“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.
“If 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 control 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 avoided 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.
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 
Note to Bill Tosh
“ Facts tend to take the punch out of a good rant and it is therefore best left unsaid.”
LikeLiked by 6 people
Heads I win, tails you lose. And so it is with the way the mechanisms of so called democratic are played out to Scotland and her people.
Mia responds valiantly setting out why it is always beds the union wins and tails independence loses. But the merry go round will never change until we change it. And change it we can and no I couldn’t disagree more that another rigged referendum in the gift and timing is the only way to go because it is not.
Unfortunately for independence the SNP under Sturgeon have wilfully undermined using our routes to independence and I can’t quite imagine any international tribunal recognising 56 out of 59 MPs as being a mandate to resile from the 1707 Treaty.
And so, our purpose has to be to reinvigorate our movement. With council elections next month we have an opportunity to send a message to the cosy and comfortable and vote the SNP out. Alba, ISP, good independents, family party et al can all be ranked as the elector see fit. Personally I will rank all candidates down the ballot paper before putting the SNP last. That way they will get the strongest electoral message possible and we might get some decent councillors too and less of Sex n Pee trans brigade lurking on the ballot papers.
So let’s send a message and initiate the change.
LikeLiked by 10 people
Sorry we typo in previous post “ not recognising “ it should have been as opposed to “ recognising “
And in my Sturgeon type defence the typo was not my big fingers and in attentive eye but the computer that missed the word out. Wisnae me, and if it was, I can’t remember.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Good defence
LikeLiked by 5 people
While the comments were certainly picked to illustrate a particular point, they all have the same theme – a stunning lack of confidence or fear even. It’s as if you handed a long-term prisoner the key to their cell and all they had to do was unlock the door and step outside to freedom. Yet, they can’t bring themselves to do it. The Union has a large number of people institutionalised. Remarkable!
LikeLiked by 18 people
The problem with a so-called “plebiscitary election” is that it’s an impossibility.
The other parties and the media will refuse to accept it and continue to talk, and ask questions, about policies and failures like NHS, education, Prestwick, ferries, named person, GRA, etc etc etc.
No, sorry, it has to be the same old referendum way.
BTW you should stop going on about “rigged elections” and “hundreds of thousands of non-Scottish activists”, or at least provide some evidence of this, because otherwise you sound nuts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“or at least provide some evidence of this”
I will throw your words right back at you:
Please provide the irrefutable evidence that proves the last Holyrood election was not rigged. You can do so by showing here the official exit poll, the tallying of the number of voters to the number of votes so every single vote is accounted for, and all the uninterrupted CCTV recordings that demonstrate the poll boxes and our votes were not tampered with at any point from the moment the boxes were assembled to the moment the official count was released.
To make your life easier, I would be satisfied if you provide the evidence above only for the list vote boxes.
Provide that and I will stop believing that election was rigged.
Take your time.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Please include in the evidence also all information regarding postal votes:
1. a tally of the votes to the number of voters
2. a tally of the number of votes (including postal and ballot votes) per address and the number of people registered to that address in the most recent local registry for the election and the one conducted the previous year
3. a recording of how the postal votes were received, stored, handed over, opened and counted before being included in the official count.
Thank you.
LikeLiked by 6 people
The normal procedure where someone makes an allegation is for that person to then have to provide evidence to support it if erequested to do so. The fact you won’t do that suggests that you can’t.
LikeLike
Er, you are the one promoting the conspiracy theory so the burden of proof is on you.
Please provide evidence of the FOI requests you have sent to each of the 32 local authorities asking for all this.
Oh, not done it?
LikeLike
“Er, you are the one promoting the conspiracy theory so the burden of proof is on you”
Conspiracy theory?
What is that exactly? Am I to understand from your comment that in Sturgeon’s dystopian world every hint of a dissent with the official narrative is a conspiracy in the making? Sorry but the only way you cannot be a dissenter in such a dystopian world is if you walk with your eyes closed, your fingers well stuck in your ears and you switch off all your critical thinking. Unfortunately I don’t possess the talent to do that.
Your basic assumption is that the state is by default fair , trustworthy, acts in the interests of the average citizen and would never even think in rigging an election.
My basic assumption is the precise opposite. In other words, my assumption is that the state is by default corrupt, untrustworthy, its political arms and administrative apparatus are corrupt, power, self-servitude and greed rather than fairness are what motivate those controlling it, circumventing democracy rather than implementing it is its modus operandi and deceiving voters into voting for what is bad for them by removing the options we want from the equation is what they do routinely to impose on us what we do not want and then being able to pretend it was our choice.
This means that my basic assumption leads me to easily accept that if rigging an election is the last resource for damage limitation after a catalogue of failed attempts to prevent the access to parliament of a feared political opponent who cannot be defeated in fair terms on a fair political platform with reasonable arguments or in a court of law with fabricated evidence, that is the path the state would take under the excuse of “national security”.
You are expecting me to assume your logic is stronger and more credible than mine. The burden of proof is therefore on you to provide the evidence this is the case.
Logic and critical thinking tell us that it is very unlikely that a corrupt self-serving establishment, who for the past couple of years had been making a complete mockery of democracy and justice, and haemorrhaging millions of public money in unlawful complaints procedures, unnecessarily ramping up the burden of legal fees on the public by unnecessarily prolonging civil court cases with not a chance to be won, then embarking on unnecessary criminal cases brought on flimsy charges to send to prison an innocent citizen, and then abusing the justice structures and parliamentary committees to forcefully suppress evidence or using wrongful prosecution to lock away dissenters, would temporarily morph into a beacon of democracy, justice and fairness at election time just to rapidly revert to its default behaviour immediately after.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Don’t upset the “masser” said the house slave to the field slaves. We may lose our crumbs from the table and the hand down clothes…..
Mental chains can be just as powerful as iron it seems
LikeLiked by 12 people
A key role of the colonizer, according to Albert Memmi, is to ensure that the colonized never seriously views his liberation as being even a remote possibility.
LikeLiked by 14 people
On the contrary a plebiscite election is the perfect vehicle. After all the talk of ferries, currencies, if the election is still won then there can be no doubt on the settled will of the people. It’s not as if the media won’t be filled with talk of ferries, currencies, etc, were a referendum to be held.
In addition, there’s no such thing as an “old referendum”. In UK politics they are a Blairite invention and so are relatively recent. A “regular” election where declaring independence is stated clearly in the parties manifestos has a much stronger democratic footing.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Nope, because as soon as SNP, Greens or Alba say one word about anything which is not independence- and how could they not? – the whole exercise will be deemed not to be a plebiscite.
LikeLike
“A “regular” election where declaring independence is stated clearly in the parties manifestos has a much stronger democratic footing.”
Why? With a referendum, all the people who want to vote vote and at the end you get a clear picture of what the majority want.
With a regular election all the people who want to vote vote but the scene is muddied straight away by peoples’ loyalties to political parties and the electoral system in use might not give a strictly accurate result. You may also end up with a dispute if the side that wins most seats doesn’t actually get as much of the popular vote as the side that lost which is anything but a strong democratic footing. Do you think that the Tory government in Westminster has a striong democratic footing?
LikeLike
And when do you envisage this referendum taking place, davey? In the next millennium? Give it another decade, maybe, to ensure that even more No voters have the opportunity to come north, establish several corners of Scotland that are forever England and stymie a PRE independence referendum – that is wholly and totally unnecessary for either legality or democracy in accordance with international convention? Please do me the courtesy of not accusing me of anti Englishness because the studies done of the 2014 referendum show quite clearly that between 70 and 75? (three-quarters) of all rUK people in Scotland voted NO. Scottish Unionists voted No at around 47%. If you refuse to see the very blatant democratic deficit while clinging to the charge of a lack of democracy in any other avenue, you simply make yourself appear hypocritical and Unionist. Sorry, but that is how you come across.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Saw this elsewhere and it does remind me of the situation we are in.
Parable of the Talents by the American Octavia E Butler
“Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears. To be led by a fool is to be led by the opportunists who control the fool. To be lead by a thief is to offer up your most precious treasures to be stolen. To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies. To be led by a tyrant is to sell yourself and those you love into slavery”.
LikeLiked by 14 people
Octavia Butler died in 2006.
How on earth did she get to know Sturgeon so well?
LikeLiked by 10 people
“ “It was the vote of those who came from elsewhere what frustrated the Scottish natives’ right to self determination.”
——-
That is arguably true- at least if the contemporaneous Lord Ashcroft polling (I think) is accepted.
But be careful what you wish for. If you want to abandon the traditional residential qualification in favour of “Scottish nativity” then you open a Pandora’s box. Native Scots resident in England might demand a vote. Are you content to grant it? A re Scots born outside Scotland (hello Mike Russell) but long resident here to be denied a vote? Also, Scots born here and retired here after a lifetime of work in England might make you uncomfortable. The list goes on down an ugly path to “blood and soil” nationalism.
If I were an arch-unionist schemer out to damage the independence ideal, I would seek to discredit a noble aspiration in the hearts of decent Scots by driving advocacy in just such a direction.
For such a thorough, almost algorithmic, analytic thinker who covers all the bases in other areas, I am astonished that you haven’t thought through these dangers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Are you content to grant it?”
Yes, as long as it is in line with the rules used everywhere else in the world.
Take the UK as an example, because it is one of the most strict in the world with regards to ex-pats: a native who has lived outwith the UK for a continuous period of 15 years of more loses the vote in GE and referendums. I would advocate for the same to be applied to Scotland, that is, somebody who has lived 15 years or more outwith Scotland should lose the vote in Scotland. They would be able to regain it after living permanently in Scotland for a certain number of years.
It is common practice in other countries for their ex-pats to have to be registered in the country’s embassy/consulate in their foreign country of residence and as a non-resident in their native country to be able to exercise their right vote in their country of origin if they are living permanently elsewhere. The inclusion in the registry can get renewed after a certain number of years. I would advocate for the same to be applied to Scotland. Scottish embassies/consulates, not UK ones, I mean. If you don’t want to call them consulates/embassies because it would cause a hissy fit or a heart attack to those sitting in Westminster, call them something else, like Scottish ex-pat registry offices. The advantage of this is will also give you an idea of how many people living elsewhwere still retains links to Scotland. These registries could offer information about job opportunities back in Scotland for those who were interested in coming back. Those who are not interested in Scotland anymore would not be bothered in registering or keeping up with the register.
Nowhere else in the world, and that includes in the UK itself, the vote on constitutional matters is automatically granted to people who was born elsewhere and who has just arrived to the country and has no citizenship. For example, unless EU citizens had UK citizenship in 2016, they were not allowed to vote in the EU referendum, even if they had been living in the UK for more than 20 years. The UK is not an exception on this. Most countries I have been looking into have similar rules.
I would like to see the same for Scotland.
The rules on how to gain citizenship vary between countries. There are countries that would not allow you to hold citizenship of any other country besides that one. But for what I have seen, the common denominator is two things:
a) continuous residence for a established minimum period of time. The length of time varies depending on the country. For what I have seen, the smaller the population of the country, usually the larger the number of years of continue residence in the country needed to request citizenship. An extreme case I mentioned in the past is San Marino, which requires 30 years of permanent residence prior to being elegible to apply for citizenship. This is an outliner. In most cases the length of time of permanent residence lies between 5 and 10 years. I think for a country of the population size of Scotland with the big influx per year it has of people from elsewhere and the number of natives exiting, somewhere between 10 and 15 years sounds reasonable.
You would have of course to establish what you mean by permanent residence. I, personally, would not consider permanent residence to live in the country for any less than 65% of your time. I would not consider having a holiday home and spend a few months a year as a right to claim citizenship and the vote, for example.
b) swearing allegiance to the country. For all the countries I have looked into, there is some kind of ceremony to swear allegiance to the country. If you want to inculcate the sense of nationhood this is what you will need to do. The UK itself has a ceremony where you have to swear allegiance to the Queen and her descendants. I would advocate for something like this for Scotland, but not for allegiance to any head of state. I would advocate for allegiance to the country’s constitution and the country’s citizens. In fact I would introduce this as mandatory for every single public service, government minister, parliament representative and civil servant based in Scotland.
There are other things that could be included. Taking the UK as an example, they demand you pass an exam on Life/habits in the UK and basic knowledge and also English language. For Scotland I would include something like this, not so much about the culture but about the language. Not for English in particular, but for whatever language is the main language spoken in the area were the person intends to set their residence. For example in the islands I would demand for the person to learn the basics of Gaelic before being able to apply for citizenship. The idea is that the person who requests citizenship must blend in and adapt to the community they are asking to be admitted to, not the other way round.
Personally, I think it is much fairer that native Scots who were forced to emigrate away from Scotland because they could not find the opportunities they were looking for in Scotland and have lived out Scotland less than 15 years, are allowed to take part in the vote of their country than giving the vote to people born elsewhere, coming from elsewhere 5 minutes ago, with allegiance to another country, with no intention whatsoever to develop allegiance to Scotland and whose only link to Scotland is a temporary residence, a holiday home or an interest to mould Scotland’s political landscape and public services to the country they come from.
“I am astonished that you haven’t thought through these dangers”
Forgive me but I am even more astonished at the thought you might have not even looked at what other established, sovereign countries, some of them very close to us, do and how they protect their own heritage, their culture and traditions, the rights of their native populations, their constitution, the cohesiveness of the population and their own autonomy.
If you give the vote to anybody who comes from elsewhere even if just for 5 minutes with allegiance to elsewhere and remove the vote from natives who are out of the country but still bear allegiance to it, how long do you think it is going to take until your country becomes “elsewhere”, an alien to your own native population and a place where the voice of those coming from elsewhere and bringing their allegiance to elsewhere is louder than the natives’?
Can you still call it the same country when the natives do no longer have a say and are excluded from decisions on how they wish their country to be because the needs and wishes of those coming from elsewhere must take priority? Can we call it the same country when we renege on the natives whose personal circumstances forced them temporary to live elsewhere and substitute them for those coming from elsewhere and no allegiance to the country or respect for the local heritage and culture and no interest in learning the local languages?
I am not sure how you can. A country is much more than just its name or its geographical location.
Why should a London born Lord or Lady with 5 houses for example, one of them in Scotland that is used a few weeks a year for holidays or not even for that long have more right to decide on Scotland’s constitutional matters than a native Scot who had to emigrate the previous year to find a job?
Why should a foreign student who happened to be in Scotland at the time of the referendum and who is planning to pack and leave after completing their degree had more right to decide on the constitutional future of Scotland than a Scottish lad who is studying his degree in Newcastle because no University in Scotland gave them a place, but who fully intends to return to Scotland, for example?
Precisely because I have thought of the “dangers”, because I know we will never manage a Westminster tool like the one we have in government to move Scotland’s statehood and autonomy an inch further by establishing those “ex-pats foreign registry offices” or the rudiments of Scottish citizenship and ceremonies of allegiance to Scotland, because I know this tool will never dare to “upset Westminster’s horses” by locking the huge loopholes that have caused the natives’ vote to be trashed, I know a referendum that deliberately keeps every backdoor open for the British state to enter and gerrymander the whole thing to its heart’s content and keeps every door for Scotland to actually control the exercise and make it fair locked down, will never achieve us independence. It is a route that has been deliberately set for us to fall. It was set to fail in 2014 and it will be set to fail whatever centurty the tool has in mind for the next one.
The only way such referendum can be fair is if it takes place after independence, when Scotland and only Scotland takes control of every single door and every third party interference from foreign interests is locked out.
This is why I think that, in the present circumstances, plebiscitary parliamentary elections are the only realistic route for Scotland to get independence through anything resembling a democratic process. And by democratic I mean parliamentary democracy because with all those back doors open for the British state to interfere, and with such a small cohort of voters meaning few votes imported from elsewhere are needed to change the result, demanding the outcome to be based on the number of votes rather than the number of seats equals to permanently setting ourselves to fail by giving more importance to virtue signalling than to the limitations of the system we are forced to use and than achieving independence itself.
LikeLiked by 13 people
This is a very good comment Mia. I will publish in the next couple of days.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thank you, Mia, for that long and considered reply.
But there is a deadly murmur at its heart.
The provisions you want to make and precedents/ best practice that you quote are possible only by states that are ALREADY independent. If I am wrong then quote me examples secured by Quebec, Catalonia and other (once?) aspiring states to any ONE item on your wish-list: “…rules of continuous residency…embassies/consulates (or ex-pat registry offices)…rules on how to gain citizenship …oaths of allegiance…knowledge of language/ culture…” and so forth.
You contradict your own case: “I am even more astonished at the thought you might have not even looked at what other established, SOVEREIGN countries…”.
There’s the rub. Scotland is not (yet) sovereign. Setting out constitutional rules as if we are is to build castles in the air.
LikeLike
One of the few positive policies being enacted by the current administration is the removal of charitable status, business rates relief from private schools (as of 1st April 2022).
The Edinburgh University study being cited has the 420,000 UK nationals resident in Scotland (2014) voting No by an astonishing 44.2% margin.
Further demographic breakdown of those UK nationals resident in Scotland would be interesting.
From experience, working class, English arrivals who rub shoulders with a predominantly native workforce, socialise with them and send their weans to a State school, are more likely to become culturally integrated than is the case with middle and upper middle class arrivals.
These, white collar, middle class arrivals are more likely to work in office based environments. Where the office is Public sector (Universities, Civil Service & QUANGOs) their colleagues are liable to be disproportionately non-Scots. The drivers of social integration present for the working class are largely absent for the middle class. We all ken wee English, middle class ghettos in our toons and cities.
Crucially, they are culturally wedded to sending little Sebastian and Tabitha to private schools. The private school sector in Scotland is already in long term decline. The imminent removal of business rates relief should cause individual schools to close. The surviving private schools will be unable to take in the day pupils of the failed schools as commuting distances become excessive.
Having their offspring privately educated is existential to their middle class being. A multi-generational tradition. Scotland’ll nae be such a welcome hame we’ nae private schools oan offer.
LikeLiked by 7 people
@cynicusinexile
I am going to give you a couple of examples closer to home and by home I mean not a foreign country but the political union where we are now, the UK:
1. The Falkland Islands.
The Falkland Islands have what is called “Falkland Islands Status” since at least 2007. In the words of Wikipedia this “the closest thing to citizenship that the Falkland Islands can grant”
Since 2009, eligibility is as follows (from Wikipedia):
“Under section 22(5) of the current Falkland Islands Constitution, a person is entitled to Falkland Islands status if they are:[5]
(a) a person who had Falkland Islands status before 1 January 2009—
(i) by virtue of section 17(5)(a), (b), (c), (d)(i) or (f) of the former Constitution; or
(ii) by virtue of section 17(5)(e) of the former Constitution—
(aa) as a spouse, and the person is not living apart from his wife or her husband under a decree of a competent court or a deed of separation; or
(bb) as a widow or widower, and the person has not remarried; or
(b) a person who was born in the Falkland Islands, who was a citizen at birth and whose father or mother was permanently resident in the Falkland Islands at the time of the person’s birth; or
(c) a person who was born outside the Falkland Islands, who was a citizen at birth and whose father or mother was permanently resident in the Falkland Islands at the time of the person’s birth; or
(d) a citizen who was born in or outside the Falkland Islands whose father or mother at the time of the person’s birth had Falkland Islands status and was permanently resident in the Falkland Islands; or
(e) a citizen who was born outside the Falkland Islands whose father or mother was born in the Falkland Islands and had Falkland Islands status at the time of the person’s birth; or
(f) a person who has been granted Falkland Islands status under an Ordinance providing for the grant of that status to persons who have been ordinarily resident in the Falkland Islands for a period of at least seven years, or such period not exceeding seven years as the Ordinance may prescribe, and has not, in accordance with that Ordinance, lost or been deprived of such status”
Did you see the “7 years” residence requirement among the conditions for eligibility?
If the Falklands, tiny in comparison with Scotland and being a “dominion” rather than a full partner as Scotland is in this union, can have this thing so close to citizenship, what exactly is the excuse for Scotland not having one too?
The Falklands Islands also have a constitution that as you can see above, they use as a reference for this status. So what is the excuse for keeping Scotland’s one in obscurity for so long?
As per allegiance, Since 2007 and according to Wikipedia, “all new applicants for Falkland Islands Status, if their application is successful, must attend a Status Ceremony and make a pledge to the Falkland Islands, as follows:
I [name] pledge my loyalty to the Falkland Islands and will respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will obey its laws and fulfil my duties and obligations under its Constitution.”
The constitution of the Falkland Islands at the core of the citizenship.
Again, if the Falkland Islands can have a citizenship ceremony and they swear allegiance on that constitution rather than a head of State, what exactly is the excuse for Scotland not to be able to do the same?
2. Gibraltar
Gibraltar has what is called “Gibraltarian Status”.
To be eligible for Gibraltarian status the following conditions apply (from Wikipedia)
A person is eligible to be registered as a Gibraltarian if they are a British national and:
(a) They were born in Gibraltar on or before the 30th day of June 1925; or
(b) They are child of a person born in Gibraltar on or before the 30th day of June 1925; or
(c) They are the descendant of a person entitled to be registered by virtue of (a) or (b) and their parent or grandparent was born in Gibraltar; or
(d) They were born in Gibraltar and are the child of a person who is registered in the register; or
(e) They are married to a person entitled to be register by virtue of (a, b, c or d) or are the widow or widower of such a person.
Further provisions provide for the registration of adopted children.
Additionally, a person may be registered as a Gibraltarian at the discretion of the Government of Gibraltar minister with responsibility for personal status, if they satisfy the minister on certain conditions.
(a) they are a British Overseas Territories citizen by virtue of their connection with Gibraltar or the United Kingdom as their country of origin;
(b) they are a British national;
(c) they are of good character;
(d) they have sufficient knowledge of the English language;
(e) they have their permanent home in Gibraltar;
(f) they have been resident in Gibraltar for a continuous period of ten years immediately preceding the date of application
(g) they intend to make their permanent home in Gibraltar.
Further provisions provide for the registration of children, adopted children and spouses of those registered at the discretion of the minister with responsibility for personal status.
Did you read the requirement above for “10 years” of continuous residence immediately preceding the date of application? I did not miss that.
So, if Gibraltar and Falkland Islands, none of them independent sovereign states, can have that kind of status and stipulate conditions for it that go beyond British citizenship, can demand a minimum number of years of permanent residence, and can get the new citizens to swear allegiance to their constitution, what exactly is the excuse for Scotland not being able to have the exact same?
It cannot possibly be time because the current First Minister has had EIGHT YEARS to set up such system.
It cannot possibly be lack of power because the SNP has had absolute majorities in Westminster since 2015 and therefore the power to end the union if things are not done to Scotland’s satisfaction. So what exactly has been their excuse?
Lack of will? Allegiances elsewhere other than the people of Scotland they were elected to represent?
There is another interesting thing regarding Gibraltar. Also according to Wikipedia:
“On 31 December 2020, the governments of Spain and the United Kingdom reached a deal to allow Gibraltar to join the Schengen area. This indicates that Gibraltarians will retain freedom of movement within the European Economic Area”
Right. So if Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, none of them independent sovereign states, can retain freedom of movement within the European Union, has there ever been a valid excuse to deny Scotland the exact same right?
Other than to preserve England’s interests above those of Scotland, I can see none.
So what is the SNP’s excuse for Scotland not to enjoy the exact same benefits that Gibraltar and NI are enjoying?
LikeLiked by 10 people
Edinburgh University extensive post election poll and study also confirmed it was the votes of people born outside Scotland that turned a losing No vote into their win.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Thank you for that, Iain Indeed, if memory serves E.U.’s survey was the most thorough of all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
cynicusinexile
No such “traditional residential qualification” exists in respect of voting rights in national elections and/or national referendums in other countries so there is nothing ‘traditional’ about this at all, much as Mia has explained. Scotland is simply being forced by the UK to use a local government franchise for Scottish national elections/referendums which is highly irregular but with a rather obvious purpose – to thwart independence.
LikeLiked by 11 people
I am scratching my head here, Professor Baird.
You write; No such “traditional residential qualification” exists in respect of voting rights in national elections and/or national referendums in OTHER countries…. (my emphasis)
I made no reference to other countries –Mia did. I was concerned only to warn her of the dangers of abandoning the customary residential base here.
But since I have your attention, perhaps you will rise to the challenge that Mia has not yet quite managed. Her game attempts with the Falkland’s, Gibraltar and NI do not cut it.
I repeat: quote me examples secured by Quebec, Catalonia and other (once?) aspiring states to any ONE item on her wish-list: “…rules of continuous residency…embassies/consulates (or ex-pat registry offices)…rules on how to gain citizenship …oaths of allegiance…knowledge of language/ culture…” and so forth.
None of Mia’s three examples has EVER aspired to independent statehood, unlike Quebec, Catalonia -or Scotland.
LikeLike
You are of course referring to several territories that are not regarded as distinct countries. I think we also need to remember here that the self-determination of ‘a people’ usually relates primarily to a distinct people as defined by certain specific characteristics and features such as a common culture, a common language(s), ethnicity, desire to be a nation, common suffering etc. Residence is not really a feature in that, and indeed a native people may well have been forcibly removed/evicted, as in the Chagos case, and in the case of Scotland’s clearances in addition to the many other state incentives and policies employed to remove an indigenous people from a territory.
Falklands/Malvinas is another interesting case in the sense that the UK held a referendum there a few years ago which yielded almost 100% in favour of continued UK rule. However the UN and its C-24 (Decolonization Committee) ruled that that referendum was invalid because it only surveyed the settler population and took no account of the descendants of the indigenous people who had been evicted from the islands by the British over a century previously. In other words, residence was largely immaterial in that case also.
Lets remember that colonialism invariably involves a degree of ‘banishment of the natives’ as well as plantation of settlers and Scotland, like any other colony, does not appear to be immune from such effects having ‘lost’ some 3-4 million people since the union. Hence why the UN self-determination process is intended to be about ending what it terms ‘the scourge of colonialism’ suffered by ‘a people’.
LikeLiked by 6 people
@cynicusinexile/cynicus
With all due respect, you were claiming those things could only be had if Scotland was an independent state. I have demonstrated to you that you were wrong.
You claimed that Scotland could only have those things after becoming an independent state. Well, neither Falklands nor Gibraltar are independent states and yet they have all those things.
I fail to see the relevance here of Quebec or Catalonia as none of them are part of the British state or are under British rule. Both Falklands and Gibraltar however operate under British rule. What this means is that if Scotland does not have the exact same things that Falkland and Gibraltar have is not because it cannot. Clearly being under British rule and not an independent state is not an impediment to have them and therefore not the real reason why Scotland does not have them by now.
Neither Catalonia’s or Quebec’s present constitutional situations resemble Scotland’s situation. None of them are in an international treaty with their respective state that they can unilaterally repeal like Scotland can and actually terminate the state altogether. Both Quebec and Catalonia are trying to secede, not terminate a treaty. So, forgive me but I fail to see why they are any more relevant to this subject of discussion than Gibraltar and Falklands. Both Gibraltar and Falklands had their own plebiscites on independence too. That they chose to remain part of the British state is neither here nor there.
My examples prove that it does not matter that Scotland is not an independent state. It can have all those things and in fact it should have them to establish a fair and sustainable franchise in the long term.
There is another reasons why Falklands and Gibraltar are very good examples for this purpose and that is how the British state respond to the threat of displacement of the native population when the neighbour country has a population orders of magnitude larger. Should Gibraltar and Falklands have an open franchise like Scotland has and their native populations and official language would be reduced to minorities in no time. Clearly the British state has seen this so has rushed to set up these rudimentary citizenship for them both. This proves my point even further: the British state is perfectly aware that unless the franchise is tied down in Scotland, sooner or later, the sense of nationhood will be lost.
Now I wonder if you would be willing to answer my questions:
1. If Falklands and Gibraltar can have a status close to citizenship, why is it that in EIGHT YEARS, despite three majorities in Westminster, despite the power to end the union and despite watching how the yes vote of the natives was frustrated by the vote of the incomers, Sturgeon has not implemented for Scotland anything remotely similar to what Falklands and Gibraltar have, to establish a trustworthy and sustainable franchise?
2. If Gibraltar and NI have free movement in the EU what is the real excuse that Sturgeon have for not having achieved the exact same privilege for Scotland when Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, when Sturgeon has had SIX YEARS since the EU referendum to negotiate this, three absolute majorities and the power to end the union all this time? Why is it that despite trusting her with all that power, we still have to watch while she hands over our powers and assets instead of bringing back new ones, and watch while our policies are rewritten to stop us returning to the EU and to decrease our standards for the sake of England dragging us into toxic trade deals, without Sturgeon doing as much as lifting a finger to stop it?
What is really her excuse?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Which is why we should definitely NOT have a re-run of 2014. Apart from the fact Nicola Sturgeon has no intention of having it anyway it would be doomed to fail from the start
LikeLiked by 6 people
Domicile is essential in all UK (including Scottish) voting qualifications, so anyone living outside Scotland, born Scots or not, would not qualify. I am not actually in favour, personally, of excluding rUK people, but I am not in favour of a referendum either. In the Baltic States, for example, domiciled Russians were allowed to vote on their independence, but they were given the choice of accepting that a majority of Estonians/Latvians/Lithuanians wanted independence and were entitled to it or pack up and return to Mother Russia. Needless to say, most stayed put and voted for independence!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
The psychology of «too wee, too poor, too stupid» is the insidious, repeating earworm of all colonizers and like the musical variety it usually takes a far stronger one to replace it.
I think Scots are only at the beginning of ditching the familiar, tired «auld sang».
May a lusty new one stir up even the preternaturally supine from their slumbers, enjoyed at Scotland’s expense.
«If it is important to you you will find a way. If not, you will find an excuse»
Anonymous
LikeLiked by 7 people
For me the desire for a referendum died a long time ago – we are wasting our energy fighting for a referendum, which we would then have to fight to win. In effect, we are up against two major barriers – the Scottish Government and the UK Government
As long as independence supporters ask Nicola Sturgeon for a referendum, she will dangle it in front of them as an inducement to vote for the SNP – again, and again, and again
The S30 is a con, a referendum is not needed for independence, there are other legal ways to end the Union
Her govenment is a shambles, and for those Nicola accolytes who tell me that putting women on the rubbish heap is worth it for independence, then that’s not the independent Scotland I want to live in thanks
If you want an independent Scotland, a Party which loses out on independence in 2014 by only 6%, has 56 SNP MPs the following year and then has Material change land in their lap a year later and doesn’t capitalise on it is not a Party of independence.
She once spoke about having imposter syndrome – naw Nicola, you ARE an imposter
LikeLiked by 14 people
Imposter is a very kind word for what she is.
LikeLiked by 8 people
I am just back from 2 days in Englandshire. As I find so often, seemingly intelligent people are always keen to raise the subject of Independence and they mostly utter the words ‘and that Nicola Sturgeon is hell-bent on a referendum’ in their next breath, or maybe I am just unlucky with the people I meet. Fortunately, I am quite knowledgable about my subject matter these days thanks to this blog (and others) and due to the recent articles was able to totally bamboozle quite a few Englanders with my superior knowledge about details of which they have no ken. I might just wear a badge saying ‘don’t talk to me about Independence’ in the future though.
LikeLiked by 10 people
It seems that I’m the critic referred to in title. Am I really the only critic? Anyway, here goes.
Mia said: “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”.
Someone has already pointed out the flaws in this, but I think it requires further examination. First, what is a “native Scot”? Is it someone who is born here? If so there are plenty of Scots who, for some reason, were born elsewhere but now live in Scotland and are every bit as Scottish as any native born Scot. And there are plenty of Scots who were born here but now live elsewhere. Or should both parents be Scottish? Or just one parent? Maybe a grandparent (that’ll get you into the football team). Or does it depend on domicile? Or residence, and if so for how long? Or maybe people could just self-ID as Scottish? (That last one is a joke, by the way) And how do you check it all? In any event, attempts to restrict the franchise in the way you suggest would be illegal. I refer you to Article 21 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which states: “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”. Note that word: “Everyone”.
Oh, and then you came up with this one: I said “Who do you think would pay any attention (to the indy minded MPs declaring independence following a plebiscite election)?” and you rep;lied: “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.”
This verges on the delusional. Scotland has the right to send a number of MPs to Westminster. It’s a right, not a requirement. If Westminster were to curtail that right, it would provoke a major constitutional crisis – in fact I rather wish they would because something of that outrageous nature might persuade quite a few more recalcitrant Scots to support independence. But if some Scottish MPs merely decided that they weren’t going to go to Westminster any more, it would not make one whit of difference to Westminster which would proceed as normal. The door would be open to those MPs – if they decided not to go through it that’s their right, but to suggest that Westminster would then have to stop and call an election is absurd. If any of the Scottish MPs were to resign his or her seat, then a by-election would be called in the normal way.
As for the Irish, the 1918 vote followed the 1916 uprising when the leaders were treated particularly brutally by the British. I think it generally accepted that it was that brutality that turned so may Irish against British rule as much as the concept of independence itself. And I think you have to remember that Sinn Fein got 65% of the vote in the counties that subsequently formed the Irish Free State, so they had the people onside. Probably best not to dwell too much on the Irish comparison, however, as people here might be a bit concerned to hear about the subsequent Irish War of Independence and then the Civil War that followed that.
I asked: “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?” and you replied: “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.
Well, Scotland departure wouldn’t terminate the UK as such – the UK would continue as a sovereign nation state, just without Scotland. It’s the situation where a Scotland that attempted to declare independence in the way that you suggest that worries me and, I suspect, would worry a lot of other people too. The UK, because it would still see itself as such, Scotland’s independence being illegal, would neither recognise Scotland not co-operate with it. Nor would the rest of the world. Spain would ensure that the EU wouldn’t, and most other countries wouldn’t want to set a precedent by recognising a secession that is regarded as illegal, especially if it didn’t even reflect the wishes of a majority of the people. Scotland would have no currency, no trade agreements, no standing at all. In circumstances such as these It could not survive and it is that prospect that would ensure that a plebiscite election held on the basis you envisage would fail because most people just wouldn’t want to take that risk.
Then, on the subject of plebiscite election, I said ““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 you replied: “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”.
Well, at least we agree that there would only be one pro-indy candidate per seat, but the Alba one? Seriously? We want to win, don’t we? Unfortunately, just as Alba supporters such as you loathe the SNP, so do many SNP supporters loathe Alba. Ideally therefore you’d have to try to find a candidate acceptable to all strands of Independence thinking. That might be quite difficult, but as polls suggest that Alba still attracts the support of less than 2% of the electorate, I don’t really think they’d be in a very strong position to choose the candidates.
As for the unionists, they may be misguided, but they’re not stupid and in a first-past-the post system they too would want to maximise the unionist vote. I would anticipate that the three major unionist parties would therefore agree to put forward a single candidate, possibly under the “Better Together” banner, or something similar – certainly not under any party name. Mia, I don’t know where you got the idea that unlike a referendum a plebiscite election would be free of Unionist interference. It would be held under UK election rules and very sadly would exclude 16 and 17 year old, the majority of whom favour independence. Many of those “non-native Scots” you refer to would be included in the franchise.
You seem to think, Mia, that Independence candidates could win a majority of seats. I, on the other hand, fear that they may well end up winning no seats at all. Scotland has 59 Westminster constituencies, and your argument is that if the Indy candidates were to win 30 of these then Scotland should declare independence. In the last election, where the SNP did quite well, there were only 10 seats where independence votes outnumbered unionist ones. So you’ve not only have to hold that vote in these 10 seats, but also persuade enough unionist voters in at least 20 of the remaining seats to vote for independence. And remember, you’re dealing with a Westminster franchise. So what would you be offering them? A situation where the Scottish MPs would go down to Westminster, renounce the Act of Union, and then return to Scotland where they would declare independence. As ever, the UK government would control or have the support of the BBC, the security services, and almost all the mainstream media, and they would put the fear of God into the electorate to what would happen if they supported such a vague and illegal proposal such as the Indy candidates were putting forward. I think that a lot of independence supporters would agree that it was entirely unrealistic and even if they didn’t vote unionist would abstain, whileas waverers would support the status quo and stability. Unionists would vote en masse.
Unfortunately, I’m beginning to think that all the minor independence parties – Alba, ISP, Scotia First, and any others that might have escaped my attention, are increasingly irrelevant. I agree with Willie that we’re going to have to re-invigorate our movement and if the SNP fail to produce a referendum then I think that the minor parties ought to get together with what I suspect may be quite a large number of disillusioned SNP people to form a brand new party, hopefully free of the baggage of the others. A major difficulty would be deciding who would lead it – I think that one of the genuinely indy minded non-supine members of the SNP would be best. As to how they should then proceed? Well, I’ve put forward my suggestion in previous threads. But whatever else happens, if we are to achieve independence, we have to take the majority of the people of Scotland with us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is good to challenge – best that we challenge each other rather than live in an echo chamber.
That said, both you and Mia are right:
There are any number of legally recognised routes (that may not be recognised by the colonial power) if we have the leaders who would take those routes
When the people demand independence than nothing – not even Sturgeon, the UN or even Spain 😉 – will be able to prevent it.
So I think we should:
Get ourselves down the recognised routes – don’t surrender before a shot is fired Davey! At least we can demand our rights! Yes – Westminster will deny them – and we will not accept that denial – and the wheel will turn …
Get ‘doun-hauden’ recognised
Get our identity back: teach our history, culture, language and music in our schools. It is outrageous that the so-called independence party education minister surveys anal sex but does not raise the teaching of our own history in our schools.
Engage with the new Scots so they embrace their new country as something more than a change of address
LikeLiked by 8 people
I don’t think we are or ever were a colony. Indeed, as part of Great Britain Scotland was an enthusiastic coliniser and Scots were prominent and enthusiastic in establishing and running new Britsh colonies. Scots took up leading positions in the civil service, the imperial bureaucracy, the British military, and the mercantile professions. That’s not the mark of a colony. On the other hand, and possibly even worse, we have certainly been regarded as a region of the United Kingdom and were once reasonably happy to be referred to as North Britain – indeed, one of our major railway companies called itself the North Britsh Railway withiout any apparent complaint or objection.- and of course we have always played a prominent part in running the Britsh state, something colonies tend not to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I don’t think we are or ever were a colony.”
Much depends on the historic and prevailing imperial narrative we are given, which even the exploited native believes and repeats parrot-like using the oppressor’s tongue. Lets also not forget ‘the colonial mindset’ condition and its effect. An idea might be to consider the definitions, theories and mechanics of the colonial relationship before reaching a conclusion: https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/07/18/determinants-of-independence-colonialism/
LikeLiked by 7 people
India had many enthusiastic Indian supporters of the Empire – but India was a colony nonetheless. It is not the enrichment or empowerment of the individual that defines a colony but the enrichment and empowerment of the country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Or maybe people could just self-ID as Scottish? (That last one is a joke, by the way)
———
And a very good one!
LikeLike
By intentionally blocking and rejecting the offer of Scottish citizenship and Scottish nationality, and handing Scottish sovereignty over to England’s Tories to do with Scotland as they please, a not unreasonable question might be – do No voters want to be Scottish at all?
LikeLiked by 9 people
This is actually a reply to Alfbaird below
“do No voters want to be Scottish at all?”
From what I have observed in Northern ireland, Unionists really are convinced they are British.
They ape the English in speech, manners,are interested only in Westminster politics, etc.
None has any desire to be Irish and some even hate the irish per sé.
I imagine No voters in Scotland display a similar mentality
LikeLiked by 3 people
Some not all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“what is a “native Scot”?”
A person who was born in Scotland
“There are plenty of Scots who, for some reason, were born elsewhere but now live in Scotland and are every bit as Scottish as any native born Scot”
Absolutely. Scotland does not have the exclusive on this, every other country in the world experience the exact same. Being native is not the exact same as being a citizen. You can be a native but not a citizen and you can be a citizen but not a native.
“should both parents be Scottish?”
If you look at the rules of most countries, it is usually requirement for only one of the parents to be a citizen for the person to be eligible for citizenship. In some countries it is enough if one of your grandparents was a citizen of the country.
“And how do you check it all? ”
In the exact same way every other country in the world or even the UK checks it all when you request your passport.
It is not rocket science, Davey, it has been done for a long time. Even the incompetents in Westminster have managed this quite well.
“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”. Note that word: “Everyone”.”
You appear to have missed the crucial part of the sentence “OF HIS COUNTRY”.
“This verges on the delusional”
Are you sure of that? So why is it that the “Scottish” lords got so upset when they attempted to implement the reforms reducing the number of Scots Peers and even suggested it was a breach of one of the fundamental conditions of the treaty of union? It was not that long ago.
“Scotland has the right to send a number of MPs to Westminster. It’s a right, not a requirement”
Again, are you sure?
the original article XXII of the treaty of union read:
“‘That by Virtue of this Treaty, of the Peers of Scotland, at the Time of the Union,
sixteen shall be the Number to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and fortyfive the Number
of the Representatives of Scotland in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great
Britain;….”
It does not say “it is a right” or “be elected”. It says “shall be the number to sit and vote”. Unless the MPs swear allegiance (or take the oath) they are not allowed to sit, debate or vote.
I know parts of this article have been repealed but the original writing of the article was very clear.
“If Westminster were to curtail that right, it would provoke a major constitutional crisis”
Precisely.
“But if some Scottish MPs merely decided that they weren’t going to go to Westminster any more, it would not make one whit of difference to Westminster which would proceed as normal”
I disagree. How long would you be able to pretend to the world Westminster is the UK parliament if you have more than half of Scotland’s MPs refusing to take their seats and refusing to swear allegiance? How do you think it would look from the perspective of legitimacy to rule over Scotland if more than half of Scotland’s seats in Westminster have to be declared “vacant” because MPs will not take them? How do you think the people of Scotland would respond to policies and laws passed only by MPs from the Kingdom of England?
” if they decided not to go through it that’s their right,”
No. If they campaign on a mandate of abstentionism from Westminster and to not take their seats, that is what they will be expected to do.
” If any of the Scottish MPs were to resign his or her seat, then a by-election would be called in the normal way”
If the MP was elected on an abstentionist mandate to repeal the treaty of union, I am not sure how Westminster can declare the seat vacant and call a by-election without shooting themselves on the foot (metaphorically speaking) and catapulting support for independence in Scotland even further. Sinn Fein seats are not called for by-election. There is a good reason for that – it would add even more fuel to the fire.
The Irish people have their reasons. Scotland have hers. The reality here is that until there is a clear mechanism to exit the union that is not gerrymandered and controlled by Westminster, that is the path we have. If that is the only path we have, that will be the path we will have to take.
“Well, Scotland departure wouldn’t terminate the UK as such – the UK would continue as a sovereign nation state”
Not necessarily. That would only be the case if we follow Route 2 (I refer to the previous blog entry), that is, if Scotland behaves as if it was Catalonia, a region seceding from the UK, or if following route 1, Scotland’s representatives in the negotiation process agree for the Kingdom of England and its dominions to become the successor state. The latter of course can only be in exchange for something else of equal value for Scotland. Remaining as the successor state means retaining Nato, UN seats among others, the civil service, the structures of government and the trade agreements. It is therefore a concession of huge value that should be compensated by something of equal value for Scotland. At the end of the day the UK is a joint enterprise between Scotland and England, so it cannot only be England who gets all the perks.
“It’s the situation where a Scotland that attempted to declare independence in the way that you suggest that worries me and, I suspect, would worry a lot of other people too”
Sure. I totally understand that. But given the choice between taking that route or remaining forever in the current situation, which is where we are heading with Sturgeon’s covert unionist strategy, would you be the one who tells to all those independence supporters that they have to eliminate the idea from their heads forever because some people is unhappy with the path? What alternative do you give them?
What about those of us who have been unhappy for EIGHT YEARS with the “non path” taken by Sturgeon? Haven’t we every right to pursue a different path, one that actually take us somewhere?
“Scotland’s independence being illegal”
The only way Scotland’s independence can be seen as unlawful is if it is declared by a minority of Scotland’s MPs/MSPs. If there is a majority of representatives who were elected on a pro independence mandate or under a party whose constitution has independence of Scotland at is very core, independence of Scotland can never be seen as unlawful. What appears unlawful and undemocratic is to rewrite the rules and apply them retrospectively to avoid acting upon it and delivering it. I have no doubts Westminster will attempt to firefight by rewriting laws, repeal any meaningful part of the treaty they can and change our representation if given the chance. The longer we wait, the more the chance they are being given to change things without our consent.
“The UK would neither recognise Scotland not co-operate with it”
it may not have to if Scotland terminates the treaty and with it the UK.
“Spain would ensure that the EU wouldn’t”
I wouldn’t be so sure. Spain is very attached to the fish in our waters. If the treaty of union is repealed they may see it as an opening to get their hands back on Gibraltar.
“Scotland would have no currency”
Why? We already have Scottish notes in circulation backed by the equivalent amount in the Bank of England. Those notes are printed in Scotland. What is stopping us removing from the Bank of England the money that is backing our notes in circulation and printing more but removing the “sterling” bit from our plates?
“no trade agreements”
You cannot launch yourself on a plan like this without at least having an ally. I would think EIGHT YEARS, three majorities, countless mandates for referendums and several breaches of the treaty of union would have been more than enough for a negotiator in the Scottish government worth their salt to secure at the very least one. In that situation and with the same opportunities, Mr Salmond would have secured the backing of an entire continent in half of the time.
“a plebiscite election held on the basis you envisage would fail because most people just wouldn’t want to take that risk”
I wouldn’t be so sure. Didn’t the UK jumped off the EU ship and triggered A50 with no significant trade agreements at all? Do you remember the words “hard brexit”? If they could pull it off, why can’t we?
“but the Alba one?”
Yes
“Seriously?”
Yes
“We want to win, don’t we?”
Precisely. That is why after EIGHT YEARS of watching SNP MPs/MSPs heating up seats and not progressing Scotland’s independence at all, it has to be Alba candidates, I am afraid.
“Unfortunately, just as Alba supporters such as you loathe the SNP, so do many SNP supporters loathe Alba”
Well, many of those who voted for the SNP in 2015 loathed it 5 years before and many loathe it now for not having done anything with all those majorities and all that time.
“Ideally therefore you’d have to try to find a candidate acceptable to all strands of Independence thinking”
Well, an Alba candidate would have as much chance as any other. I would never vote for an SNP one again and I am not the only one.
“That might be quite difficult”
but not impossible
“As polls suggest that Alba still attracts the support of less than 2% of the electorate, I don’t really think they’d be in a very strong position to choose the candidates”
Well, after wasting EIGHT YEARS of Scotland’s time, THREE absolute majorities, letting countless mandates expire and countless opportunities, using our pro indy votes to preserve the union and hand over our assets, frankly I do not think the SNP is in any position of trust anymore to lecture anybody about rules of election or standards.
“As for the unionists, they may be misguided, but they’re not stupid and in a first-past-the post system they too would want to maximise the unionist vote”
Sure. They will resource, as I said above, to the same they have been doing since 2014 but more frantically: to pool the unionist vote by using only one out of three votable candidate and two paper candidates and by promoting strategic voting. if you are a cynic like me you may think they will arrange for a few thousand voters from outwith Scotland to casually send their postal votes to Scotland rather than to wherever it is they are from.
“I don’t know where you got the idea that unlike a referendum a plebiscite election would be free of Unionist interference”
I have never said knowingly that a General election/holyrood election would be free of unionist interference. What I said is that a general election where the unionist vote in England is very concerned with keeping tory bums in MP seats because their vote ratings have gone seriously down the toilet after the Johnson’s prime ministerial stunt, is a great opportunity to hold a plebiscite in Scotland. Divide and conquer. Tories cannot fight two battles at once. Besides, with FPTP it is easier to get a majority of the seats.
“It would be held under UK election rules”
Every election in Scotland and every referendum will be held under UK election rules until Scotland becomes independent.
“Would exclude 16 and 17 year old”
As I said above, the number of 16 and 17 year olds voting in a referendum or Holyrood election is very small compared with the huge numbers the British state can make available to cast their vote in a Scottish election/referendum when the survival of the British state is at stake.
“Many of those “non-native Scots” you refer to would be included in the franchise”
Non-native scots are included in every franchise we have at present.
“You seem to think, Mia, that Independence candidates could win a majority of seats”
I do, yes.
“I, on the other hand, fear that they may well end up winning no seats at all”
Will that stop you voting then?
” Scotland has 59 Westminster constituencies”
Weren’t they reducing that number to 56 or 57?
“and your argument is that if the Indy candidates were to win 30 of these then Scotland should declare independence”
Actually, my argument is that if the SNP were serious about independence they should have declared independence already in 2015. Unfortunately it seems Sturgeon is acting as a Westminster tool more preocupied for preserving the union and get seats to back Labour than to progress Scotland’s autonomy.
” In the last election, where the SNP did quite well, there were only 10 seats where independence votes outnumbered unionist ones”
You are coming back over and over again to the SNP. The SNP in my eyes is since 14 November 2014 another unionist party, therefore unvotable.
“So you’ve not only have to hold that vote in these 10 seats, but also persuade enough unionist voters in at least 20 of the remaining seats to vote for independence”
Nope. In the last GE election Scotland sent 45 (we thought) pro-independence MPs. I would be happy with just 29 of those if they were elected on a mandate to not take their seats and terminate the treaty of union.
“And remember, you’re dealing with a Westminster franchise”
I am well aware, thank you.
“So what would you be offering them? ”
I personally do not offer anything. I am demanding that if a political candidate wants my vote they are going to have to run on a manifesto where they do not take their seats, they do not swear allegiance, and if a majority of similar minded candidates is elected, they will repeal the act of union with England and repeal the treaty of union.
“A situation where the Scottish MPs would go down to Westminster…”
No, they do not need to go down to Westminster at all. After election, they simply get together in Holyrood, invite the other MPs to join them, repeal the Act of Union with England, repeal the treaty of union and restore Scotland’s statehood. Just like the Irish MPs did on the day.
“As ever, the UK government would control or have the support of the BBC”
It has been almost 5 years since I watched any programme in the BBC. I couldn’t care less what they say in the BBC.
If the treaty of union is repealed, westminster, the secret services and the Supreme Court lose their legitimacy to continue acting as “UK” structures.
“such a vague and illegal proposal”
Tell me about the clear alternative. Please abstain to bring the idea of a referendum because EIGHT YEARS waiting for one and when despite having EIGHT YEARS to mend it, the loopholes have not been tied down, is more than enough to realise one will never be put forward unless it is completely flawed and designed to frustrate independence instead of facilitating it.
“Unionists would vote en masse”
When you say “en masse” do you mean the British state will be sending millions rather than hundreds of thousands of activists to cast their unionst vote here?
Well, it would make for interest reading when looking at the figures. Because the figures will be looked at rest assured.
“Unfortunately, I’m beginning to think that all the minor independence parties – Alba, ISP, Scotia First, and any others that might have escaped my attention, are increasingly irrelevant”
I however see them as our only hope, a breath of fresh air.
“If the SNP fail to produce a referendum”
Sorry not more chances for these losers and timewasters from me. EIGHT YEARS have been quite enough thank you. I am now seeking an alternative. I am not wasting any more of my time and my votes on a party who has become New Labour in all but name and is attempting to steer us towards some form of enhanced devolution, forcing on us England’s low standards after brexit, locking us into toxic trade deals, handing our assets, keeping Scotland as an extension of England’s domestic market rather than promoting Scotland’s growth and establish its own trade deals and international connections, and aligning Scotland’s government foreign policy to England warmongering foreign policy rather than independence. Sorry. Enough is enough.
LikeLiked by 5 people
@ Sparks – noting the untrustworthy behaviour of the current and past UK gov’ts – EU exit negotiations, Xmas parties during lockdown, Covid protective equipment procurement, and way back to the extent of North Sea oil and gas resources being hidden from view – to believe that the UK establishment didn’t rig the 2014 referendum seems nuts to me.
Evidence – didn’t Ruth Davidson cheerfully inform the public on the postal vote count before election day? Wasn’t there a group in Argllshire adamant that tampering had occurred?
and just as you say, the media will go on and on about the NHS, education, Prestwick airport, the media showed no interest in pursuing concerns over vote rigging in the 2014 referendum.
Finally Prestwick is very busy right now, lots of big khaki coloured planes. The airport way back in time was commercially successful, the UK establishment put paid to that via flight route restrictions, and then of course Heathrow was handily able to take up the slack.Similar tales can be told over the Scottish Mint, stock exchanges etc.
In our time, right now under our noses – carbon storage in a ready- now site in Scotland?- eh No. Justification for the national grid transmission charges? Silence. Oil and gas income and taxation, do you have any knowledge to share? Fracking on the cards – are you taking bets? Media interest on any of this? Zilch.
LikeLiked by 8 people
Russian and US observers were surprised at the «casual» manner the referendum voting papers were handled and have the images to back it up. Where are they now?
The SNP ought to have raised hell at the time especially as the media appeared to know the result before declaration.
That is now «history» but a lesson i trust has been learned. The establishment agencies, whether Scottish or English, will have your blood. But how many tellings, how much evidence do some people need?
The struggle of a nation for freedom is a rather dirty business. Believing you can still keep your white shirt clean in such a struggle is delusion.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Sigh.
32 Returning Officers – of various personal politics – have signed off the results of that referendum and all the elections since as free, fair and accurate. Were they all in on a conspiracy?
A few thousand council employees were involved in the counts. Again, no reports of anything odd.
All the political parties have agents scrutinising the counts, including the opening of the postal votes before they are added to the ballot boxes. No party raised any concerns.
And that, by the way, is how Ruth Davidson knew roughly how the postal votes were breaking. The agents in the room aren’t allowed to “count” but if you’re standing there watching them being opened you get a pretty good idea. All the parties do it.
This is tinfoil hattery of the worst kind.
LikeLike
Why no exit poll?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sparks: no political party should have been opening the postal ballots before they were counted, prior to being added to the overall total (postal and polling station). It is extremely iffy to say the least that this was done and the Electoral Commission should be ashamed of themselves to have allowed it. The second envelope is sealed and should not be opened by anyone before polling day. Ruth Davidson at least held off till polling night, but before the close of poll. That Labour spin master and practitioner of the dark arts, John McTernan announced FOUR days in advance of voting that the postal vote had won the referendum. It was either on the Andrew Marr show or the Andrew Neil show and will be in the BBC archives, if you fancy an FIO request. You think that’s democratic? You think that the breaching of the purdah rules – never done before – was democratic? You think we zip up the back? You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to find all of that very, very undemocratic. On top of that, no separate record was kept by the SEC – I checked – of the postal votes so that any kind of comparison became extremely difficult, patterns became equally difficult to see and no numbers of voters from any area could be studied to compare tallies. The polling station voting allows all these things to take place fairly easily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“‘Justification for the national grid transmission charges? Silence.”
You could try looking on the Ofgem and National Grid websites.
Where you would find that *consumers* in Scotland pay the lowest transmission charges in the UK. It’s the mathematical flip side of *generators* paying some of the higher charges.
Can’t understand why people want to reduce generator charges, it would only put customer charges up a by a little bit.
It’s not even as if the SNP had managed to get a significant number of generation-side jobs into Scotland.
LikeLike
“The airport way back in time was commercially successful, the UK establishment put paid to that via flight route restrictions”
Er, no. Absolutely wrong. More tinfoil hattery.
Airports like Prestwick, Shannon, Gander etc had a role back in the day when aircraft barely had the range to get across the Atlantic and needed to refuel at a coastal stop.
Guess what? Planes got longer ranged and were able to fly directly where they needed to go.
No more need for coastal airports out in the middle of nowhere.
LikeLike
Bruce over at Grumpy Scottish Man has published his non scientific poll (I don’t mean that disparagingly, it’s just that self selecting polls aren’t properly weighted). I found the results interesting and yes I did do the poll. One of the questions was about the route to independence and the results were interesting and probably reflective of the feelings of those who follow politics rather than the low info voter.
“Q5. Putting aside for one moment the legal arguments, or the constitutional make up of the UK, what would be your preferred route to Scottish Independence?
7.1% (9 respondents) chose a Referendum as their preferred route to independence, 25.2% (32 respondents) chose a Plebiscite Election, 49.6% (63 respondents) a Repeal of the Treaty of Union, and 18.1% (23 respondents) a Declaration of Independence”
Interesting that of all the options a referendum came last and repealing the Treaty first.
LikeLiked by 7 people
It’s frightening, and really quite depressing, to see just how unrealistic some indy supporters are. Repeal the Treaty of Union? Aye, right. It sounds good but it’ll never happen. If it was repealed, then everything that the state created by the Act has subsequently done would be deemed illegal. Every foreign treaty – illegal. We’d find ourselves waving the Claim of Right and rushing arund persecuting Catholics (every Catholic emancipation act was passed under the union). It won’t happen because in practical terms it couldn’t. Much better to consider amending the Act of Union, or better still replacing it with a new piece of legislation setting out Scotland’s withdrawal from the union and the terms thereof. That wouldn’t be too difficult – it’s getting to that situation that’s the problem.
As for the plebiscite election, I’ve set out what I see are major problems that would pose and no-one seems to have an answer to them. Unless someone can tell me where I’ve gone wrong in my assessment, I can only see such an election as being a disaster for the cause of independence, which I happen to want as much as anyone else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Much better to consider amending the Act of Union, or better still replacing it with a new piece of legislation setting out Scotland’s withdrawal from the union and the terms thereof”
It is evident you have a huge interest for the Kingdom of England to remain as the successor state. What would be the advantage for Scotland in such scenario?
If Scotland took route 2, downgraded itself to the status of a region seceding from the UK, then it would exit with no trade deals at all nor with any of the goodies it helped to pay during the last 300 years. Again, what would be the benefit for Scotland in that scenario?
The Act of union cannot be simply “amended” if what we want is independence. The Act of Union with England has to be repealed. The question is where will it be repealed. Considering it was an act passed by Scotland’s MPs in Scotland’s parliament, does Westminster have the right to repeal it? Do England MPs have the right to repeal an Act passed by Scotland MPs? Personally I think that is entrenching on Scotland’s rights and it should be Scotland’s MPs and Scotland’s MPs only who repeal the act. England MPs can repeal their own version, which is the Act of Union with Scotland.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Calm doon,private Fraser
LikeLike
Ah Davey Tee the marriage that cannot be broken. For ever and ever is it my man. Till death us do part and beyond.
Yip we’ve got the measure of you. A Forever Treaty that cannot be broken, renegotiated, resiled from. But to use the phrase from the time… ” now we have catch’d Scotland we will hold her fast ”
Ah Davey Boy, like the wife who cannot leave.you certainly come across of the ilk as someone who would beat her hard until she accepted her place, Well, Ireland told Jonny Englander where to stick his Forever Treaty. We should do the same..
LikeLiked by 3 people
What nonsense, davey! Why would resiling the Treaty change anything that has gone before except insofar as they affect Scotland. rUK can keep all its obligations and agreements and we will make new ones unless we choose some of the ones already decided. All you do is pour cold water on everything. No wonder this country stagnates with people like you happily treading water forever. Sorry, Davey, I do not mean to be rude, and I do understand that you might well be trying to be realistic, but it comes cross as treacle-walking. No country in the history of the world has worked out every detail of independence beforehand, and that is where we fall down because so may people demand that and we have always succumbed in the past We don’t succumb. We get on with it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Repeal the Treaty of Union?”
Yes, that is right. The idea is not unknown to the SNP. The quote below is from a debate in the House of Commons on the 14 November 1977:
“Will the right hon. Gentleman get the position of my party right? It does not seek to break up the United Kingdom but to break up the Treaty of Union in relation to the Parliaments. (Mrs Winifred Ewing, SNP MP for Moray and Nairn).
LikeLiked by 5 people
This forced abusive marriage will end when we get the balls to take to the streets and protest day and night. The whole so called democratic system is rigged, we the people must end this shit coercive Union. We must start by dumping the SNP, then voting for those who will stand in a pebiste to end this perpetual misery of being shackled to a corrupt xenophobic banana republic .
LikeLiked by 4 people
davey: “… Much better to consider amending the Act of Union, or better still replacing it with a new piece of legislation setting out Scotland’s withdrawal from the union and the terms thereof. That wouldn’t be too difficult – it’s getting to that situation that’s the problem… ”
That is the very last thing we should do. Are you a Unionist? If they try that one, I wouldnlt like to predict what will happen, but it will not be pretty. Be careful what you wish for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed – must have a very short memory if oor Davey disnae remember the disgrace o’ the unionists agreeing the extra powers Scotland were tae get after we bowed tae their pleading tae – whit wis it again? – oh aye, lead no’ leave
Amendment after amendment voted down by the English parties leaving us with roadsigns and…… roadsigns. As I recall the Holy Brotherhood of the Labour Party denied us more than the tories
Sorry Davey but you are sounding more like a unionist with every interjection – either that or a Sturgeon, it’s sometimes awfy hard tae tell
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sparks – you need to work on your body swerve – your “Telegraphing” it.
Do all these big Khaki military planes stop over at Prestwick airport because they enjoy the scenery? Or is it the weather, sunny fog-free ayrshire?Shannon, has it been closed down?
Power generation – please enlighten us over regional charges and subsidies to provide power to the “national” grid, by location.Do you really expect me to believe anything published by the UK Establishment be it the UK gov’t, Ofgen, etc etc?
Do I stand corrected(?) postal votes are counted on polling day? Didn’t Davidson voice her joy over postal voting before polling day?
Keep practising your body swerve.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The mil jets are using Prestwick right now because it is empty and, therefore, cheap. It is empty because all the civ airlines have gone elsewhere. Because it’s a dump in the middle of nowhere.
No point in me trying to educate you about grid charging if you won’t believe anything from National Grid or Ofgem, then. They set the policies, they have the data, the formulae and the algorithms.
Postal votes are counted with the rest of the votes in the regular count. However the envelopes are opened, signatures checked and the ballot papers taken out of the envelopes beforehand.
All in the presence of candidates’ agents, from all parties that can be bothered to send them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Postal votes are counted with the rest of the votes in the regular count”
Are you sure?
This is from an interview on BBC1 of Ruth Davidson on the night of the 18th September 2014, at 22:45
Ruth Davidson:
“I am glad that you’re mentioning ballot boxes being opened thought. We know that during the campaign we had that, we had postal votes which of course are going to be ‘enormously important’, erm, in this campaign, erm, about 18%, erm, of the vote is going to come out of postal ballots, and we had people at every sampling opening around the country over the last few weeks and last week coming in and ‘we’ve been incredibly encouraged’ by the results from that.
Now there’s caveats. ‘More often elderly voters, are often more organised voters’, erm, but I have to say that ‘going into today, erm, I think from the postal votes that were cast out, I would say we would have a lead and I think we would have, ahh, a confidence, ‘I hope a quiet confidence’ the vast majority, the quiet majority of Scots have spoken today”
Interviewer:
“Is it not the case that postal votes, whilst they are verified, the are not actually opened until 22:00 on the night?”
Ruth Davidson:
“tsk, oh, they are not ‘counted’ until 22:00 on the night, but, erm, different local authorities had had openings around the country. It is illegal to discuss any of that while the ballots are ongoing so until 22:00 tonight nobody could talk about it”
—-
Ruth Davidson says rather casually that ” different local authorities” had had samplings around the country for weeks before referendum day– Do those “local authorities” include local crown agents and representatives from local MI5 branches as well? How many postal votes were opened during the “sampling”? All of them?
Ruth Davidson specifically put emphasis on the words “enormously important” with regards to postal votes. Why? There should not be any extra relevance for postal votes if, as expected, they come from the same general population sample as the ballot boxes votes do. The only reason I can think of as to why postal votes could be “enormously important” is if they come from a completely different population pool and therefore the proportion of the yes/no vote is so different to the one in the ballot boxes that, being significantly smaller (an 18% of the vote, she told us), still has the ability to revert the result of the ballots in the boxes.
So what does this mean? Does it mean that huge percentages of No votes were evident during the “sampling” of the postal votes, percentages that Ruth Davidson knew, even before the count of the votes of the ballot boxes had started, were so at odds with the percentages of Yes/No predicted for the ballot boxes that were enough to ‘incredibly encourage’ “them” (whoever they are) and to “have a confidence” the “quiet” majority of Scots had spoken even looking at some of those postal ballots?
You can interpret it all in the way you wish. My interpretation is that she knew at the time of that interview that those postal votes was what would determine the outcome. Please note that this was an interview conducted on the 18 September 2014 at 22:45. The deadline to receive postal votes was 22:00, so at that point she could not possibly know the outcome of all postal ballots, nor the number.
If I am not mistaken, the count of the ballots cast on the day could not have started until 22:00 and that is if the boxes were counted in situ. Therefore until some point after 22:00, when the polling stations are closed, you cannot possibly know the total number of voters who approached the polling stations in Scotland never mind the number of valid votes cast. Yet, Ruth Davidson already knew from her “samplings” conducted during weeks prior to the counting of the ballots, even before all postal ballots had been received, that 18% of the votes had been cast via post. Wow.
Let’s remember that there was no exit poll during the 2014 referendum, so how on earth, at 22:45, before the count was completed, and I dare say even before the count had even started for many boxes if these were transported somewhere else to be counted, could Ruth Davidson possibly know the actual percentage of postal votes compared to the total vote?
The conservatives were not the main opposition in Scotland in 2014. So what on earth was the local branch manager of a third rate party in Scotland and an England party at that, doing at “sampling openings” of postal votes for a referendum on Scotland’s independence from England BEFORE the count had actually started and BEFORE all the postal votes had been submitted? In what quality was she present in those “samplings”? Being the leader of an England party branch you can hardly see her as a “neutral” observer, can you? Can’t this therefore be seen as a potential direct unwanted interference of an external foreign interest in Scotland’s democratic process even before the official counting actually started?
And what on earth are “sampling openings”? Couldn’t opening the postal ballots BEFORE the official date and official time be construed as tampering with the postal votes? Who else had access to those “sampling” events? Were other political figures from England parties and actually representing England constituencies or their advisors also present during those samplings? Were crown representatives present? Who supervised those people in contact with the ballots? Where did those “sampling” events took place? How often did those events took place? What did they do with the votes they “sampled”? Where were the ballots stored before “the samplings”? How were they transported to the “samplings”? How many people handled each vote before they were “secured” in preparation for their official counting on referendum day?
Ruth Davidson claims the postal votes are not “counted” during the sampling. So how on earth, if they were not counting the votes, could they possibly be “incredibly encouraged” by the results? If you are not purposely counting the votes, and the proportion of yes to no is hoovering around 50% you cannot be “incredibly encouraged” that no had won, never mind talking about “quiet majorities”. The only way you can be “incredibly encouraged” is if the proportion of no votes among those postal votes was so huge that even without purposely counting the ballots and when only knowing an estimate of the proportion yes/no that would be obtained from the ballot boxes on referendum day, just at a quick glance it was obvious to see the postal ballots would revert the proportion yes to no estimated for the ballot boxes. Unless of course they already knew at that point no would win also on the ballot boxes too. If it was just a matter that the proportion of yes to no of the postal votes was so different to the proportion from the ballot boxes, where were those postal votes coming from?
Considering these people had access to opening ballots before the actual referendum took place, never mind the counting had started, I am not sure how we can be expected to believe that after opening the ballots BEFORE the referendum date and without postal voters being aware that their ballot papers were being tampered with ‘for sampling’ weeks before the referendum, that Davidson’s masters would simply sigh and resign themselves to accept the result if a yes vote was on the lead.
She said “More often elderly voters, are often more organised voters’”– do you see what she was doing here? She was already attempting to ping the blame for a no vote lead on elderly voters and ‘organised voters’. We have often wondered where the idea that older votes were the ones who voted no. Here it is one of the sources.
Also, when she talked about “the quiet majority”, she was of course calling us yes voters “loud”, without actually saying it, and quite possibly preparing our minds to be more accepting of the propaganda that was already in the pipeline purporting yes voters as violent and destructive (example “Scottish independence: Historic day marred by isolated reports of intimidation, abuse and violence”, published on “the independent” on 18 September 2014).
Some people may be capable to switch off the frontal lobe of their brain on demand so, without even batting an eyelid, they can swallow the astronomical amount of crap the official narrative of the referendum has been. I am afraid I can’t do that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, they are counted in the regular count, but only after hey have been opened and counted in advance, Sparks, and they look no different from the normal ballot papers, which meant that polling agents at the final count had no real idea of which were normal ballot papers and which were postal ballot papers. Even the boxes are similar. I can assure you that a separate record of the postal ballot as opposed to the polling station ballot was not kept. Sampling of normal ballots means that you can match voting intentions in your pre polling records with actual voting, but there was no such access to postal ballots in 2014. If you look at the second envelope, the rules state that it must not be opened. Only the first may be opened to allow access to name and address so that these can be ticked off as having voted. No way should any political agent or anyone else have any access to HOW a postal voter voted, otherwise they could just look over the shoulder of the voter in the polling station booth and get their results that way, couldn’t they? Isn’t that forbidden? Isn’t it meant to be a secret ballot? Or is it okay for Unionists to know the results in advance?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Molly’s Mum and Mia: yes, indeed, it would be wilful political suicide to renegotiate the Treaty now because, as Davey does not seem to appreciate, there is no way in the 21st century that wee Scotland, with just over five million of a population can do anything to dissuade Big England, with in excess of 50 million, from doing what it wants – and, to be fair, needs – to do for its own population, the bulk of the UK population. We are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if we think we can tie down England. Has Brexit taught people like Davey nothing? No, our only resort must be to regain our own independence.
LikeLike
Sparks – remember the “fire alarm” episode – leave the building – and leave the voting returns unattended in the building.
Conspiracy concerns is such an easy put down for skeptics, and proof is difficult to obtain against well resourced professionals.
A bit off topic, but – remember the UK employee found dead in a zipped-up bag. Was the verdict suicide? Assamge?Craig Murray? Still a believer in UK gov,t data?
LikeLiked by 1 person
18 September 2014 found that the votes of people born outside Scotland decided the result.
52.7 per cent of native-born Scots voted “yes” but 72.1 per cent of voters from England, Wales or Northern Ireland backed the Union.
There were more than 420,000 Britons from elsewhere in the UK living in Scotland when the last census was taken and assuming they cast their ballots in line with the findings of the Edinburgh University study, more than 300,000 of them will have voted “no”.
EU citizens, numbering around 225,000 also rejected independence, with 57.1 per cent, around 128,500 votings “no”.
With the foregoing 428,000 confirmed “no” voters, from outside Scotland, the referendum ended with “Better Together” gaining 384,000 more votes for “no”.
The “no” campaigners were “cock a hoop” with their victory and boasted that Scots had voted against independence. This is a statement totally at odds with the facts. Scots-born and resident citizens did vote for independence.
Political scientist Professor Ailsa Henderson, who wrote the study said it showed the influence of “Britishness” among voters born elsewhere in the UK in deciding the result. She said:
“Scottish-born people were more likely to vote “yes” and those born outside Scotland were more likely to vote “no”. But the least sympathetic to “yes” were the people born in the UK, but outside Scotland. We think they are more likely to feel British. They are more likely to feel a continued tie to the UK as a whole – because that’s where they are from.”
LikeLiked by 8 people
Spot on.
LikeLiked by 3 people
In the born outside Scotland demographic is there an age breakdown? Older Brits may be like colonial settlers bringing their own culture and attitudes. In senior public sector positions how many go to native Scots?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a similar vein, Prof. of Geography Danny Dorling (Oxford) claimed that the majority of native Welsh voted Remain in 2016 (the official Welsh vote was 52 : 48 Leave).
I was extremely sceptical at first, but if you run the numbers it is entirely possible.
There are 650,000 English born residents in Wales. If native Welsh were evenly split on Brexit, the English born residents would have to have voted Leave by a >12% margin of victory to achieve the 52 : 48 headline result. Five out of nine English regions did in fact vote Leave by this margin (and that’s before factoring in the dilution effect of Scottish, Irish & Welsh voters in those regions).
Applying the same methodology and factoring in the 420,000 UK national, non-Scots resident in Scotland for the Brexit vote suggests a Remain margin of victory among native Scots of ~28%.
And still, Sturgeon widnae use this as a trigger for independence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The May 2015 GE provided Sturgeon with the evidence she needed that the electorate wanted independence. I believe if Alex Salmond had been leader Scotland would be independent now.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hope this is allowed, Iain … this is the first of a series of videos I did about 3 years ago, and which then led to me submitting a Petition to the Scottish Parliament. In all the comments on this thread about “vote rigging” or “vote manipulation” you have to follow that through to what happens when there is 100% verifiable proof that it has happened.
When you do follow it through you find the most serious error in the Referedums (Scotland) Act – namely you have 8 weeks in which to raise an action in the Court of Session,and raise the substantial sums that will involve – find the evidence 1 day after that 8 weeks and no matter the quality of your evidence – it is time barred. (The video was produced before an original 6 weeks was in the Bill later changed to 8 weeks in the Act.)
A later video in the series deals with a report from the Security Committee at the HofC – which raised Russian interference in the 2014 Referendum – but the Report was 5 years later – so even if valid – it was time barred because of that section in the Referendums (Scotland) Act
Link:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where is the link Mike?
LikeLike
Head here and click on videos… you will find the series and one very interesting clip re the Petitions Committee – the Petition was closed without anyone answering the position over the 8 week period – but I am allowed to resubmit a Petition in this new session of Parliament – it’s on my agenda, but not immediately. Hoe that helps?
ttps://www.facebook.com/X2-113742180011217/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Needs the “h” to use the link – left off deliberately to avoid clutter on the page – you’ve seen enough of me, lol!
LikeLiked by 2 people
«Will the right hon. Gentleman get the position of my party right? It does not seek to break up the United Kingdom but to break up the Treaty of Union in relation to the Parliaments» (Mrs Winifred Ewing, SNP MP for Moray and Nairn).
In a sentence that encapsulates the issue. UK is seemingly a good thing, the parliamentary Union a bad thing. So effectively a return to pre 1707 two parliament system, keep the British confessional based «identity», monarchy and all its trappings: hardly ground breaking.
Little wonder the SNP is what it is, a pro British, anti nationalist, quasi federalist party.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great stuff Mia, though I can never quite share your penchant for the EU. It’s overblown and capitalistic and let’s face it , will never be happy until and united states of Europe is created.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ethnic seeding or settling troublesome minority regions or provinces is a well established strategy. The Romans used to fairly good effect in keeping the peace as did the French in North Africa.
Settling Arabic or Kurdish speaking Muslims in the Assyrian provinces of Ottoman Iraq was continued under the British protectorate and King Faisal and stepped up under Saddam Hussein al Tikriti. Over time the demographic was diluted, helped of course by war and emigration of the native ethnicity.
LikeLiked by 3 people
caltonjock: “… The May 2015 GE provided Sturgeon with the evidence she needed that the electorate wanted independence. I believe if Alex Salmond had been leader Scotland would be independent now… ”
I agree, but, simultaneously, in 2015, a huge influx of far left former Labour virtue signallers also moved into the SNP. They have ensured that Nicola Sturgeon will not take independence seriously. If, as seems likely, unless we manage something drastic, the GRA Reform Bill is passed, the virtue signallers will find themselves overwhelmed by more demands for ever more reform on the sexual laws front. Consent laws will be the next target, and they, if reformed, lead on to lowering the age of consent considerably, and to all kinds of twisting of the concept of consent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, should have added that, although I would never normally ask for this to happen, I would like to see the names of those who voted for this GRA Reform published and a record kept in the public archives, so that, when this all goes pear-shaped and women and children start to suffer the consequences, these people can be held to account for their actions and their refusal to listen to sense. As I say, I would never normally ask for such a thing, but too many of these people have taken our votes and used them in ways we never consented to. When politicians start denying reality, they should be brought down to Earth very quickly, and that should be done via deselection by local branches/constituencies and/or by non-voting for those candidates in future elections. If any woman or child is harmed by this legislation, that woman or child should be able to sue the individual councillor, MSP, MP in their area, and the parliament as a whole. It is way past the time when politicians should be made to answer for their blatant disregard of public concerns, where no real consultation has taken place and all kinds of petitions have been ignored. The overriding principle should be: “… in full knowledge of the facts… ” Many instances are readily available now of women and children being harmed by this insanity – and the politicians know it! It is happening across the board now and they believe they can get away with it on all kinds of issues.
LikeLike
“The May 2015 GE provided Sturgeon with the evidence she needed that the electorate wanted independence”
Even before that, Caltonjock. As early as 30 October 2014, that is a little over a month after the 2014 referendum, there were already reports in the press that a poll had predicted a landslide win for the SNP:
“Poll: SNP will win 54 seats in Scotland”
(Published in the New Statesman on 30 October 2014)
Sturgeon did not become officially the leader of the SNP and FM until the 14 November 2014.
The manifesto of the SNP for the GE 2015 was not released until around the 20the April 2015. By that time, more polls had been released and it was well known the SNP would win by a landslide.
Interestingly, right before the SNP manifesto was released, but well after it was known the SNP would win by a landslide, Sturgeon was already removing the wheels off the SNP and rendering it useless in a attempt to justify her “non actions” for the following 2 years. In other words, already with the very first majority the SNP would have ever won in Westminster, this woman was already deliberately setting up the precedent that majorities of SNP MPs were completely worthless.
What kind of leader deliberately sabotages their own party’s power and credibility by handcuffing its hands even before the election has taken place? Only one who is seeking to neutering the party. I have wondered many times now if Sturgeon getting the leadership of the SNP marked the moment the SNP was taken over by New Labour.
On the 13th April 2015 this was published by ITV news:
“Leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), Nicola Sturgeon, has told ITV’s The Agenda she believes Scotland will be an independent country “one day” but insisted that a vote for her party “is not about independence”.
“Ms Sturgeon said: “If you vote for the SNP you are not voting for independence you are not even voting for another independence referendum. You are voting to make Scotland’s voice heard in that system that has so often in the past tended to side-line and ignore Scotland”
end of quote
If you are an unrepentant cynic like I am, from that interview you could already predict this woman had no intention whatsoever to ever lead Scotland to independence. This is what she said at that interview:
“”I think Scotland will be independent one day, I think that is the direction of travel but it won’t be me that decides that.”
When you look retrospectively everything seems so much clearer:
It is interesting that this woman took control of the party of independence at the precise time in history when for first time since its conception the SNP was on the cusp of winning a majority of the seats allocated to Scotland in Westminster and therefore in a the perfect position to terminate the treaty of union.
It is interesting that when having at her feet the opportunity of her life to lead Scotland to independence, instead of doing so and entering the history books as the heroine who reverted Scotland to its former status of independent state, she rendered the party she had just became the leader of, totally useless, and enthusiastically threw away the biggest opportunity as a pro-indy leader she would ever have.
Considering that under this woman the direction of travel of the SNP immediately moved 180 degrees from the moment she took over, and immediately after a rather controversial referendum where large numbers of people do not believe even today the official narrative, is also interesting.
That just one week before the referendum the state powers dangled a fake vow in front of the voters and in the middle of purdah period, and that this woman did not use the power she had been entrusted with to force the delivering of each and every one of the promises included in that vow under the continuous threat of terminating the union, is fascinating.
Even more interesting is that this woman by claiming that a vote for the party of independence was not a vote for independence was putting herself at total odds with the the first article of the SNP constitution and the raison d’etre of the party. It is very interesting that a rapid change of this magnitude in the direction of the travel of the party at a point when independence was well within reach was not done backed by a parallel change in the constitution of the party and therefore supported by the members. That the constitution said one thing and her word another was, at the very least, confusing to voters. What takes priority, the constitution of the party or the word of the leader of the day?
Did the majority of SNP members supported such change? Were the members even aware of the change in direction of the party she was forcing in before the manifesto was released?
From the perspective of an outsider, this change in direction seems like a rushed manoeuvre, like firefighting. If her intention was always to neuter the SNP, because she only took control of the party in November 2014 she would not have had time to change the constitution of the party. Inconveniently, to be able to do that, at least at that point when the democratic structures of the party were in working order, she would have to do that with the backing of the members, including Mr Salmond. But evidently the change of direction of the SNP to prevent that majority of MPs to signal the end of the union had to be done asap, to allow for the parody of brexit to commence, hence the provisional removing of the wheels from the SNP before the neutering of the party could become a more permanent feature.
What are the odds the constitution of the SNP is going to be changed soon, now that the members have been detached from the levers of power and now that the democratic structures of the party have been destroyed?
I am convinced the referendum was rigged. It is for me not credible that in barely a month after, as we were told, 55% “decisively” rejected independence, a majority of voters cast their vote for independence parties and handed 56 out of 59 seats to a party that has the pursuit of independence in its manifesto. What you would expect in that scenario is the no voters to rejoice in casting their votes for unionist parties to re-enforce their views in September. Something does not quite add up.
It is much more likely that this vote in 2015 was a direct response of disgust at that official referendum result and the con of the vow.
What are the odds the powers in the british state knew well in advance the reaction of the Scottish people would have to the official result if this did not match their predictions? What are the odds the powers of the British state knew well before the election took place, even before the vow was released what rigging the referendum and/or releasing a vow they never intended to fulfil would do to the 2015 general election? What are the odds that something was put in place to stop the enormous risk a huge majority of SNP MPs would signify for the treaty of union?
What is the fastest way you can transform a party if you don’t have sufficient time to change its internal structures?
You find a way to take control of the leader and the manifesto.
What have we seen for the last 8 years?
LikeLiked by 3 people
oh Sparks, algorithms and formulae, jings, who would have guessed.Do you have a lifebelt?
LikeLike
A wee bit Off Topic
I inadvertently watched part of have I got news for you with victoria coren mitchell as the host , she made a couple of comments re Scotland which was quite an insight to how some of our neighbours view our supposed equal partnership with england in the uk , BUT don’t worry it was only a bit of banter not racist or demeaning whatsoever
It had to do with qwasi kwartengs proposal to site nuclear power plants in Scotland, link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00164tk/have-i-got-news-for-you-series-63-episode-2
From 10.46 and 14.25
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly the current leadership at holyrood are enablers of London and barriers to the YES movement. They’ll happily watch Scotland turn into a nuclear dumping ground whilst giving London a ‘stern ticking off’.
You only have to watch the narrative play out this morning – SNP calling for the UK prime minister to resign rather than shouting ‘lets get outa here’ from the rooftops.
If we understand our popular sovereignty then our beef must be with Bute house and not London.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Absolutely.
After the shenanigans during Fabiani’s farce regarding Nicola Sturgeon and her alleged breaches of the ministerial code, I thought it was incredibly hypocritical of her to call for the resignation of Johnson and Sunak on the basis of breaches of the ministerial code.
If there ever was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, well, this is it.
What is most fascinating is that during all those investigations for the parliamentary inquiry, suppression of evidence, restrictions of the boundaries of the investigation so there was no option for her to be found to have breached the ministerial code, at no point I remember Johnson or any of the other big ones in the UK gov cabinet officially demanding her resignation.
They could and they should have. There were no serious calls from big UK gov figures for her resignation either after it became painfully obvious the civil servants in her government frittered millions of pounds in a court cases they did not stand a chance to win and worse, they kept information from their own external counsel so the court case could continue. With an ex-MI5 in the COPFS it is hard to believe such irregularities could have ever escaped MI5’s attention and by default the UK government and parliament’s
So it is most fascinating now to watch her jumping at the opportunity to call for the resignation of Johnson for the same reasons Johnson could have demanded her own resignation one hundred times over before the 2021 election.
But, of course, if we think an imaginary scenario where she is the British state’s asset in Bute House, Johnson would not want to remove her from there and risk installing a real asset for independence who would have the audacity of using the SNP majority in Westminster for something other than keeping the green seats warm and legitimise every assault of England’s MP on Scotland, would he?
What is also fascinating about Sturgeon’s faux outrage at Johnson’s alleged breach of the ministerial code, is that this woman has had the power of ending the treaty of union since 8 May 2015, meaning that the only reason why Scotland has been enduring brexit and toxic tory governments we did not vote for, or having to endure the biggest embarrassment England has ever installed as PM in the UK, is because Sturgeon has refused to use the power the people of Scotland put on her hands to end this union and rid us of England tory governments.
What explanations could there be for her calling Johnson’s resignation?
Well, we have of course the ferries fiasco. Any opportunity to distract the Scottish electorate from that when an election is so close cannot be missed. But there might be another potential reason:
The shouts demanding a plebiscite election are increasing and becoming deafening.
More and more people is becoming suspicious of a referendum with a flawed franchise. Nobody takes her or Russell seriously anymore when they claim a referendum will take place in 2023 because they have been telling us a referendum is going to take place every single year since 2016. Yet, at no point any of them has had the backbone to give us an actual date. By date I do not mean a year. I am meaning an actual date – a day, a month and a year.
After they have already frittered a whole year of the new Holyrood term and still no legislation is in sight for this imaginary referendum, it is quite obvious now that things will never change in their approach to independence any time soon. Their excuses will change, but they approach, which is to stall independence, will not.
After she deliberately kyboshed a plebiscite election in 2021, securing seats for the unionist parties in Holyrood, the obvious target for this plebiscite is the next general election, which, if the present government is allowed to go full term, should take place in 2024.
A GE in 2024 would leave her and her toothless SNP totally exposed if she does not deliver that referendum in 2023. She would have no credible excuses to not call a plebiscite election in 2024, unless of course she embraces as her next excuse that big comet that , according to NASA, is heading towards the solar system and predicted to cross it around 2034, to stall independence after the excuse of COVID has been exhausted. But NASA has already said that the comet will not pass the solar system further away from us than Saturn, so such excuse may be too week to justify delaying independence.
So with no more comets in sight, how can she avoid the imminent risk of increasing demands for a plebiscite for the 2024 GE?
By bringing the GE forward, so it takes place before the end of 2023, the deadline for her unicorn referendum.
If sufficient people still believes she will deliver a referendum on 2023, the demands for an early GE to become a plebiscite will be weaker so she can deny it again as she did in 2021.
If successfuly, what this would do is to force us to postpone the idea of a plebiscite election until the next Holyrood election. By then, hopefully there might be other comets, meteorites or solar flames going rogue on the vision field of the super-telescopes.
And what is the best way to convince a fed up of elections English electorate that yet another GE is necessary before reaching the end of term?
By creating a need to remove the incumbent PM.
If you create the need to change the PM and the chancellor at the same time giving an impression that the present government cabinet is morally corrupt, disrespectful of families of COVID victims and unfit for purpose because it routinely breaks the law, then the GE will be more acceptable, despite the election fatigue because the UK electorate would have to vote in a fourth GE in the space of less than 8 years.
And here we go, the queen of procrastination procrastinating again by jumping on the bandwagon of bringing forward a GE to push the risk of a plebiscite election away. All while of course, she forgets that she can end the union with the current majority she already have. I suppose that she would feel she won the lottery if she was to lose that majority because that would give her an even better excuse than a harmless comet to continue denying us independence.
If Alba is serious about independence and serious about calling a plebiscite election, they have to be ready, because judging by her actions, it very much looks the procrastinator in Bute House will do everything in her hand to push that risk away, even if that means sacrificing the majority of seats her party currently enjoys in Westminster by helping to create a need for an unnecessarily early GE.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LOL. Gosh, Mia, you do exaggerate and much of what you say just isn’t true. If you managed to stop hating Sturgeon so much you might start thinking a bit more clearly.
LikeLike
“much of what you say just isn’t true”
Excellent news. And what better way to demonstrate I couldn’t be more wrong than by telling us right now when Nicola Sturgeon is going to deliver the official statement saying that the next GE will be a plebiscite on independence.
Or even better, tell us when she going to deliver the official statement that finally, after eight years of boring us to tears and wasting our time with her total inaction on the independence front, after amusing herself with handing away our powers and control of our assets instead of bringing them back to Scotland, and after opening the door to Westminster to force brexit on us and shredding our standards instead of protecting them, she finally got bored of playing the role of Westminster’s tool, and is going to make use of the power the people has put on her hands since 8th May 2015 to end the union.
I can’t wait for your response including the date and time she is going to release the statement. I can hardly contain my excitement.
By the way, displaying zero tolerance to the incompetence, deception and dishonesty of somebody who appears to be abusing their position of power to peddle the opposite agenda to what they have been leading others to believe they are doing, is not a synonym for hate. It is a synonym of awareness.
Over to you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
daveytee19 – gosh Mia…..much of what you say isn’t true… so where daveytee19 is your detailed rebuttal of what Mia has posted?
Are you and Sparks buddies? And “Gosh”, a wee bit of a terminology slip there.Collins have a Scots dictionary, that may help you “fit in” here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good response, Mia. In my blog post Going Beyond Theory, I highlight how suspending the treaty can be used in the interim. Scotland needs to stop viewing itself through the English establishment lens and look at itself through a truly Scottish one. Scotland was not subsumed into a greater England. It should not therefore act as though it was. It infuriates me watching Scotland’s representatives constantly capitulate to the English establishment as though “might is right”. Reminds me of the Danny Devito scene in Matilda “I’m big your small…” The legal reality though is that 2 sovereign nation states entered an international agreement which had specific terms and even a termination clause. The terms of which have been violated by the English establishment. Both states are legally equal partners with equal authority in the treaty. The 2 kingdoms remaining intact and independent within the treaty (Prof David Walker highlights this fact well). Neither Scotland nor England require the others permission to terminate nor suspend the treaty as the inherent right remains for both states. I provide my blog post link only as an extension of this comment and how practical application can and should be employed.
https://gaylesscottishblog.blogspot.com/2022/04/going-beyond-theory-practical.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely agree, Gayle/Mia. Our problem, fundamentally, is that we acquiesce in everything because it is so much easier than stirring our stumps and having to face adversity. The thing that really gets me is that the world and his wife knows what the Treaty is, including the Westminster establishment. The latter knows it is the founding document of the UK, that they have breached it consistently and persistently against all constitutional convention, and yet, we still pussyfoot around the issue. We have a Westminster government here that is acting ultra vires towards Scotland, knows it is, and doesn’t care, because it believes that we will never do anything about it. It has been proved right for over 300 years. It is still being proved right even with a SNP administration in Edinburgh. It is a disgrace and shameful.
LikeLiked by 3 people
100%
LikeLiked by 2 people
None of Mia’s articles ever consider the reaction of the current majority of people who do not want independence. Does she think that they will sit quietly as Scotland is hijacked by a government elected by a minority(none of whom were promised independence in an SNP election manifesto).
Personally I think we will see blood on the streets and our country torn in two.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is. risk that any independence bid runs, Jimmy. It is also the risk that the opposition runs if it leaves between 45 and 50% of the population to fester. That is why I have always favoured a constitutional settlement rather than a straight vote which the Unionists will almost certainly try to sabotage again. We are on a cleft stick. The one thing we can be certain of is that, of native-born Scots, the Unionists are in the minority. Their majority rests on the shoulders of rUK and EU NO voters, the latter being far more amenable to voting YES this time, if the opportunity arises.
LikeLiked by 1 person