the Kingdom of England’s.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The Queen can bail you out. They have plenty of cash stolen from the Empire over Centuries!
She can purr all she wants in her estates in England. The Scottish ones will fetch a few Bob to end Scottish child poverty.
LikeLiked by 5 people
DT: “It really depends what you mean by a majority”
Mia: A majority of MP seats is a majority.
DT: It’s a majority of seats. It’s not a majority of the people. That has always been the problem of the UK’s so-called democratic system – it isn’t democratic at all in that time after time governments have been elected with virtually dictatorial powers even though more people voted again them than for them. It has been roundly condemned time and time again and is one of the reasons that Britain has done so badly since 1945 in comparison with most other Western European countries, most of which seem to have a far better understanding of what democratic means. Yet here you are espousing such a flawed and undemocratic system to decide on Scotland’s future, I suspect purely and simply because you’ve decided that we can’t win a majority of the people over to the cause of independence through a truly democratic system. As for listening to Ruth Davidson, don’t make me boak. If you really think that we can go to the UK and the world and say, “Look, we got most seats in the election and so we’re claiming independence even though most people here don’t actually want it”, you’re sadly mistaken.
DT: “Certainly the SNP won seat majorities in the 2015, 2017 and 2019 general elections, and in the 2011 and 2021 Scottish elections, the latter with the Greens. But they’ve never won a majority of the people”
Mia: And? I invite you to read again what Davidson said in 2007. A majority of the seats in parliament for pro-indy parties is all what was ever needed, not a majority of the vote. In 2015 there was already more than 50% of the vote for pro independence parties. If we are not independent today is because Sturgeon did not want to and the SNP refused to hold her feet to the fire. We have been betrayed.
DT: Yes, 2015 fractionally over 50% for the SNP and the Greens (I wish I could believe that the Greens, or at least their members, are really committed to independence). But the general election of 2015 was the one where there was no SNP manifesto commitment to hold a referendum or to go for independence – Nicola Sturgeon made that quite clear both in the leaders debates and at the manifesto launch where she specifically said that the election “was not about independence”. Maybe that’s why the SNP did so well in that election.
DT: “I’m a believer in the will of the people being judged by how they actually voted, not how these votes were subsequently converted into seats through whatever electoral system had to apply at the time”
Mia: It does not matter what you are a believer of or not. What matters here is that the UK is a parliamentary democracy and therefore what determines the mandate to end the union is the number of seats, not the number of votes or what one individual or another believes in or wants to see.
Wow – and this from someone who has habitually trashed the UK system and UK parliamentary democracy! It doesn’t matter at all what you say – what matters is that if we are to gain legally recognised independence the rest of the world will want to see that most people in Scotland want it rather than that the vote was engineered through a flawed electoral system that can and does frequently disregard the wishes of the majority.
Mia: Sturgeon’s SNP has had 3 absolute majorities in Westminster. With each of the three it could have ended the treaty of union, but they refused to do so hiding behind one excuse or another.
DT: I don’t want to be an apologist for the SNP, but Sturgeon has never promised anything more than a referendum, and she has also made it plain that that has to be a legal referendum. That is her sole manifesto commitment and as I’ve said even that didn’t appear in 2015. The SNP has never promised to end the Treaty of Union or withdraw from parliament or any of the other harebrained schemes sometimes put forward. Basically you’re criticising Sturgeon for not doing something that she never promised to do. Lord knows there are plenty of reasons to criticise Sturgeon, but that isn’t one of them.
DT: “Basically, if we want the world to recognise our right to independence, we first and foremost have to show that a majority of people living here want it”
Mia: Nope. We don’t need the world to recognise anything. What we need is our pro indy MPs to end the treaty of union. It is an international treaty that has been breached countless of times since its inception. Besides, there have been material changes of circumstances enough to stop the earth spinning. Material changes of circumstances and breaches of the articles of the treaty are all what the world needs to know as to the reason to end the treaty. because those are recognised in the Vienna Convention as valid reasons to terminate a treaty.
DT: Dear oh dear – do you really think we can declare independence, cut ourselves adrift from the UK, and then go off on our own without recognition or support from the rest of the world? Actually, to be fair, some countries have done it but they’ve usually had a sugar daddy which has supported them, eg North Cyprus and Turkey, South Ossettia and Russia, Rhodesia and South Africa – there are several others. None of them have flourished and all are every bit as dependent on their sugar daddy as they were previously under another regime. They’re far from independent.
Mia: There have always been two routes for Scotland’s independence:
Route 1……….
DT: My objections to Route 1: First, the Scottish parliament entered into the Treaty of Union which was stated to last “in perpetuity”. The Scottish parliament, and the sovereignty that that parliament had, no longer exist. But let’s just say that the pro-Indy MPs set up some sort of parliament in Scotland -w hat happens then? Do they just declare Scotland to be an independent nation? Who do you think would pay any attention? I think things would just carry on as previously. Don’t expect the police and the military and the civil service to pay any heed to any such declaration nor, I fear, the Scottish people. Nor should you expect Scotland preparing for such an unlikely event beforehand.
DT: Route 2: Well, as Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have both made clear, a section 30 order and subsequent referendum is the “gold standard”. There could be no doubt of the legality of Scotland’s independence if the referendum was won. The UK would have to co-operate, the world would recognise Scotland, a seat at the UN would be virtually automatic as would entry to EFTA and the EAE (my preferred choice) and then to the EU if subsequently so wished. I think this would have a more likely chance of success than a plebiscite election.
Mia: A plebiscite election however implies following route 1, where the only thing that is needed to end the treaty is a majority of pro indy MPs who are prepared to refuse allegiance to the Queen and to refuse taking their seats. With a plebiscite election Scotland controls the timeline and the rules. With a plebiscite election you do not need a majority of the vote that Westminster will always ensure we will not get. The only thing the parties need is to include it in the manifesto and then get a majority of the seats. It is not only that the plebiscite election is the best route. In my opinion, it is the only route and one that has already been tested by Sinn Fein and proven to be adequate.
DT: OK, so let’s look at this in detail. I actually set out my views in a previous thread and I haven’t changed my mind since then so I’ll just repeat what I said then. First, as a plebiscite election would be within a general election, we wouldn’t be controlling either timeline or rules. You’d have to use the UK franchise system, ie no votes for under-18s. I’d expect there to be only two serious candidates for each seat as the independence parties would presumably band together to put one candidate forward on an Independence ticket, and if they’ve any sense the Unionist parties would also band together and put one candidate forward on a Unionist ticket. It would obviously be much better if the unionists didn’t do that and their parties all put up separate candidates, but I can’t really see them doing that.
So would that achieve a better result than a referendum? Could one reasonably expect that in a majority of constituencies independence votes would outnumber unionist ones? That only happened in 10 constituencies at the last election and it is difficult to see why that situation would radically change – after all, the same people who would vote no in a referendum would presumably still vote unionist in a plebiscite election. Also, 16 and 17 year olds would be excluded. It has been estimated that 30% of Labour voters are in favour of independence, so faced with a straight choice between an independence candidate and a unionist one, a fair number of people who might normally vote Labour could vote independence, but they’d do that in a referendum anyway. On the other hand, polls show that a surprising number of purported SNP supporters don’t want independence, so they might vote for the unionist candidate. But above all, people would be asked to vote for MPs who would then declare some form of independence in a manner that many would regard as illegal and ineffective – don’t think there wouldn’t be unionist propaganda making that abundantly clear – and they might well be right. That alone would put off many many voters who might have been inclined to vote Yes in a referendum where the outcome would be legal and certain. Voters are not inclined to take risks and, frankly, rather than winning any plebiscite election, I fear that we’d come out of it a lot worse than when we went in.
As for Sinn Fein in 2018,they did indeed win a majority of seats but they also took the people with them,winning 65% of the vote in those counties that eventually became part of the Free State, although even that only occurred after a three-year civil war.
Sorry Mia, but I think that your ideas are both unrealistic and utterly undemocratic.
LikeLike
“It’s a majority of seats. It’s not a majority of the people”
so? As I said above the UK is a parliamentary democracy. It is a majority of seats in parliament what determines the democratic mandate. Brexit was forced on to Scotland on 38% of the vote. If the percentage of the vote counted for nothing for an enormous constitutional change over Scotland as it was brexit, then why should it count to end the treaty of union?
” I suspect purely and simply because you’ve decided that we can’t win a majority of the people over to the cause of independence”
There was already a majority for independence in 2014 – it has been acknowledged in the unionist press that the majority of the natives in Scotland voted for independence. It was the vote of those who came from elsewhere what frustrated the Scottish natives’ right to self determination. It is not me who designed the flawed franchise nor allowed UK civil servants to bypass their code of conduct so they could help “to save the union”.
And no. With the present franchise and with a situation where the British state only has to get a couple of hundred of thousand union activists from outwith Scotland on demand to register to vote in Scotland to frustrate the yes vote, I do not think we will ever see an official result where yes wins or where more than 50% of those voting in Scotland will do so for pro indy parties. And no, since 2014 I do no longer trust the elections in Scotland have not been rigged.
“f you really think that we can go to the UK and the world and say…”
Let me stop you right there. I do not think Scotland has to go anywhere and beg for acceptance from anyone, less of all a UK and a parliament that relies on Scotland’s continued consent to exist. A majority of seats is a majority in a parliamentary democracy. I did not make the rules, England MPs did. if you have a problem with that, go and take it up with them.
“Maybe that’s why the SNP did so well in that election”
Nope. There were polls already in October 2014 predicting a landslide for the SNP. You may believe Sturgeon said that to encourage more votes. I however think she did that as a form of damage limitation for the British state, in other words, she was removing the wheels of the SNP as a vehicle of independence to avoid demands that a majority of SNP MPs ended the union.
“this from someone who has habitually trashed the UK system and UK parliamentary democracy”
Yes, that is right. As I said above, I did not make the rules, England MPs did. If you have a problem with those rules, take your complaint to them. If Scotland can take advantage of those rules to purse independence, why should we let the opportunity pass us by? It would be stupid not to. Attempting to take the high moral ground may sound cool, but it will get us nowhere, just like we have not moved an inch from 14 November 2014 despite all the high moral grounds Sturgeon has been so busy climbing to and taking selfies from.
“do you really think we can declare independence, cut ourselves adrift from the UK, and then go off on our own without recognition or support from the rest of the world?”
Yes, actually, I do. And what do you mean exactly by “cut ourselves adrift from the UK”? What I think Scotland should do is not to “cut itself adrift from the UK”, but actually to terminate the UK.
“the Scottish parliament entered into the Treaty of Union which was stated to last “in perpetuity”.”
Sure. The treaty of union also included certain conditions that should be respected in perpetuity. For instance, article III reads:
“‘That the united Kingdom of Great-Britain be represented by one and the same
Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great-Britain”
Well, that article was blown out of the water in 1998, don’t you think?
“Who do you think would pay any attention?”
Well, you can review history and see who paid attention when the Irish did it. But for starters the MPs in Westminster will pay attention because without 45 MPs from Scotland I doubt they can start parliament. They would have to call another election.
“as Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have both made clear, a section 30 order and subsequent referendum is the “gold standard””
I don’t remember Mr Salmond claiming a section 30 and a referendum was a gold standard. What I remember is reading in an article of the BBC that some big wig from Westminster or another almost fell over themselves to hand the S30 to Mr Salmond. In any case, both a referendum and a S30 are elements only required if you choose to pursue route 2. If you follow route 1, which is the one I think Scotland should follow, then both a referendum and a gold standard become totally redundant because by terminating the treaty you are terminating Westminster’s legitimacy to act on behalf of Scotland.
“I think this would have a more likely chance of success than a plebiscite election”
You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I think your proposal does not stand a chance in hell because the British State will do what they have to to frustrate the yes vote again. I think a plebiscite election where candidates to MP stand on a manifesto to terminate the union by refusing to swear allegiance and take the seats is the best, if not our only option.
“as a plebiscite election would be within a general election, we wouldn’t be controlling either timeline or rules”
That is true to certain extent. We will not controle the time in the sense that we will not set up the date. But we will control the time when Scotland ends the treaty if it gets enough MPs who are prepared to end it. We will not control the rules in the sense that we do not control the franchise. But because terminating the treaty of union means removing legitimacy from Westminster and the Supreme Court to act on behalf of Scotland, then in a way we control the rules of negotiation and how we achieve independence.
What control do we have over the referendum? We are currently not controlling neither the date nor the franchise. We have been promised a referendum since 2015. It is 2022 and Sturgeon cannot even give us a date for one. 8 years on from indyref2014 and the exact same loopholes that lost us the vote remain. I rather we take our chances with a plebiscite. The additional bonus is that every single parliamentary election can become a plebiscite. The only thing that is needed is the end of the treaty to be included in the manifesto.
“You’d have to use the UK franchise system, ie no votes for under-18s”
That is right. Take a look at the number of 16 and 17 year olds who voted in the referendum and compare it with the impact an unlimited number of union activists registering to vote in Scotland in a referendum for the sake of frustrating the yes vote. Which one is bigger?
Now think a situation where Westminster has to choose between sending those activists to vote in Scotland during a GE or keeping them in England to help keeping tories in the seats because the tories have been haemorrhaging votes due to the abuses of power and the monumental disaster for the reputation of the party that has been keeping a complete buffoon as PM.
Competing interests. Divide and conquer. Do you begin to see the picture?
“I’d expect there to be only two serious candidates for each seat as the independence parties would presumably band together to put one candidate forward on an Independence ticket”
I think you are incredibly optimistic. I however think there will be a maximum of one serious pro-indy candidate per seat, the Alba one. After eight years being taken for a ride and 3 absolute majorities that could have seen Scotland declaring independence three times over totally wasted, not for even a second will I ever again consider an SNP candidate as a serious pro independence one.
“if they’ve any sense the Unionist parties would also band together and put one candidate forward on a Unionist ticket”
You need to keep up with the times, Davey. Unionist parties have already been doing this since September 2014 – what they have been doing is exploiting strategic voting and presenting 3 candidates but only a serious, votable one. The other two are just paper candidates.
“So would that achieve a better result than a referendum?”
With a flawed franchise like the one we have now and exposed to the abuse of the British state through all its apparatus including the civil service? hell yes!!! 2015, 2017 and 2019 are the proof of this. We could have ended the treaty in 2015 already and avoid the whole brexit fiasco.
“Could one reasonably expect that in a majority of constituencies independence votes would outnumber unionist ones?”
We don’t need a majority of votes. All what we need is a majority of seats where MPs are prepared to end the treaty of union by not taking the seats.
“I don’t want to be an apologist for the SNP”
You may not want to be an apologist for Sturgeon or the SNP, but you just insist in acting like one. From a practical perspective it comes across as being the same thing.
“Sturgeon has never promised anything more than a referendum”
And there lies the problem. For Sturgeon a referendum that never arrives appears to be the end point of her aims as she has amply demonstrated during the last 8 years. For a real pro independence leader a referendum would be only a step in the progress to independence and a step that could be changed if it does not work.
Eight years on and we still are none the wiser as to what exactly Sturgeon ever intended to do if there was a situation where she actually had to call that referendum. Probably because she never envision a situation where she had to call one.
“she has also made it plain that that has to be a legal referendum”
If the people of Scotland has given a democratic mandate for a referendum, how on earth, in the context of popular sovereignty and in the context of the UK only being able to exist with continuous consent from Scotland, can a referendum on Scotland’s independence be anything other than legal?
What is unlawful is to lie to the people of Scotland pretending we have to ask consent from the Kingdom of England to exercise our legitimate right to terminate the a treaty.
“Sorry Mia, but I think that your ideas are both unrealistic and utterly undemocratic”
Well, we will have to wait until the next GE to see how unrealistic they are.
There was nothing democratic in the way Scotland was forced into the union. There was nothing democratic in the way Sturgeon took the wheels out of the party of independence leaving the people of Scotland with no opportunity to vote for independence. There was nothing democratic in the way Sturgeon wasted three absolute majorities. There was nothing democratic in the way Sturgeon let our mandates expire. There was nothing democratic in the way Sturgeon handed control of our assets. There was nothing democratic in the way Sturgeon helped to force brexit on Scotland after 62% voted against. There was nothing democratic in the way the hate bill was forced on us or the way the GRA legislation is being forced on us or the way demonstrations near Holyrood have been forbidden. There was nothing democratic in the way Scotland’s vote against brexit was ignored by Sturgeon’s SNP who legitimised with their presence in the England as the uk parliament, the vote to trigger A50.
Scotland must be one of the only places in the modern world where absolute rulers cling onto power and circumvent democracy by virtue signalling and demanding from others the democracy they are never prepared to deliver themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another excellent post explaining how easily Scotland could regain its Independence if only elected members of the SNP were true Independence supporters.In 2015 we increased their Westminster number from 6 to 56 and they have quite simply failed us, they could have obtained Independence in May 2015.Where are the preparations or even the calls for more progress on Independence apart from Ian Blackfords perpetual cry of “The people of Scotland wont stand for whichever sound byte sounds good this week”.They showed their true colours in the Holyrood election with the both votes SNP and are proclaiming the same again in the Council Elections with votes 1 and 2 SNP and nobody else even though it is a totally different system.It just proves that Party and Pockets ( the amount of money that they can stuff in them while their snout is in either the Westminster or Holyrood trough) comes before Independence and the welfare of Scotland and its people. The SNP should be mindful of both the collapse of Labour in Scotland in 2015 and the Independence Party in Ireland both swept away due to their inaction on Independence, could it happen again, of course it could sometimes Entitlement comes before Eradication and the SNP are heading down that road. A plebiscite Election is the only way forward and why should there be a succession state when we were told as short a time ago as 2014 that we are a Union of equals by none other than David Cameron so it would be a case of 2 separate countries going their own way.Anyone who thinks that the SNP are a party of Independence now wants to consider what steps they have taken towards Independence. If you seriously want to live in an Independent Scotland it is not only another route but another party that is needed to take us there.The SNP have not taken us on to the road to Independence but have led us up a Devolution Cul-de-Sac whether Council, Holyrood or Westminster Elections none of them have earned our vote as they have all failed us.Their latest slogan being use the council elections to send the Unionists a message, is that the one that says your precious union is safe in the hands of the SNP?
LikeLiked by 5 people
You haven’t read my post above, have you? I’m not surprised, it’s a bit long and it doesn’t say the things you’d like to hear. But do read the final few paragraphs abour plebiscite elections and then tell me why you think we’d win one. If we want indepepndence we have to convince a majority of voters and that’s where the SNP is so badly failing us.
LikeLike
“If we want independence we have to convince a majority of voters”
Nope. If we want independence what we need is to find enough candidates to stand in a GE in a manifesto to end the treaty of union and then vote them in.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Another good article from Mia but I have concerns which I hope Mia or someone could address.
We know in 2014 indigenous Scot’s actually voted yes so surely we must have learned from then that Scotland will never win a referendum so for me indyref2 is a non starter.
I’d guess a plebiscite election would be the best and safest route to go however much has changed in Scotland since 2014, not only has Scotland’s population grown which would mean and even bigger tanking at the polling booth if a referendum were to be held, but I would expect the only parties that would be prepared to stand on a plebiscite would be Alba and ISP, Now I know many have said as I’ve said myself that it would be the younger generation who would vote in a majority for independence but let’s look at our younger generation today.
In the run up to 2014 our marches were full of young people who were completely engaged in the process, we also saw from all the polls that the younger generation were the ones most likely to support independence, however we now have a younger generation,( or as I see them the rainbow children) more acceptable to the new world being forced upon us, digital ID? bring it on for them, social credit system? no problem, men being woman and vice versa? absolutely, that’s being kind.
So apart from the fact that I see Scotland today as a country where not only indigenous Scot’s are in an even bigger minority than we were in 2014, we have people who will never vote Alba or ISP because they don’t fit the new world ideology, so we might well find ourselves again in the position where Holyrood has a majority of what should be independence minded MSP’s but the past 8 yrs has shown us that means nothing in Scotland’s case.
There is also the problem of bringing the country together and it’s plain for all to see Scotland today is more divided than it’s ever been In my lifetime.
So Mia, or anyone else, I’m desperate to hear how we overcome all these problems we weren’t facing in 2014.
LikeLike
A General Election elects MPs to the UK Parliament. Simple arithmetic tells us that in order to have a majority in that parliament you need 326 seats. But Scotland elects only 59 MPs so even if all of them were in favour of secession it would not give them a majority in Westminster.
It must be that Salmond thinks that it would be necessary only to have a majority of Scottish MPs. This means that he thinks that Scotland can leave the UK if 30 Scottish MPs win seats on a secession manifesto. Well, the SNP won 45 seats in 2019 with a 45% of the vote. It would be able to win 30 seats with considerably less. Salmond and friends therefore appear to think that Scotland could leave the UK if a mere third of voters pick independence supporting candidates. On this version of democracy, you get what you want even when two thirds oppose you.
Salmond is assuming what he is trying to prove. He treats Scotland as if it were already independent and tots up the number of MPs needed to make it independent. But even if all 59 MPs voted to annex Berwick it wouldn’t give them a legal right to do so, nor could those 59 MPs decide to declare war on the Faeroe Islands or join the EU. 59 Scottish MPs do not an independent country make, they have no more rights than 59 MPs from the East Midlands.
If Scotland wants to leave the UK legally there is only one way for this to be achieved. A majority of MPs at Westminster have to vote for it. We discovered after the EU referendum in 2016 that even a referendum does not mean that a policy voted for need happen. Westminster MPs could say No despite the Leave result. It was only a majority of MPs after the General Election in 2019 that made leaving possible.
If Westminster could theoretically ignore the result of the 2016 EU referendum, it could certainly ignore 30 secessionist MPs or even the result of an independence referendum. The SNP and independence supporters in general could hardly complain because they were part of the campaign to ignore the Leave vote. They campaigned for a “people’s vote”, so if ever they won either a General Election or an independence referendum Westminster could either ignore or argue for a “people’s vote” in Scotland. In fact, logically you could continue to argue for “people’s votes” until you got the result you wanted.
It is of course possible for Scotland to leave the UK without a legal referendum. The United States merely declared independence. There was no referendum beforehand. Scottish MPs elected on a secession manifesto might gather in Dunfermline and declare that Scotland has left the UK. But declaring something and that something being true are quite different things. This is the issue that Lorna Slater fails to grasp.
If there were huge support for Scottish independence then Plan B might have a chance of success. If 70% of the Scottish electorate voted for independence it would probably happen, not least because the UK Government would have no desire to hold on to territory under those circumstances. But if that were the case there would be no need for Plan B, Scotland would get a second referendum and the result would be respected.
But most Scots don’t want an independence referendum next year, nor indeed any time soon. We have better things to be concerned about including the cost of living, the war in Ukraine and the aftermath of Covid.
If most Scots don’t want a legal referendum next year with the result respected by both sides and independence if it were to happen taking place with cooperation and good will, then it is preposterous to suppose that there is anything close to a majority for independence to happen without the UK Government’s consent.
Politicians in Scotland either in Holyrood or in a small room in Dunfermline could simply declare independence. Lots of countries have begun in this way. But it would be to leave without cooperation and Scotland couldn’t expect to get much help either from the former UK or other countries scared of their own secession movements. That’s what Plan B amounts to, no matter the variant.
For Salmond and other desperate independence supporters Scotland is a prison trapped inside the UK. He has spent his whole life tunnelling out. He thought he was nearly there in 2014, but found that he had reached a dead end. Since then, his reputation has collapsed and has collapsed still further by his taking money from Russia.
But Salmond is a prisoner in a different sense. His obsession with independence has consumed him and made every other goal subordinate. It traps him to the extent that he can think of nothing else. Sturgeon is the same. Her government can achieve nothing because it is imprisoned by every year needing to pretend that next year, we will be free.
If Scotland had a leader like George Washington, we might just be able to declare independence unilaterally, but Salmond’s delusion is to suppose that he is even the Salmond of 2014, while Sturgeon spends her life pretending something will happen which she knows will not. Such leaders are indeed imprisoned with each other not least because the moment has passed for each of them. They are left merely with dull bare walls to stare at and the sounds of a storm that passed over some time ago.
LikeLike
Always good to read the Unionist view of how “ “democracy” works in Scotland. Yet they wonder why we want to leave?
LikeLike