STEPS TO TAKE INDEPENDENCE FORWARD!

STEPS TO FURTHER INDEPENDENCE

Independence campaigning has been frozen since 2014. Indeed it could be easily argued it has been going backwards as while we all await the mythical Section 30, the Westminster Parliament has been busy weakening our ability to break free, most notably with Brexit but there  is a series of other legislation reducing the powers of the Scottish Parliament and/or attempting to establish a route when Westminster can claim to be sovereign rather than sovereignty in Scotland being retained by our people. In this process they have been assisted by a supine SNP that has successfully trussed up their own membership that have been sleeping while the “leadership” controlled the NEC through the introduction of appointed, rather than elected posts. These appointed posts greatly assisted the Woke element of incomers who joined after 2014, mainly from Labour. They now control the NEC, CANDIDATE SELECTION, THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES.

They have not been slow to use their “new powers”. They control the party agenda at Conferences, using these powers they stopped any discussion on alternatives to Section 30. This denied any opportunity to discuss land reform and using the disciplinary powers they have suspended people like Tim Rideout, a vindictive move against someone who did win a vote at Conference about creating our own currency on a much quicker timescale that the ten years the Growth Commission proposed. That vote of course has been studiously ignored by the leadership ever since. This subject has not been near a Conference since nor will it if things stay as they are today. While Tim was suspended Woke supporters who are guilty of a variety of offences, including Members of Parliament, escape any public party reprimand for quite serious “offences”. They effectively created the ISP and Alba by these control measures splitting the Yes Movement asunder in the process.

So I am regularly asked “ But what can we do about it? “

The answer is not an easy one. The only people that can sort this is the SNP Membership themselves. Even if big numbers of them wanted to act it would still be difficult. There is now a huge payroll vote in the SNP. When you add MP’s and MSP’s salaries and expenses, their own staffs all paid by the taxpayer, councillors, then Woke members being paid by the public purse and whose organisations enjoy big funding from the SNP Government, we are talking about a huge army of people on the payroll, most of them working and being paid to work full time in politics. Nicola uses them all the time, a good number are Nicola’s ”attack dogs”. Many of them represent the Thought Police, they have been selected and owe their “places” thanks to Nicola and she leaves them in no doubt what happens if any rock the boat. SNP politics have been a mill pond every since this was put in place. All alternatives to what Nicola wants is suppressed, ignored or punished.. All independent thought is banned, conforming is the key attribute required these days. Wheesht for Indy rules!

The only other route is the electorate themselves but this is a big problem as well. While many activists know what has happened to the SNP the electorate have no idea. Why is that?  Well Nicola has been very skilful in keeping all this in a pot with very little getting out. She has paid millions of pounds  to the MSM to keep them onboard. If stories are true perhaps £9 million this year instead of the £3 million previously paid. The price of silence must be outstripping inflation and then some! We should also not ignore the use of the police and the courts to intimidate critics.

Centralised control of candidate selection resulted in an explosion in Woke candidates as some remarkably poor candidates won quick approval while much better qualified candidates were bypassed or rejected. It was for some the kiss of death if it became known to the panel that the local branch preferred you to the leadership supported Woke candidate. Not satisfied with that the NEC, acting against legal advice introduced a system where minority candidates were guaranteed to get the number one slot on every regional list across the country. This was a rather clumsy move to take out Joan McAlpine which sadly worked, but so embarrassed about the fix, the votes for each candidate in the regional contests were kept secret. The old Soviet Union would have been proud of this move. “ Trust us, we are on your side”  substituted for “Here are the election results”. 

So if miracle of miracles, the SNP membership were successful or some of the skeletons in the cupboard do break out and it results in overturning the leadership what could be changed?

  1. Reestablish National Council and give members and branches the voice they need to keep senior office bearers in check. Make sure ordinary members set agendas for Conferences.
  2. Use the resources properly. Attack on Independence across the board, a multi front approach rather than the solitary S30 dead end, which even if granted will be “granted” using the same flawed franchise that resulted in incomers joining with the minority of Scots who voted no in 2014, to cost us victory. Scots voted YES in 2014! With the numbers of incomers since, this is a bigger hurdle now than in 2014, hence the delayed census!
  3. Use the best people properly, Joanna Cherry looking and promoting legal avenues, to expose how the Treaty conditions have been breached repeatedly, including using the Claim of Right effectively as an example.
  4. Allocate to each Westminster MP TWO COUNTRIES to build links with, to educate about Scotland’s case for Independence. Arm them with an International Independence Prospectus setting out our case, Talk to every significant Party in these countries. SNP MP’s achieve nothing at Westminster. Even if we left half of them there in case a Scottish issue is involved the result will be the same. Much better have them operating on two weeks at Westminster the rest of the month building links and support abroad or campaigning, holding public meetings and with other organisations building support for Scottish Independence in Scotland. A much higher public profile is required.
  5. Set up a body to examine the franchise, to look at currency, pensions, land reform and a host of other issues that can give US the edge in future. Get that information out to groups like pensioners so they fully understand and can support us with confidence. Many are not on social media, it takes time to communicate in the face of a hostile MSM. It is probably already late to do this even if a referendum was to take place in 2023!
  6. Concentrate campaigning in the areas of Scotland where the cost of living crisis is having the biggest impact. Explain how Independence would help, controlling our own resources for the benefit of our people rather than enriching our neighbour. We used to be good at this before it all went corporations and middle class.

That is just six examples of what could be done to get us on the front foot. I have dozens more. We need to get that army of full time, paid people working to build our case much more effectively than they have done so far. We need members to get their own Party back as well. Scotland, and the case for Independence will be much stronger than it is today IF WE DO.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.

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.

135 thoughts on “STEPS TO TAKE INDEPENDENCE FORWARD!

  1. Please can people stop using the word “woke” to describe those who are deliberately divisive and have wrecked the SNP? It plays into a culture war narrative being used to split movements and seed division. It also has a meaning relating to the fight against racism which, yes, has been lost and changed but not everyone is aware of that, and “anti-woke” is often used by far right types, making it easy to then put anyone using it pejoratively into that category, however left wing they are.

    These people who’ve taken over the NEC are not woke, or progressive. They are, imo, doing a very specific job and one well understood in colonial theory. They are there to usurp the party, split it, hound out and silence its strongest members, remove it as a tool for independence and re-orientate it into divisive policies.

    Please find another word to call them what they are and stop playing into that woke/anti-woke culture war stuff.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Take your point Cath but the term Woke is how they describe themselves, but then complain when others call them that. The problem I have with that is while I agree with you about their actions they are also trying to change society, removing womens rights, altering sex education in our schools, GRA and over the top hate crime intimidation. That is woke tactics direct from the Stonewall playbook.

      Liked by 15 people

      1. Woke, as now understood, is a catch all for a socially atomized, personal identity fixation which the promoters seek to give the force of law over those who are not so identity fixated. It is effectively anti-libertarian in its prescriptivism and pushes the bounds of licence and permissiveness beyond those sustainable for social harmony.
        In short, eccentric behaviour, attitudes, ideas must be given «credit» no matter how destructive to the individual or the wider society they may be. As usual the real devil is in the detail of «the text», not the abstract.
        In some respects «Woke» displays the anti intellectual, sentimentalized and authoritarian traits found in fascism.
        It is at odds with, not merely a distraction from, the purpose of restoring Scotland’s independence and democratic sovereignty.

        Liked by 14 people

      2. I could rage at the “woke” fools corrupting our schools – demanding our kids focus on the content of their pants and how to identify with what they find there or not. Values, hopes and dreams are all sacrificed to the creed of dangerous and sex obsessed people entering young and vulnerable minds. If woke does not want to be held in contempt then woke needs to speak out against this. I think this is what you are doing Cath but you are a lone voice.

        Liked by 8 people

      3. That’s what you, and indeed I, understand it to mean. However I am also increasingly seeing the far right adopt it to complain about things like anti-racism, and it’s increasingly being used in places like GB news. It would be a horrible mistake (and I think it’s already one many have made) to use their narrative, which is all part of the division. I see them (the anti-woke) and the SNP wreckers (the woke) as the two establishment sides of a very deliberately manufactured culture war. For Scottish independence supporters (and environmentalists and anyone else) being targeted by that for division, we need to step above it and keep well away from their language.

        Liked by 4 people

      4. perhaps we start the ball rolling by referring to this weaponised woke, used by those who exploit causes rather than care about them, as “show-woke” – as it is used to show virtue signalling for various non-woke ends? It also speaks to a certain FM who is all about presentation …

        Liked by 5 people

      5. apologies for a last suggestion:
        show-woking
        … based on show-boating, and what the nuSNP do really is showing off how virtuous they imagine they are in order to get career progress/votes: so how about we call them out on their show-woking? Or am I so old that show-boating is not a term anyone knows these days?

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Well, I understand it, and, yes, you are 100% right, Marion, it is show-boating. Mind you, I’m no spring chicken. There is no substance to them, it is all show, skin-deep and impermanent. Nicola Sturgeon is, essentially, a show woman, an actor, a luvvie. It’s all a performance which explains why she is no enamoured of woman-facing.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. Absolutely, it makes me cringe when I see “woke” not least because it implies they are self aware but also there is no need to include the word at all. The article is better without its inclusion and calls out the behaviour of those in the party, its leadership and organisationally.

      Like

      1. Yes, Gayle, ‘woke’ originally meant that the people who followed the early black civil rights movement had woken up and were alert. These people are the precise opposite – which is why I use it personally – to be ironic. Their utter lack of awareness of anything and anyone around them sums them up perfectly: self-centred, immature teens. That can be tolerated when you are actually a self-centred, immature teen, but when you are in your 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, et al, it becomes exceedingly tiresome.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. What are Alba doing? Were they not going to call a convention of political and civic representatives after the local authority elections? Perhaps that has been dropped now given that they sadly failed to get any candidates elected?

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Good positive points Iain.

    I did however reflect on suggestion 4.

    A very good idea for something positive for our MPs to do. Made methink of where we are just now with people like Alyn Smith MP who has been tripping the light fantastic on British fact finding junket to Ukraine or to the other MP who got boozed up on another British junket to the Rock of Gibraltar to support British military celebrations.

    Need to instruct em on what country they are representing.

    Liked by 13 people

  4. I agree in most part, more “everything” is needed.

    But we have a seminal event which ticks ALL the right boxes, in Scotland’s undemocratic and unconstitutional “forced” Brexit. We cannot let it pass.

    Brexit broke the Treaty of Union because one Constitutionally Equal Partner cannot subjugate the other. It also broke Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union process because Brexit was a subjugation for Scotland and thus not “lawful” when it was required to be.

    Though nobody would listen, Brexit flushed out both Sturgeon and Holyrood, as servile imposters who just paid lip service to Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution while all the time denying Scotland’s sovereignty and grovelling before the ascendancy of the Westminster Government.

    I firmly believe that contesting Brexit as a violation of Scotland’s Constitutional Integrity, is all that is required to scythe through the fallacies of the Union Treaty and myriad of unwritten conventions, sophistry and colonial legislation. Legislation like the 1998 Scotland Act which is completely irreconcilable with Scotland’s inalienable Sovereignty.

    I am not even convinced Scotland would have to “decide” to end the Treaty of Union, because the mere affirmation and international recognition of Scotland’s Sovereignty would render the Treaty “doubly” unviable; three hundred years of false and corrupt convention which should never have existed in the first place, and second, expose a rotten exploitative “Treaty” which couldn’t even adhere to it’s rotten and exploitative Articles and bogus Conventions.

    I firmly believe Scotland CAN kill the 1707 Treaty of Union stone dead, and neither Sturgeon nor Holyrood can stand in our way if we go about it correctly.

    The big problem, is securing Independence overnight, even when brought about the perfidy of Westminster rather than Scotland’s deliberate volition, is that it leaves Scotland vulnerable without a fully functional government and government support infrastructure. We have no civil service or home security, but by god, with all the snakes in Scotland we will need them.

    If only, if only, if only, Scotland had seized the day in 2016 when the two sovereign components of the United Kingdom stood apart, irreconcilably divided over EU Membership, the UK faced an existential Constitutional crisis, and the EU was offering Scotland “Holding Pen” status to look after Scotland’s interests while we “got our act together”. Heaven surely smiled down upon Scotland. Europe was sincere too. Look how they stood by Ireland.

    What sunk us? Not Europe. Not Westminster. It was Westminster’s artless Brexit which “gifted” Scotland it’s chance of freedom. We should have been grateful to Westminster. What sunk Scotland was first Sturgeon’s steadfast refusal to defend Scotland with an Irish style backstop, culminating with her despicable and wholly unconstitutional capitulation before a gaping open goal. No Vichy Gauleiter could have served the Union interests better, nor so undermined the Constitutional Sovereignty of Scotland. By Sturgeon’s gutless and treacherous acquiescence, the will of Westminster stood ascendant over the will of Scotland’s people.

    Yet still, Scotland’s betrayer revels in adulation, kept safe from scrutiny by the rotten BritNat media, the Union’s “Filth” Column and sworn enemies of Scottish Independence.

    Step 1 on our route to Independence is establishing a Sovereign Constitutional Convention of the people with red sovereignty in it’s veins. Our true “Government in Waiting” in it’s interim form.
    Step 2 is securing that Assembly Legal Personality and recognition; recognition at least to speak for Scotland and make a constitutional argument.
    Step 3 is formally disputing the UK’s Constitutional right to subjugate the sovereign people of Scotland over Brexit.
    Step 4 mute or impeach Holyrood and dispute the validity of the unconstitutional Scotland Act which creates the fiction of “reserved” matters which obstruct Scotland’s indigenous media and broadcasting, and pursuit of Scotland’s foreign policy and constitutional matters.

    And aye… I’ve a dozen more steps too.

    Liked by 18 people

    1. Well said breeks. On your point 3, this has been suggested before to SSRG but it probably needs MPs to seek to establish via a Scottish court if Scotland’s enforced brexit is unlawful. Unlike Keatings case this is no longer a hypothetical matter as brexit has happened and such a case could be taken by those ‘with standing’ e.g. MPs. Unfortunately no Scottish ‘Nationalist’ MPs seems to be up for testing it. Surely worth a try in my view.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Also, is it not the case, Alf, that SSRG are having these Assemblies of which Breeks speaks, this summer? Empowering the Nation – a three day event where all of Scottish political leaders, trade unions, academics, etc.are invited? I think we need to make sure all of Scotland knows about it. Promotion & ‘getting it out there’ seems to be a little lacking…

        29th/30th/31st July, folks! Conference Dunfermline is the place you need to be! Be there – or be square! (Sorry – couldn’t help myself! LOL!)

        Liked by 8 people

    2. Please forgive me coming late to this, but I’m not sure how Brexit can be said to be a breach of the Union. Scotland never was a member of the EU. Nor was England. The UK was the EU member. As it was the UK that joined the EU, then it surely follows that the UK can leave it. The fact that one or two “regions” of the UK didn’t want to is neither here not there. It would of course be different if Scotland had been a member of the EU in its own right with its own treaty, but it wasn’t.

      What Brexit did demonstrate was that Scotland’s interests are poorly served by being part of the Union. But I can’t see that it was a breach of the Treaty of Union.

      Like

      1. Daveytee: Brexit by England and Wales (and Welsh people have said on-line that the many English in Wales skewed their vote) is a fundamental breach of the Treaty. If Scotland is part of the Union and has to go with the way the UK goes, then so does England. It was primarily England that voted for Brexit against Scottish interests. We owe them and the Union nothing. It should have been a four-nation vote, and 50-50 was not enough to swing it. We are either a four-member Union family or three members are subjugated to the interests of one. That is why Brexit was a perfect opportunity to leave the Union. albeit the 2014 referendum was, by far, the most ideal opportunity before Brexit, in which case, a YES vote would have made even England think twice. No way would David Cameron have set up the Brexit referendum in the event of a Scottish YES vote.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand why Brexit was a breach of the Treaty of Union. In 1707 Scotland and England joined together to forem Great Britain with one parliament which governed both countries. After that, neither Scotland not England were able to enter into international treaties – only the UK could do that. In 1972 the UK and the EU (then the EC) entered into the Treaty of Accession, and the UK became part of the EC at the beginning of 1973.

        Rather more recently, the UK, following a referendum, left the EU. The UK had entered the EU, therefore it seems to me the UK could leave the EU. It was a UK decision and was not up to the constituent parts of the UK to pick and choose what they wanted to do any more than these parts can pick and choose what to do with other international treaties. Had Scotland been a member of the EU in its own right, then it certainly would have been arguable that it would have been a fundamental Treaty breach if the UK had then hauled Scotland out of its own international treaty. But Scotland wasn’t so that didn’t apply.

        Where I will agree with you is that Brexit was a perfect opportunity to leave the Union, assuming of course that that was the will of the Scottish people. It was clearly against Scotland’s interests and wishes to leave the EU, and one hopes that that would have resonated with the population at large. But it wasn’t a breach of the Treaty of Union.

        Like

      3. Davey Article 6 ensures the same trading rights over all of the union for all time. The NI protocol breached that. The treaty is null and void – only our incompetent unionist trans activists either don’t know (how can they not know?) or don’t care.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. The UK is a single state, but its population isn’t a single population. Only their parliaments merged when the two original partner kingdoms agreed on joint governance from a single parliament.

        The UK Parliament is a joint parliament governing two kingdoms, with two crowns and two constitutions, two legal systems, two national religions, and two populations with differing sovereignties, and each with their own set of MPs. Joint governance requires joint agreement on every decision BY and AS two partners. Nothing in the Treaty requires Scotland’s sovereignty be subsidiary to England’s, or that Scotland’ representation be subsidiary to England’s.

        The differing sizes of the two sets of MPs merely reflect the different sizes of the populations they represent, it does not represent any difference in authority. Brexit itself wasn’t a breach of the Treaty, it was the process that resulted in Brexit that breached the Treaty, firstly by ignoring the duality of the population in the referendum, and secondly in ignoring the same duality of MP representation during the vote to initiate Article 50, and thirdly in blocking the Scottish partner entirely from sitting at the negotiation tables, fourthly in presuming ownership of Scottish resources for use in the negotiations without any agreement from Scotland, and refusing to consider any mitigations of the sort that were granted for Northern ireland.

        All of these constitute serious breaches of the Treaty because at bottom, they all deny Scotland its own sovereign voice in what is supposed to be joint governance! All are abusive in the extreme of Scotland, her people, and her interests. Westminster must answer for all of these.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. MARIONL99
    Western «culture» moves away from the literate to the visual, empowering the image with an immediacy which the word takes time and reasoning to achieve. What is felt is considered more real than what is reasoned. Be true to yourself, be what you want to be and disregard those millennia of accumulated knowledge, experience and wisdom.
    Everything is relative even the verifiable «truths» of science. At that level schools and universities become dangerous places, Do not challenge the received opinion of the moment and it will go well for you.
    History tells us civilizations are destroyed from within, rarely from the outside. Loss of cultural self confidence is symptomatic, woke fills the emptiness of many denatured lives.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. That’s all fine, Iain, but the snag is that it can only happen after the SNP membership has been convinced and at present there seems little sign of that happening, due in much part to the factors you set out. I am in regular contact with an SNP member, not part of the inner circle but fairly senior locally, and while he appreciates thare are some “minor” problems with the party, basically he won’r hear a word said against the SNP far less St. Nicola.

    I see from The National that NS has re-affirmed her commitment to independence and that we can expect an “updated prospectus on the opportunities that independence can offer Scotland”. No mention anywhere in her essay of the “R” word, however, though I fully agree with her when she says: “Too often, political debate in Scotland seems dominated by how we mitigate the damage inflicted upon us by Westminster, when in fact we should be deciding how we manage and develop our extraordinary assets to build a better nation.” In any event, could it be that if, as many of us anticipate, the promised referendum comes to nothing, the faithful will at last have had enough and instigate change from within? I’d like to think so but past experience is not encouraging and I’m not holding my breath….

    Liked by 8 people

    1. We need a hacker collective to do the job that Police Scotland either lack the inclination or the competence to do and get the hidden/lost/forgotten evidence out in the light of day. That will wake folk up.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. I think people like John Smythe Investigtes have been doing steady work on this but not enough evidence as yet and all rather complicated for people to take in.
        In my opinion we need actual names of the Salmon complainants and their links to the Civil Servants involved in the process of setting up the rules by which they accused the former FM. We need that in order to convince the general public, who were indoctrinated to believe in his guilt, of the the degree of corruption and conspiracy that went into that process.

        Liked by 8 people

      2. I disagree that there is not enough evidence out there already but agree that it is rather complicated in places for people to take in. I have tried to simplify my articles of late, Judith Mackinnon Phoning It In or the 23 Suspects one which shows the names right at the beginning of the article for examples, but the problem I find is you can’t really take short cuts with something like this.

        What people often do with official reports if they ever bother to read it all they tend to just read the summary. This in my opinion is always a mistake as the summary conclusions are usually at odds with the evidence collected in the main report itself.

        Saying that after I have a few ideas such as articles highlighting key documents in each of the different phases of the submitted evidence from the Scottish Government etc that will enable people to find the relevant documents without having to go through my entire index for example although I will try to do both.

        Liked by 5 people

    2. We are about to explore just what further excuses can be accepted by the faithful when the latest comments come to nothing. I would love to think a great many would decide enough is enough but will it? I simply don’t know as I can’t understand why so any have gone along with it blindly until now.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. I think it’s becasue they see the SNP as the only realistic route to independence, and of course the SNP is determined that they should continue to think that. All other alternatives have come to nothing, whether Alba, ISP, Scotia First, SSP or whatever, and if they showed the slightest sign of achieving something as the SSP briefly did they were quickly destroyed. So for anyone who wants independence there is no realistic route other than the SNP as whatever its failings it offers a better chance of independence than anything else on offer.

        Perhaps all the activists and others who have left the SNP should rejoin and work at change from within.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Davey – the problem is the SNP are the only path the voters seem to believe in – but the SNP have gagged their membership and are just kicking the indy can down the road till every peaceful path is closed to us.

        Liked by 4 people

      3. You don’t have laugh-out-loud emojis on this board!

        Actually, it was only half in jest. Unless there is a shockwave of almost cataclysmic proportions, the SNP is going to carry on as it is. That being the case, the only way to change it is from within. It’s therefore arguable that you have to get people back into the party to convince those who are currently there that chenge is essential. They’re not going to hear it otherwise – how many SNP loyalists read this blog, for example?

        Like

      4. Davy – No, sorry, that is NOT going to happen. SNP have behaved/continue to behave in too appalling a manner. Anyone that know what they’ve done & supports them irregardless, I’d say has questionable motives. Their behaviour & their nasty policies have hurt too many people. Once seen, you can never un-see what they’ve done. And it’s become unforgivable & unsupportable.

        You may consider them ‘the only vehicle’ but they wouldn’t be, if more people left them & actually passed on the information of their perfidy to the general public, rather than touting ‘they’re the only vehicle’.

        Liked by 11 people

    3. It will be triggered by something seemingly innocuous, Daveytee. These things always are. I say seemingly because that is never the case. It is always momentous and the straw that broke the camel’s back, but it isn’t recognised as such at the time except by the few.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. For me the honest answer is that I don’t know what can be done.

    She controls the Party. The Party follow her every command. The voters still give the SNP their vote. Articles such as the Ferries fiasco that would normally bring down a leader have had no impact.

    The only way it will change is if a major story such as the Salmond conspiracy background was to be made public.
    Any evidence was put through the shredder many months ago.

    I hope someone comes up with an answer but it has to be quick as the North British and the TransCult are the only winners at present.

    Liked by 8 people

  8. We have the wrong philosophy.

    We are timid, and think of Independence in incremental steps which they “allow” us to take.

    We should be bold and relentless, indefatigable, and think of Independence as the steps we are taking, and the strides they cannot stop.

    What, specifically, are we waiting for? Do you think there’s a more optimum opportunity than Brexit awaiting us?

    Liked by 11 people

  9. will one of the false accusers many of whom have never slept since the failed attempt to ”execute” AS step forward and blow the whistle?

    Liked by 7 people

    1. They should not sleep.
      Trying to imprison an elderly man for the remainder of his life to further their political agenda is beneath contempt.
      Presenting hair flicking as sexual assault for our most empowered women sends a stinking signal to our most vulnerable who get a smack in the mouth as foreplay and have to press the same charges.
      Perjury complaints have been made to COPFS – will that corrupt nest of vipers do anything?

      The only redemption would be in confession – most folk who matter to their careers will already know who they are anyway …

      Liked by 12 people

  10. Since Nicola has promised a referendum in 2023, has work been done to decide the criteria on who can vote and arrangements made for the appropriate entries to be in the canvass for the 2023 electoral register? Could the basic criteria (with additional details to manage specific cases) be something like resident in Scotland, having a Scottish income tax code and registered with a GP in Scotland for the last five years?

    Liked by 5 people

    1. The franchise was in fact widened in 2020 to include citizens of all countries who are resident in Scotland and have leave to remain in the UK (“qualifying foreign nationals”). A qualifying foreign national is someone who does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK under the Immigration Act 1971. Any period of leave to remain entitles a person to register to vote. This means, for example, that people who have been granted refugee status and those who have been granted asylum will be able to vote, so long as they satisfy the condition of living in Scotland. Those still waiting for a decision on ther asylum status will not.

      I believe that voting rights were also given to prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 months.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Whit tae dae?
    Media, media, media!
    The permanent managerial class have total ownership over NuSNP and by extension, the Scottish Government. Even if Saint Nikla were to fall to scandal taking her innermost circle with her, Angus Robertson (vetted and passed by MI5 for his BBC World Service days) remains sufficiently insulated in the public’s eye to succeed (Robertson was OFFICIALLY “out of politics” during the plot to destroy Alex (although we know different)).
    Frustratingly we have been unable to pool our resources to present a sufficiently “glossy, professional looking” platform to attract a mass audience stretching beyond us political anoraks. Kudos to all individual efforts but it apparently ain’t enough. Within our relatively small ecosystem, “clash of personalities” combined with the animus of the managerial class / NuSNP / British state have proved enough to prevent such a media platform becoming viable.
    However, the broader Yes movement shares common ground with other “populist” movements that seek to challenge the British deep state. The politics of Corbynite Momentum and Sinn Féin may have sufficient crossover with ours to jointly develop a new, digital media platform. Also, Sinn Féin have always had An Phoblacht. People still consume dead tree media.

    Liked by 6 people

  12. I may be wrong, Iain, but I believe that Nicola Sturgeon is looking to the future of the party – that is, the party that she and her wokerati warriors have created and the future they wish to create. Many of the new SPADS and office staff around the parliamentary party barely have the schoolbags off their backs – far too young to be making the kinds of decisions that need to be made, totally out of their depth. As for the woke new intake of MSPs and MPs, they are driving the party in precisely the same way that they have driven everything else – from the Stonewall HQ in London – infiltrate, take over, drive through policies that most people would find reprehensible. If anyone still thinks that this is all coincidence, then he or she is beyond saving, I’m afraid. Mega bucks are behind this stuff. When you have people like Stephen/Steph Paton in The National, lamenting the fact that trans people have to wait for consultations and treatment, the disgusting and sickening sense of entitlement oozes through like a particularly obnoxious, malodorous pus.

    Who the hell do these immature people think they are? There are those with cancers and other life-threatening illnesses who need to be treated first, those with broken limbs and those with life-destroying physical pain, disabilities. They didn’t get to choose and cherry-pick their maladies. Apparently, people were coming out of their homes and congratulating these enfants terrible on their poor representation on the medical circuit. Oh, ay? Not enough five-year-olds being transitioned, then, and pumped full of hormones? Not enough being told about their sexual fetishes from the age of two or at the foetus stage? Let’s have Drag Storytime, then, in the schools and get it all straight from the horse’s mouth. What does Stonewall Scotland, the Scottish Trans Alliance and Scottish Trans Youth do with all the money they get from the SG? Not building shelters and refuges. Not providing counselling services for ‘trans’ people. No, that’s what women are for, to get the hell out of theirs after they’ve built them up and hand them over to the ‘trans’ community cos the puir wee sowels are so ill-treated and have no liberty, according to Steph/Stephen, no human rights, nothing. They can’t even get Pampers nappies for their poor oppressed a***s, what with shortages. Those greedy wee bairns are taking them all. They are the most stunningly brave but oppressed minority in history. Ay, right! And females are the most oppressed majority in history, along with independence supporters.

    This party is a disgrace, an utter disgrace, and it needs to be demolished from the inside and the outside. It is far, far worse than Labour because Labour betrayed the working-class in favour of middle-class professionals way back when, and some of its unions betrayed women forever, and those who continue to vote for it know exactly what Labour is and who it operates for. The SNP has deliberately made fools of its own supporters for the past eight years nearly: it has lied to them about independence so many times that you have to wonder what it will take to make the loyalists see through them. Mind you, it took a very long time for Labour supporters to start seeing through the Labour lies and inaction on their behalf. Perhaps, in the end, betrayal of working-class decency and principles is no worse than betrayal of independence? Perhaps, the two are interlinked. It is working-class people, mainly, and women, who are the backbone of independence, too. Co-incidence? Ay, right!

    Liked by 15 people

    1. And on cue the Herald has an article stating the majority of responses to the GRA reform consultation were against (59%) though tbf most people wouldn’t have even known it was taking place and the payroll supporters would all have responded!

      As might might imagine they are definitely going to review plans given the opposition – NOT.

      https://archive.ph/hqnQ5

      Liked by 2 people

      1. PP: those who want a GRC (the very few, in fact) could have been enabled to do so without the need for reform of the GRA at all. These people (men) could also have been kept out of women’s and girls’ spaces/men’s and boys’, and rights, easily by making these sex-based in law (they are a convention at the moment). In fact, this piece of legislation is now redundant because it was introduced to enable same-sex marriage, pension rights, etc. These issues have all been resolved, but the trans lobby uses the GRC as a springboard to other reforms, e.g. the pulling down of consent laws and the public flaunting of fetishes with impunity. It ought to be abolished entirely. That is the kind of reform that is needed, not this absurd opening of all doors to autogynephiles and predators. ‘Trans’ men (women) and ‘trans’ children are not clamouring for access to male sex-based spaces and rights. Why would that be? The trans lobby is beyond the pale – well beyond it. We will not back down on this. Not ever. Pretend to be whatever you want. Believe it yourself if you choose. What you have no right to do is force it down the throats of others in order to make them conform to what, at best, is a social media contagion like hysteria, and, at worst, a sex-driven abuse of the rights of others. If I hear or read another piece by someone who claims to be sane saying that ‘trans’ people have no human rights, I’ll scream. They have them all, but they want ours, too.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. No, it wouldn’t, actually, because the only way you’d get that now is if you capitulated and gave up everything, so, basically, you are saying that Nicola Sturgeon is right. Fifty more years, nukes stay on the Clyde, we join NATO and come under direct American hegemony, we give up all our natural resources to an integrated UK policy designed by Westminster and follow a neoliberal economic future. Yeah, that sounds pretty good – not.

        Liked by 11 people

      2. That wouldn’t be a negotiated agreement, Lorncal, because we wouldn’t agree it. Inevitably an agreement involves compromises on both sides, but if the terms weren’t right for us we’d go it alone (I say alone, but I’m sure EFTA and other groups would welcome us). I think that in fact the RofUK would be keen to reach an agreement as they’d have a lot to lose if we merely left them to their own devices and gave them nothing. Best not have Ms Sturgeon in charge of any negotiations, mind you.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. There is the rub: negotiations should be exactly that: negotiated compromise. But Sturgeon cannot be anywhere near negotiations or heaven help us.
        I’d add a further thought: remember the rapists consent clause the UKG tried to impose on Scotland and Wales:
        If you say nothing then you agree
        If you agree then you agree
        If you disagree then you agree

        Wales signed it. We didn’t. This has not stopped the UKG behaving in exactly this manner however … but what really is the point of negotiating with a government that could actually write a clause like that? Also this is a government that does not keep to it’s treaties in any case.

        Liked by 6 people

  13. DaveyTee: realistic route? And the yellow brick road is the only realistic route to NeverNeverland. That we need the SNP is true – that is, we need the people who currently support the SNP, the ordinary members and supporters, not the corrupt leadership – but not as it is. There is no route to independence via the SNP, there is only a cul-de-sac. The leadership is about as real as the man on the moon. What do you suggest women who have left do? Go back and vote for the GRA reform? Give up every decent principle you hold to try and garner favour for independence – independence that these people, congenitally do not want? Do you understand what you are asking? Let me tell you: it is like asking a Jewish person in 1943 to join the SS in the vain hope of saving Germany from its own destruction and from destroying your people. It ain’t going to work. How magnanimous of you to offer such a suggestion when you are very unlikely to be affected by any of it yourself. I assume that you will be joining our erstwhile NuSNP leadership in the nearest safe haven when Scotland finally implodes – if it doesn’t explode first. In the latter event, take my well-meant advice and hide. Hide in some foreign refuge as those who fled the Third Reich did. I’m not accusing you of being a Nazi, thought I’d better spell that out, but I’d run when it all goes pear-shaped – as it will. I think you are a troll, sir or a Unionist.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “I think you are a troll, sir or a Unionist.”
      =====
      Lorna, I have both enjoyed, and been educated by, your combative posts on this and other sites for some time. But that comment is truly unworthy of you.

      Like

      1. “But that comment is truly unworthy of you”

        Is it? Why? Because she is speaking her mind? Because she has plenty of reasons to say it exactly as she feels it is? Or because she is a woman and in Nicola Sturgeon’s dystopian world women must know her place and speak when and what they are told to, otherwise the whole rotten edifice Sturgeon has helped to built on foundations of thin glass comes tumbling down?

        And when did it become unworthy? When the SNP was taken over by the British state with a trojan horse masquerading as trans rights activists? When the only possible way to stop scrutiny of the huge mess this taken-over and imploded entity has been causing, is by switching off the light and turning the volume of protest all the way down?

        And who declared it unworthy? Nicola Sturgeon’s spin doctors and handlers or just you? It seems perfectly worthy to me.

        And what standards are you using here to measure it against to declare it is unworthy? The same standards Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf used when they turned round and called independence supporters racists because they wanted to close the borders to stop covid re-entering Scotland? Or the standards used when a bunch of vindictive perjurers dragged an innocent man to court with the aim of putting him in prison because they were so mediocre that they could not fight him fair in the political arena? Or the standards used to put Mr Murray in prison? Or perhaps the standards that saw it appropriate to make up a criminal case in order to have an excuse to redact the mountains of evidence which would prove a political conspiracy against Mr Salmond and the pro-independence movement? Perhaps you are referring to the standards Nicola Sturgeon used to lure the trojan horse trans-activism back into the party but totally avoids any criticism of the harassment women like Ms Cherry were experiencing in the party she is supposed to lead. Or the standards she used to decide it was “worthy” of her to rubbish on TV the ruling of a jury in a court of law just because she didn’t like the ruling?

        Can we please drop the” thought-police” act for once and for all? Because, quite frankly, who is here in any position to determine what is worthy or unworthy of somebody else other than that somebody else themselves? At the end of the day, isn’t thought-policing ad hominem by the back door and an expression of gaslighting through the front one?

        You don’t like her comment, fine. It is your prerogative to say so and to explain why, which you haven’t, by the way. You simply throw around the accusation but none of the evidence. But it is for Lorna and her alone to determine what is worthy of her and what it is not.

        Liked by 8 people

      2. Perhaps, cynicus, perhaps. I was very angry because Davey consistently tries to usher is like a sheepdog in the direction of the SNP. I am no longer a member and I will never, ever vote for them again. I will vote for independence, however, and hold my nose while I do it, if they do bring it on – which they won’t. I am not a fool: I know that we need the SNP membership and the wider independence movement to achieve independence. What we don’t need is this leadership and its cohort which is in collaboration with the British State. Davey is right that an agreement would be nice, but we ain’t getting it – no way, no how. As Adam Tomkins stated this week, the fight will be very dirty and very low. Some of us have always known that. Some of us, unlike Davey, do not delude ourselves that independence can be regained by sacrificing everything for it, because, by that sacrifice, those who oppose us scent our weakness and will never give ground. If you are willing to sacrifice something as necessary and basic to your future as your women and children, you are weak.

        Liked by 4 people

      3. @ Mia
        24th May 2022 at 8:12 am

        “And what standards are you using here to measure it against to declare it is unworthy?”
        ————
        A purely subjective standard – my own high evaluation of the worth of Lorna’s many other contributions here and elsewhere.

        I see my judgment vindicated by her gracious apology to Davey below.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. the lot of ye:
      we need to learn the charm of the Irish. We fought and died beside the worthless Brits for 300 years and they despise us. The Irish fight on the other side but Westminster cannot fall over themselves fast enough.
      We cannot fall out. We are the last of the Scottish light.

      Liked by 5 people

  14. If you read my posting, Lorncal, you’d see that I said that “they”, ie current SNP members, see the SNP as the only realistic route to independence. I think that’s true. To a certain extent I agree because in the short to medium term I see no alternative. Hopefully the people currently in the SNP will come to see the current leadership for what it is, but that’s not going to happen overnight – notwithstanding all the anti-Sturgeon rhetoric we get in various indy groups, the SNP increased its vote at the recent elections. No sign there of the membership fading away or becoming disillusioned. And Sturgeon remains popular, though not as popular as she was. Whether one likes it or not, that is the current situation.

    So how do you change the SNP? Only from within, I fear. And if it is to be changed from within there have to be people in the party who instigate and support such change and try to convince others – members will pay much more attention to other members than they will to “loony” pressure groups outside the party.

    As to your OTT comments about GRA, if women rejoin the party they don’t have to vote for GRA – they can work against it much more effectively within the party than they they can outside it. although I suspect it may be too late for that. A few people shouting rather hysterically from outside the party isn’t going to achieve anything. For me, GRA may be important, but it is not as important as Independence and frankly, if you’re prepared to sacrifice independence for GRA, then it’s you who’s the Unionist, not me. (In fact I don’t think either of us are unionists, and it does no good throwing such silly insults around.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “For me, GRA may be important, but it is not as important as Independence and frankly, if you’re prepared to sacrifice independence for GRA, then it’s you who’s the Unionist, not me”

      For me they are both important. And for me its not a question of sacrificing independence to oppose GRA reform. The current SNP has NO INTENTION of delivering independence or even thinking about it until they need to bring out the mouldy carrots before an election. Therefore I am freed to point out their many many flaws and how their poor delivery on pretty much everything these days is possibly the biggest barrier to achieving independence.

      I’ll oppose GRA reform wholeheartedly but in the supremely unlikely chance of a move towards indy, I’ll be campaigning for it wholeheartedly just not under an SNP banner. But that is no different from indyref1 where I was involved in non party aligned groups though tbf SNP dominated…

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Davey, I apologise unreservedly for that outburst. It was wrong of me, but anger got the better of me. Why can’t so many of you men see it? The GRA reform will destroy the SNP. It is not achievable without sacrificing women and children, and it is a horrendous abusive crime against them. When all this blows up, the SNP will come a cropper for being in the vanguard of crimes against humanity.

      Liked by 5 people

  15. @daveytee19

    I’m reminded of the old advice about joining the system and changing it from within, but I’ve yet to meet or hear of anyone who did so.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. There are actually quite a lot of examples. Here in the UK all the major political parties have changed their philosophies and policies fairly radically during the last 50 or so years, and all these changes have come from within, although no doubt influenced by external factors. Thus after Heath the previously “one nation” Tories morphed into Margaret Thatcher’s Selfish Society and then again into the unspeakable mess we have to day. Labour still had some vestiges of socialism until Tony Blair came in and turned them into Tory Lite, but then the party rebelled against that with Corbyn but sadly that rebellion was put down. The LibDems used to be a left of centre party, then under Steele and their new name they bacame a centre party, and now they’re pretty right of centre and vying for the position of Tory Lite. All these changes came from within, often I’m afraid because respect for principle took second place to thirst for power.

      Today under Johnson we have Tory MPs moaning about the PM but doing nothing about it. If anyone in the higher echelons of the party was prepared to stand up and put themselves forward for the leadership I suspect that support for Johnson would wither away. But no-one dares do that, possibly because thyey’re happy to see Johnson get the blame for the mess the country is currently in and from which there is no easy way out. Thus with the SNP. How do they select their leader? How is a leadership contest triggered? Is there anyone brave and charismatic enough to put themselves up against NS? That’s one way they could change from within.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Davey you say:
        How is a leadership contest triggered? Is there anyone brave and charismatic enough to put themselves up against NS? That’s one way they could change from within.

        I don’t think it is charisma that keeps her where she is: the sheepie voters fall for that but the MSPs and empowered parts of the nuSNP are there to trough. Sturgeon runs a sloppy ship: lipstick matching outfit trumps reading the contract or knowing your brief.

        Like

      2. “I don’t think it is charisma that keeps her where she is”

        I quite agree. But it’s going to have to be someone charismatic to replace her if she doesn’t voluntarily stand down.

        Liked by 2 people

  16. The problem with changing the SNP from within is that it has been reconstituted, notably by angus robertson, to actively resist any grass root involvement.

    A party that can dismiss an outstandingly accomplished QC while led by an incompetent with little regard for the law is not fertile ground for wild talk of improvement,

    You would be replaying the corbyn years in labour, which saw the reactionaries fighting tooth and nail to triumph over any disruption to their way of life and the order they think fit.

    Labour, Liberal and Tories in scotland have always preferred irrelevance over reform, I doubt the husk of the SNP will differ.

    They have the ball and do not want to play with anyone but themselves.

    As actually expressed power lies with westminster, logically we would be as well joining the conservative and unionist party and reforming it.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Sadly I do not see how the change the SNP from within route can work. We tried that when we got a good few candidates elected to the NEC only for them to be sidelined or in some cases have to resign to protect themselves from any fallout from the missing £600,000. If as suggested above a whole lot of us were to rejoin other than swelling the bank balance of the SNP I doubt it would help things as there is no route feft open to remove some of the cabal. I think it will take a major fall from grace or a serious scandal to remove the first minister and her inner circle for any real chance of the SNP becoming an open democratic party again. Time to get behind one of the new Indy groups and start campaigning. We need something to bring the yes movement back together and a campaign could be just the thing. In Indyref one I stood shoulder to shoulder with people I would not have any time for but we had a common goal that was more important than politics or petty spats. Lets face it the average SNP member is largely unaware of what is going on and I speak from experience of friends and family and until they open their eyes they will just continue to put an X or a number in the box at election time as required by the leadership. For all the abuse and sneers thrown at Alba and to a lesser degree ISP they are at least trying to do something and more power to them.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. “… I think it will take a major fall from grace or a serious scandal to remove the first minister and her inner circle for any real chance of the SNP becoming an open democratic party again… ”

      Agreed, David. By that, I mean that one of the favoured policies – I hope against hope that it is the GRA reform – will finally prove a step too far for most folk.

      Panda Paws: I always laugh when I read or hear the absurdity of the claim that ‘trans’ people should be able to be themselves, as contained in the link you provided. If they are already themselves, what are they ‘transing’ to? To woman face or man face – i.e. sex-based entities called humans of the opposite sex. These people are so contradictory and daft, only someone equally contradictory and daft would follow this c**p. We should be very worried, because that includes most of our so-called elected representatives, both in Scotland and in the UK as a whole. If that’s the level of person engaging in politics, we are doomed!

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Ah ! the siren song of ” change the Party from within ” .

    Whenever I hear that seductive melody I’m reminded of all those Punk Rock * rebels ” who were going to change the exploitative Music Business from within ; that went well eh ? remember * subversive * threat to all things decently English , ” Johnny Rotten ” , did he tear down the walls of the corrupt UK Establishment ? Na , he ended-up punting butter on TV adverts . ” we really mean it maaaan ” . Aye , so ye did . Likewise Gangsta Rappers babbling about ” keeping it real ” from the mean environs of their Beverly Hills mansions .

    As In Entertainment , so it is in Politics . The ” System ” is designed to nullify any truly subversive threat to it’s raison d’etre eg the generation of money , power and privilege ; rebellion gets commodified , sharp edges get blunted , threats get neutralised . Business ( as usual ) * wins * . The people ( as usual ) lose .

    The only way a change of direction – from it’s headlong rush to Loserville ( Stopping at all Stonewall approved stations en route ) – will happen within the SNP is for a – metaphorical – bomb to be planted and detonated at it’s core .

    Can you see any * Guys * willing to do that ? No , me neither . All I can see are sly foxes and intellectual / moral Barbie Dolls

    Great post Iain .

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Big change usually comes from both within and without, Robert, and, oddly enough, almost always at the same time. If someone of the calibre of Joanna Cherry was to defect to ALBA, it would rock the SNP foundations. That video of Alec Salmond at his eloquent best could be circulated far and wide, too. They don’t have very long to start getting the actual nuts and bolts of a referendum out there if it is to take place in 2023. If she rushes it, she’s finished because it will not be winnable or worth winning, and if that happens, she will have instigated either an armed conflict or oblivion for Scotland and the Scots; if she moves too slowly or not at all and tries to pull another fast one, she’s finished. It just won’t work again, not this time.

      Liked by 3 people

    1. There are several bombs at its core unfortunately the legal system and the msm omerta means they are unlikely to be detonated in a fashion that will attract the attention of the mass votership.

      Liked by 4 people

  19. They should suspend the treaty with immediate effect. The fundamental breaches themselves are reason enough. The argument cited by SNP is that they need to convince folk. Well you are not going to convince folk through inaction. Folk only know the system as it currently is. They are not going to change their minds without hard proof that Scotland is better served through full governance of its statehood. So suspend the treaty. Take full responsibility and accountability. Demonstrate that Scotland’s statehood is best.
    While Scots wait they could be setting up petition stalls all across Scotland for the suspension of the treaty. Princes Street in Edinburgh usually has some petition or other being campaigned for on it. Its street has numerous folk handing out flyers for X,y,z so let’s organise. Get folk backing the suspension. Doesn’t need to be half the population that backs it. Utilise town and village halls, pubs and other places for the collection of signatures. Where there is a will there is a way. Alba has about 7,000 members let alone supporters. If even 10% of them mobilised to get signatures that is 700 people from just one pro-indy party who could be collecting them. Once a good number of signatures have been collected have the petition/demand handed to each and every pro-indy MP and MSP. Make each handing of the petition/demand public. Let folk see where their truly loyalties lie and whether they are all talk no action. How many on this site would be willing to sacrifice a day or two of their week collecting the signatures? I am. Are you?

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I think that is a good idea and one that we should bring to Alba, ISP and any other pro-indy grouping. However the petition stalls will have to have very clear, understandable and “legalled” information. Perhaps the forthcoming SSRG/Salvo meetings can start compiling the info with yourself and others???

      Certainly sitting around “Waiting for Sturgot” (my apologies to Becket) is getting us nowhere fast!

      Liked by 4 people

    2. That is how it will happen, Gayle. Not with Scotland as such, but with poking England until it reacts negatively. That is Alec Salmond’s forte and we need him to light the touch paper. The point is not that it will bring us independence immediately, but that it will start the ball rolling towards independence because England as the UK will have to react in some way. That is what Sinn Fein is doing with the NI Protocol and Good Friday Agreement: the UK is between a rock and a hard place, and even moderate Unionists cannot stand by and watch these agreements be demolished to suit England as the UK.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. I am certainly willing to attend stalls and collect signatures as well as to demonstrate outside Holyrood and /or Bute house to show that I do not agree with current Scottish Government policies and wish to see positive action on independece and challenges to Westminster.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. The SNP has been changed from within, it is nothing like the independence focused, unashamedly nationalist party founded in 1934. This is a manifestation of internal change. https://www.snp.org/
    Delivering Progress for Scotland…is so devoid of meaning. Mission statement spaghetti.
    If the current virtuous wokery and identitarian feminism are not changes from within what are they?
    In terms of structure what is the function of party president, depute leader? The constitution and structure is more or less democratic but plainly the distance between leadership and grassroots is too generous. Those SNP affiliates, (what are they exactly? are they elected?) seem to enjoy special favour at court. A structure that creates a leader mystique, even by default, is not desirable within a democratic system. How truly accountable is the SNP for its policies? National conference, national assembly, national executive commitee big sounding titles for rubber stamps?

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Controlling a conference where folk are actually in the room beside them will be interesting – i wonder what excuse the nuSNP leadership will use to hold a zoom conference this year?

      Liked by 3 people

    2. You are right, Ottomanboi. Not saying there was no need for some change because some of the old guard were positively ante diluvian. One quite high-ranking female that I know of was asked to make the tea at a meeting – not even asked, really, but ordered, and she was there to give a talk. That kind of behaviour brought a backlash from women within the party. Having said that, Nicola Sturgeon made it into a crusade when a memo, about respect for those whose votes are aways going to count for independence, to the rank and file would have sufficed. ‘Trans’ needs could have been met very easily, too without ever changing the GRA by legislating for both female and male spaces and rights to be enshrined in law according to biological sex (with provision made for intersex people according to their socialisation). There are always ways to do things when some critical thinking is employed. That is what is woefully lacking in the SNP today. To me, it now feels like an alien party and I think that the divisions created in the past few years are unbridgeable now.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. As may have become apparent from my previous postings, I’m a realist. I take a pragmatic view of politics. I’m also a democrat and I believe in the rule of law, without which there is anarchy. And that is the spectrum through which I look at independence. I should add that I’m also old and would like to see independence during my lifetime.

    So bearing all that in mind, what is the best way to take independence forward? Mia, Gayle, Sara all put forward radical schemes that satisfy none of my criteria on any gound. Suspending the treaty with immediate effect and declaring independence? Illegal, undemocratic and totally unrealistic. Even with the present Tory government we can’t get enough people to give independence majority support in the polls. Do you really think that the people are going to go for a scheme like Gayle’s? We’re always on about sovereignty of the people and if they do indeed have sovereignty that has to be respected even if it is their majority wish to remain in the union.

    I can see logic in the argument to reconvene the Convention of Estates, but I don’t believe it is practical or indeed that it would have the necessary legal effect. The Convention was subordinate to Parliament – in order to pass the Claim of Right and invite William to be king, it had to turn itself into a parliament as otherwise it did not have the power to do so. We already have a parliament of sorts, and there’s no way it’s going to give way to a convention which would, moreover, apparently consist of largely hand picked members. The SNP, which is likely to continue as the dominant forct in Scottish politics for some time, will ensure that it does not work. I can’t say I fancy it either – at least parliament is elected and I’m a democrat.

    Plebiscite election? Probably the best of the alternatives to a referendum, but again its success would depend on the co-operation of the SNP and the support of the people. In order to succeed, there would have to be a single Independence candidate standing in each constituency on a straightforward Independence ticket, no party affiliation. Would the SNP agree to that? If they didn’t, the indy vote would be split and we’d get nowhere. In any event, the Unionists would doubtless counter by putting up a single candidate on a unionist ticket. Would the indy candidates get enough seats to win a majority? Recent statistics suggest not – in only 10 seats at the last general election did indy votes outnumber unionist ones. So a lot of work would be required to persuade people to vote for indy, work which would be considerably hampered by the inevitable Unionist Fear campaign which would tell people that independence on this basis would be illegal and unrecognised.

    Which leaves us with a Referendum which I have to say is my preferred choice. But even then in the absence of a S30 agreement we’d be hampered by a refusal of WM to recognise the result and by a probable boycott of unionist voters. In that event the result, even if Yes, would probably not be recognised internationally – in the EU, for example, Spain woiuld veto recognition becasue independence was not obtained legally. It has however made it clear that it would recognise an independent Scotland if it wad done legally, ie by agreement with WM.

    And I still believe that for the foreseeable future the SNP will be the dominant force in Scottish and independence politics. I don’t see any of the minor parties getting anywhere, certainly not in the short or medium term. So if we’re to get anywhere the SNP has to change and that has to be from within. Who’s going to be our Jeremy Corbyn?

    Pretty bleak, really. At the end of the day we have to convince a majority of the people and we have to convince the SNP to remember what it’s there for and act accordingly. Whatever anyone else might say, if sovereignty indeed rests with the people, they have the right to exercise it and be given the opportunity to do so.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is a well worn road Davey: what we must not do is give up and give in. Whether the road remains lawful or peaceful is in the hands of Westminster. They may think they are clever today in putting procedural and legal barriers in place. I feel they are stupid beyond reckoning. What do they think? We will say ‘you have used you colonial powers to write us out of existence so we will go quietly into the night?’

      Time to forget world opinion. Time to forget the EU. Time to stop wondering if we can be Norway. Time to be Scotland – ourselves, alone. This bit of road is ours to walk. The path available to us is not entirely within our control and we cannot take responsibility for that.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. “Time to forget world opinion.”

        This is also my belief, Marion. Self-determination is a matter primarily for the people concerned, as even the UN maintains. I’m sure most of the world’s decolonised nation’s are waiting to welcome Scotland to join them. If some ‘world opinion’ disnae lyke our independence then they can buy their Scotch whisky someplace else! And that’s just one national resource that should be ‘coming home’ from external control and exploitation.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. “This bit of road is ours to walk. The path available to us is not entirely within our control and we cannot take responsibility for that.”

        Love that. And there’s no question of giving up or giving in. It’s just trying to find the best way for Scotand to get to the end of that road.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. ” Time to forget world opinion. Time to forget the EU. Time to stop wondering if we can be Norway. Time to be Scotland …..” . Exactly right Marion . I’m heartily sick of hearing what we CAN’T do : who said we can’t ? . Are we really expected to sit around fiddling while our country is burnt to the ground ? Gayle’s suggestions are sound ; the naysayers who constantly tell us otherwise are underestimating the latent power of the oppressed , their frustration and pent-up energy . What’s needed is someone or some group to stand-up and say ” this is what we’re doing , to hell with ifs , buts and what will the neighbours think ” . The neighbours can f… off

        Liked by 3 people

      4. Alf said: “Self-determination is a matter primarily for the people concerned”

        I entirely agree. I’m concerned however that a lot of people here don’t seem to believe that the decision should be made by the people, but should instead be left to a few who “know what’s best for them”.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I, too am a pragmatist and realist, Daveytee, but there is a fine line between realism and crushing aspirations. I, too, believe in following a legal route. However, when all these are closed to you, you have little choice but to reach for the armed conflict route. That is what the deliberately intransigent, the spoilers and the downright stupid forget. Unionists and sundry other pro UK factions appear to believe that because things have been like this, they must and will remain like this. They won’t, as any glance at history will tell: deliberate construction of cul-de-sacs lead eventually to the arsenal. That is reality. Being pragmatic means accepting that this will happen if we are not allowed to follow our inalienable right to independence. It is a horrible way to have to go, and in no way do I condone or recommend it. I find it as abhorrent as the people who stand in the way of our independence with their arrogance and smugness and betrayals, but it will come if things are allowed to fester – or we will go gently into that good night, and disappear from history. That is why everything must be tried, Davey. Absolutely everything before we get to that point.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Nicely put Lorncal. The arrogant assumption of unionist trans activist Sturgeon and the UKIP UKG that we will go gently into that good night and disappear from history is where the blame for what will follow lies.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I don’t disagree with any of that. All too often in the past countries have had to fight to gain their freedom from Britain, and in the modern era you’d think that Britain would have learned its lesson in Ireland. Hopefully we haven’t reached that point yet, but history clearly shows us that if democracy is tried and ignored, violence frequently follows. Ireland also showed us that a new country can be beset by civil war between those who are happy with independence and those who aren’t.

        But to show we have a truly democratic mandate we have to get a majority of the people on board. We haven’t got that yet and the major task ahead of us must surely be to educate, cajole and convince those currently opposed to independence to change their minds. I don’t think that forever going on about historical grievances will achieve that – people are much more interested in the present and the future and how independence will affect them. For Scotland the future should be so bright – we are an extraordinary rich country with loads of potential and if we can only get the information out that’s the point that people will understand.

        DT

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I agree we need to get the hearts and minds Davey
        There is an increasing likelihood though that this will descend into violence as the UKG tries to use the lack of a majority for independence to erase us from history. No majority for YES does not permit the removal of Scotlands status as a country.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. “No majority for YES does not permit the removal of Scotlands status as a country.”

        Indeed it doesn’t. But it may thwart our ambitions to be an independent country. And I sometimes wonder, well, if we’re not an independent country, what’s the point?

        Like

      5. We will get there Davey – it is normal. But we cannot let the UKG use the fact we are not over the line yet to erase us.

        Liked by 2 people

    3. “Spain would veto recognition because independence was not obtained legally. It has however made it clear that it would recognise an independent Scotland if it was done legally, ie by agreement with WM.”

      I believe what Spain said was that the Scottish independence vote would need to conform to its constitution, though they were no doubt thinking of the UK’s constitution, rather than Scotland’s. I put that down to widespread disinformation from the UK.

      In point of fact, legality is not essential, only democratic legitimacy is required, as the UK Government already made clear in its submission to the ICJ on the matter of Kosovo’s independence. The UKG’s submission was so impressive to the ICJ that they adopted it as canon.

      So in Scotland’s case all that needs established is that the voice making that declaration is genuinely represents the view of the majority of the Scottish electorate, hence the need for some form of referendum or plebiscite or other such recognised form of determining the settled will of the sovereign people of Scotland.

      So going back to Spain, the only constitution it would need to consider is Scotland’s constitution, not the UK’s constitution, which we already know carries no legitimate weight in Scotland, and strictly speaking, it should carry no weight in England either, as per Carwyn Jones. And since Scotland’s constitution essentially is popular sovereignty, all Spain would need to accept Scottish independence, is that the process of establishing the settled will of the sovereign people of Scotland was carried out in a democratically legitimate manner, and whatever form of process we adopt we should really invite foreign observers to help confirm that legitimacy. The observance would have to cover the whole campaign, not just on voting day.

      And if Spain would accept Scottish independence on that basis, then likely so would most of the rest of the world, and the UKG’s own views would be largely dismissed. World opinion would eventually force the UKG to negotiate.

      Liked by 5 people

    4. There is nothing illegal nor undemocratic about petitioning, collecting signatures nor suspending the treaty. Petitioning is part of the democratic structure. As is imbuing a government and other representatives with sovereign authority via elections. Every state that is a signatory party to a treaty has the fundamental inalienable right to enter, suspend and terminate a treaty. These rights are also recognised in the Vienna convention and UN Charter.
      Just because you prefer the easiest most corruptible method, which has never been a legal requirement, doesn’t make your way the right one.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Have you read the Vienna Convention? I suspect not as if you had you’d find there is no “fundamental inalienable right” to suspend or terminate a treaty. Under the Convention a treaty may only be terminated either in conformity with the provisions of the treaty or at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States. Let’s face it, it would be a bit daft if any state that made a treaty then had the right to terminate it unilaterally as and when it wished (unless, of course, you’re Boris Johnson and the DUP).

        I am aware that some on this group have suggested that the Treaty of Union might be annulled on the grounds of material breach. As the Convention is not retrospective it cannot apply to the Treaty of Union, but if it did that ground would not be available. Article 45 makes it clear that “A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty if…..it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or in its maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be”. I think that 315 years of acquiescence would stand in the way of any annulment of the Treaty.

        Like

      2. “I think that 315 years of acquiescence would stand in the way of any annulment of the Treaty.”

        I’m not convinced that inability is the same as acquiescence, and some of the most egregious breaches are very recent indeed. Brexit is one, and is only 6 years from its start, and some aspects are even more recent.

        Also, if the Vienna Convention doesn’t apply, then it also has no force to make us keep to the Treaty, and it will certainly not be able to justify setting aside our anger and fury at the abuse and injustice forced on us by England’s establishment over 315 years, and which is still ongoing.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. That’s interesting, Gayle, but on a first shallow reading (I’ll try to give it more time later) it doesn’t seem that any of it would apply to the Treaty of Union. However I look forward to reading your comments later.

        Like

      4. The right of states to enter, suspend and terminate a treaty is a fundamental, inalienable right. It does not stem from treaties but it is recognised and upheld in them through international law. The Vienna convention can be cited in reasoning for the suspension and termination of treaties but it is not the sole method for doing so. In considering whether Scotland can use the various articles within the convention and/or UN Charter one has to take into consideration that Scotland did not have a truly Scottish government until SNP came to office. Since doing so it can be argued that Scotland has actively objected to the treaty and that it has sought mutual agreement to terminate it rather than as you suggest an acceptance of the myriad breaches. Furthermore, impossibility of performance and fundamental breaches are ongoing. The very nature of the treaty has been violated through Clause 38, the IM Act, EVEL and the Act of Union 2018 Bill which according to the parliamentary site is still in progress but is being enacted in all but name. These are legitimate grounds for the suspension and termination and meet the criteria in international law. However, as per the inherent right of states and their treaty making capacities they have a fundamental right to suspend and terminate a treaty just as much as they have a right to enter into them. Treaties are created through consent and good faith. When either one is removed the state party to the treaty that is being violated has the right to remove their consent to it.

        There are a number of articles that you may find interesting that discuss the right of states to suspend and terminate (bilateral) treaties. I have provided a couple worth looking at and suggest also looking at the terminology used. As said, suspension is a legitimate act.
        May add further if time permits but now at work so have to pop off for now.
        https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/30/1/73/5498083

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Gayle: our Treaty is not covered by the Vienna Convention, I’m afraid. We will not be able to suspend or dissolve or resile the Treaty unilaterally. There were two signatories to it. We need to have it ‘sound’ in Scots Law (authenticated as an international agreement when it was agreed) and then we would have to apply to the UN for adjudication to resile it based on a case we bring against England and England as the UK (both), and, even then, its terms will have to be negotiated, as will any leaving of the UK. This will be the dangerous part because it is here that England and England as the UK will attempt to take everything from us. We cannot allow the politicians anywhere near this stage of the proceedings because they will almost certainly hand England and England as the UK everything without a murmur. We have to box clever and get our very best people on to this. Meanwhile, we can try everything else that exists in our panoply of constitutional tools, including a plebiscitary election, although I cannot see the SNP agreeing to any of that, which is why the leadership and its cohort must be brought down first. They are our greatest problem.

        Like

      6. We buy into the thought of treaties and democracy and rights – and yet we live in an age where we can clearly see there is no meaningful democracy for Scotland and the UKG cannot even respect the most recent of treaties with the EU.

        The Bruce once asked a Scottish lord by what right he held his lands. The lord had a pretty good idea what was coming next right enough but his reply was the truest and wisest of replies:
        By my right hand.
        Sir John Logie and his son died fighting – better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

        Like

      7. Daveytee: many of the breaches have happened over time, but not in our time, so we cannot be held responsible for how previous generations behaved. That is supremely ridiculous, otherwise, modern-day Germans would still be held responsible for Auschwitz, which is insane. Moreover, many of the breaches have been very recent, piling up on one another. We do object. Most surely we do.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. I’m not sure why you’ve quoted me on this – have I said something to that effect? I don’t think so.

        The Union has been going tfor 315 years. During that time Scotland has constantly acquiesced. We still do. No-one, no court, no international organisation is going to overturn a 315 year old treaty on the basis that over that time one party has allegely breached the treaty in a way which brought no complaints, indeed often brought full participation, from the other party. That’s a dead end road to pursue. Also, there are two major snags about the Treaty of Union in that it makes no provision for its possible termination – it was to last in perpetuity. – and neither of the parties to it now exist, ie the states of Scotland and England. The only ways I can see the Act of Union being terminated are either by another Act to that effect, or by a judgment of the International Court of Justice.

        Like

      9. DT19

        “The Union has been going tfor 315 years. During that time Scotland has constantly acquiesced. We still do.”

        Perhaps this was the case until 2015, but since then Scots have elected a Nationalist majority of MPs. Scotland is no longer represented by a majority of pro-union MPs, as it was for ower chree hunner year. The fact that SNP MP’s take the union money rather than pull the plug on it is beside the point. We see them and their mankit naitur.

        Liked by 2 people

    5. i think the only way now that we can win a referendum is to hold it after we have made representations to the international community on the basis of breaches of the Treaty of Union which, I would hope, would also increase support for Independence if more widely made known, as we need the help of bodies like the EU and the UN to be able to insist on a franchise of indigenous Scots plus those who lived in Scotland for at least 10 years and with no votes for tempoary or non-residents such as students, armed forces or second home owners.
      Their support would also be needed, as proposed by the UN for a country wishing to free itself from a colonised status, for no interference from outside bodies, including the colonising country. How that could be achieved with the current mainstream media and the attitude of the BBC towards Scottish independence would be a problem, and would certainly be resisted by London but, in my opinion, that would be essential.
      Time is not on our side with Westminster doing its best to hamper our economic development and more incomers from the south coming every year to take up residence here while squeezing out Scottish families who cannot compete financially in the housing market.

      Liked by 2 people

  22. I wish I could have been there, but this short vid from the day says what I imagine the contributors to this blog and others think. God that this man’s record as longest serving FM is to be surpassed by its worst…

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Panda Paws: this brought the tears to my eyes. The good old days before the advent of the NuSNP. This is how to get your revenge, Alec Salmond – serve it cold with a side helping of hot anger. We know why you were sidelined and this video shows everyone else why.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. That fire in their bellies is exactly what’s missing form the SNP leadership for the last several years. Every SNP MP and MSP should be exhibiting that fire every day in Westminster and Holyrood!

      Liked by 5 people

  23. Daveytee: you conflate democracy with a majority of the people. I agree that a new state does need the majority to sign up to it. The point is, though, does that have to come first before anything is tried. That does not stand up in international law. It is perfectly democratic and legitimate to do as Gayle suggests and as Alf suggests, to use the constitutional tools we have to force England as the UK into a reaction. We don’t need just one independence candidate to stand: what we need is for the SNP to agree to a one-off coalition of interests. If the SNP could agree to a candidate with a large local following standing, whether he or she is SNP or some other independence party, it could work. They won’t do that, of course, because independence is not on their radar; perpetual power is; and personal power is. If we state categorically that we are dissolving the Union, England as the UK has to react. If it does no more than bring the constitutional situation to the forefront of UK politics, so be it. Alec Salmond did that, but in a different way, by stating always, for seven years, that we were going to have a referendum. There was never any question but that he would bring us a referendum – and he did. Do you trust Nicola Sturgeon and her wokerati warriors to do the same? I certainly don’t. I may be very wrong, but I think that this is the direction in which ALBA will go if there is no real and tangible sign of a winnable referendum within the next few months, going into the Autumn. It must be winnable and not a copy and paste propaganda exercise.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. Daveytee: I have to agree with that comment on the Vienna Convention, etc. You are right. The Treaty cannot be resiled or dissolved or abandoned unilaterally; it will have to be negotiated with England and with England as the UK. However, that does not preclude other ways of signalling to the international community that we have had enough of this one-sided Union. I would suggest a representation to the UN, that is, a number of people to represent the people of Scotland, or, failing that, a strongly-worded letter. First, though, we need to suss out who are our supporters and likely supporters. They will be those countries that the UK has p****d off at some point and, perhaps, though I wouldn’t bank on it, those countries that have recently become independent from larger entities themselves. Perhps even the Scottish diaspora. In the end, we will have to rely on ourselves, of course.

    Like

    1. That’s why one of my ideas is that wheb we ask for another S30 order, we chould go prepared, and when it is refused we should there and then hand to Johnston a draft writ or whatever is required to start an action in the Internatiuonal Court of Justice with a promise that if agreement is not forthcoming in seven days the writ will be issued. The papers would be in order, having already been prepared by eminent international lawyers – they’ll charge and arm and a leg, but it’ll be worth it. Immediately thereafter we should hold an international press conference, explaining whaat we had done and what we were going to do. I think the worldwide Scottish diaspora as well as other nations that have finally flung off the Britsh yoke (USA, etc.) would be able to bring enough pressure on the UK to ensure that agreement would rapidly be forthcoming and if it wasn’t we’d proceed with the legal action.

      Only problem about that is we’d still have to win the referendum so best not done until we’re pretty sure we can do that. Oh, there’s another problem – the SG under prsent leadership probably won’t do it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I believe I made a similar suggestion about five years or so ago, and no, the SNP leadership will not bite. They are far too cosy in the coalition with the Greens and doing precisely what the Unionists want them to do, while they, the Unionists, bemoan the fact of a SNP government.

        Like

  25. cynicus: Mia was jumping to my defence and I am very appreciative of that. We women need to stick together and women like Mia Are strong allies. However, I was very angry with Davey’s constant sniping, although I appreciate that he is trying to be realistic, which I applaud because delusion is not going to get us anywhere. It can also become very disheartening, especially when there are other interpretations of matters, and in that instance I think there were. I spoke in anger and out of turn, and, for that, I was ashamed that I had to apologise. I skelpit my ain lug.

    Like

    1. I don’t snipe! All my contributions are carefully and deeply considered. 🙂 Like everyone here I desperately want independence and have done so for seemingly ever, but I hate to see people runing off at tangents and wasting their time (IMO) in pursuing unrealistc agendae, some of which I feel are more likely to put people off rather than bring them on board.

      Off on a tangent myself, I was driving home tonight listening to a favourites selection on the car mp3 player when “Oor Wey” by the Yes Brigade came on. It was my favourite indy song in the run up to the 2014 referendum and brought quite a lump to my throat. Brilliant stuff.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I didn’t say you sniped, Daveytee. People are not running off at tangents. What makes you think no one else’s contributions count? One comment you made is precisely what I have been saying for over five years. We are bogged down now and must start to use something, anything to heave ourselves out of the stasis we are in. That is what I meant before: you keep trying to shepherd us back to the SNP agenda. Many of us on here no longer care tuppence about the SNP. It has betrayed us so fundamentally, that there is no way back. We do care about the ordinary members and the wider independence community, however, and another diet of carrots will either finish us all off or things will turn nasty. Far better to try something than not. When you have nothing to lose, you really have nothing to lose, so, if you don’t agree, don’t agree, but stop trying to shoot others down. What, in your reality and pragmatism, Davey, could be worse than a second referendum – if we ever get it – that will prove to be unwinnable? I cannot imagine anything worse than that. I’d rather go down fighting every which way than bend the knee to this Union that is destroying Scotland, piece by piece. I listened to a chap today who was justifying Brexit. Not once did he consider the other three parts of the UK; all he spoke of was England; and that is why we have to release ourselves from this oppressive and one-sided Union.

        Like

      2. Well you did actually say I sniped: “I was very angry with Davey’s constant sniping…..” No matter. What’s my comment that you’ve been precisely saying for over five years?

        Yes, we are bogged down. I don’t think no-one else’s contributions count, I just sometimes think they’re wrong and I say so, just like people here frequently tell me that I’m wrong, often in no uncertain terms. That’s the essence of debate. isn’t it? I’m not sure of the difference between “not agreeing” and “shooting other people down”. Would you prefer that I left Iain’s blog so that you don’t have to worry about people not sharing what previously appeared to be a comfortable commonly shared view? Just say yes and I will (that invitation extends only to lorncal, by the way!)

        As for the SNP, I still think that it’s the only realistic vehicle to independence within the short to medium term, but not with the current driver at the wheel. Because of that I think that we have to engage as much as possible with SNP members to try to get them to see the error of their leader’s ways. If you think that there’s a better vehicle to independence that stands a fair chance of success, tell me what it is.

        Like

      3. Albert Memmi said that the main job of the coloniser is ‘to make any prospect of liberation for the native seem impossible’.

        Yer daein a guid job thare, DT19.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. I think it is actually the coloniser who has done a good job on DT19 and, in many ways I sympathise with him as I too often feel that our situation is impossible.
    I find this blog mostly encouraging in that there are plenty suggestions of ways round this impass, and the discussions around them are interesting even though, too often, they are shot down. It is hard work to remain positive where we are now!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. If I actually thought we were a colony I might consider that, but I don’t agree with Alf’s contantly repeated view that Scotland is a colony. In the union we were part of the mother country, a coloniser, an empire builder, an oppressor of indigenous peoples, not a colony.

      Anyway, nice to know that I’m apparently doing a good job! I actually like to think of myself as a person of reaonably independent thought although as some of you may have guessed my views are probably influenced by my legal background. When I first came to this blog I was a bit astonished to see that what I sometimes considered to be wild and mistaken theories were being posted to general acclaim and I thought it would be good to put forward some alternative but (IMO) more realistic views. I have to confess that they did not receive general acclaim but I think that that has resulted in some interesting debate, although whether it’s been useful or not I’m not at all sure.

      I think our situation is difficult, but not impossible – unfortunately the actions of the so-called Party of Independence do not help, nor the fact that our movement appears to be so divided.

      Like

      1. What do you think self-determination independence of ‘a people’ is about, if not their decolonisation and liberation from oppression? Lets remember that colonialism permeates a colonial mindset among the native population, which is a psychological condition leading to Appropriated Racial Oppression. Moreover, the native bourgeoisie class are always in league with the coloniser (i.e. the oppressor), protecting their status and privilege, and may even consider themselves their equal; that is, above the ‘inferior’ indigenous people within the colonial hierarchy. Of course this group is in denial about oppression or colonialism – for it is in league with it and benefits from it. ‘Colonialism is always a co-operative venture’ (Fanon).

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Of course, we are a colony and if you study our history it does not take too long to realise this we are a colony like India and all the other countries colonized by the British Empire you must know that nobles sold us out and I have every name of those who took handouts for selling us out and the stories of the riots which took place in Edinburgh once word got aboutsince 1320 we have been a Sovereign people yet we were excluded from this vote making the union illegal .

        Liked by 2 people

      3. I think that self determination means what it says – people determining their future for themselves – there’s no requirement for liberation or oppression.

        And there’s no “of course” about any suggestion that Scotland is a colony. Just what is a colony? Let’s have a look at a few definitions. How about “a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.” Or “a body of people who settle in a country distant from their homeland but maintain ties with it”. Or “an area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it”; Or “A colony is a group of people who settle in a new place but keep ties to their homeland.” It akso seems clear that “though dominated by the foreign colonizers, colonies remain separate from the administration of the original country of the colonizers, the metropolitan state (or “mother country”).

        Scotland doesn’ fall into any of these categories. It isn’t far away from England. It wasn’t a new land. It wasn’t invaded by a group of settlers. As an old land, it agreed to union with England. And it was substantially involved in the administration of the mother country – since the union there has been a substantial number of Scots who have held minsterial office in the UK government, including the office of prime minister. And as I’ve mentioned before, Scotland played a large part in the expansion of the British empire, the creation of colonies and subjugation of indigenous native peoples.

        Oh, and the UN is very much in favour of decolonisation. It proudly states that since 1945 over 80 former colonies have obtained their independence, and lists the last 17 that haven’t. Scotland is not on that list and so is not regarded by the UN as a colony.

        So what is Scotland if it isn’t a colony? I believe that it has a status similar to the various independent European states who were absorbed by or merged with other states in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries to form new states. A couple of the many examples are the Kingdom of Bavaria and the Kingdom of Sicily, both of which were fully independent but which ceded their state sovereignty to join or form Germany and Italy respectively. Neither were colonies, not were the other states and statelets that joined up with larger countries over that same period. Bavaria and Sicily both played and continue to play a part in the administration of Germany and Italy respectively, and both, while ceding sovererignty, have retained their own culure and other unique features. That is the true paralell with Scotland.

        Like

  27. “… The Union has been going tfor 315 years. During that time Scotland has constantly acquiesced… ”

    Errr… no, Daveytee, our lords and masters have acquiesced and pandered and kow towed and collaborated and grovelled (and I’m including the Unionist British parties here) but the people have not. Ever. Read the history books. I really don’t know what game you are playing, Daveytee, but it cannot be simply realism and pragmatism because you would not have made the claim you did. Of course the international community will listen, and for members of the international community that know the UK all too well, they will listen harder. I wouldn’t, however, take anything for granted, but, as a last resort, ‘my enemy’s enemy… ‘ is a practical doctrine in Real Politik.

    “… I believe that it has a status similar to the various independent European states who were absorbed by or merged with other states in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries to form new states… ”

    Again, you have neglected to read your history books, Daveytee, or you would know that, in Germany, Prussia beat everyone else into submission with the threat of military force: there was little agreement about the unification; in Italy, the south is greatly resented by the north as being both corrupt and Mafia-ridden and a drain on resources. In both these countries, there are active independence movements afoot. It is rarely, if ever, a good idea to put two different peoples into one state, let alone several different peoples. Almost invariably, it leads to conflict. That is the reality of what you are suggesting. I’m sick of this. Why are you on this thread when you appear to be a devolutionist? No insult. Just a straightforward question, and please don’t insult our intelligence by claiming just to be a realist and pragmatist and I won’t insult yours because you have, literally, put a spoke in every wheel in this thread, and many of those spokes have been nonsensical.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. OK, Lorncal, it seems that I am entirely out of place in this blog and am merely irritating people. I am frankly fed up banging my head against what I all too often see as the brick wall of delusion and so I shall withdraw from the blog which apart from anything else is taking up far too much of my time. It’s a pity because I thought we were sometimes having some interesting discussions and I very much respect Iain. I’ll leave you to Mia and the world of fantasy – best of luck!.

      DT

      Like

  28. DT19

    I think you really need to better understand how colonialism ‘works’, the cultural and linguistic control mechanisms involved, and not least the resultant colonial mindset which involves denial of oppression and acceptance of the colonizer’s values by many of the native people, as well as a high degree of co-operation particularly by the bourgeoisie native group which seeks to protect its interests, status and privileges. Primarily colonialism is about external economic exploitation and political control rather than settler occupation, and the latter may or may not form part of a colonial policy. There is an extensive postcolonial literature which explains all this and more, so well worth paying some attention to it, not least as independence is generally regarded as decolonisation, even by the UN:
    https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/07/18/determinants-of-independence-colonialism/

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Reply to DT19.
    I think that, though Scotland signed the Treaty of Union as an independent sovereign country, we have always been regarded by England as inferior and, de facto, a colony. ‘We have catched Scotland and will hold her fast’ are not the words of another nation regarding us as equal!
    Since the start of this union, our resources, in particular our land, have been used to enrich England, our culture and languages have been treated with derision and suppressed, our economic progress has been hampered so that throughout our history since then, our population has gone down in comparison with that of England, partly because of the lack of opportunity for our people to prosper and partly from the forced removal of many from relatively fertile parts to less fertile ones so that sheep could be reared there, and often from there to overseas. The fact that Scots prospered abroad shows that it was not lack of talent or the capacity for hard work that hampered them, but the situation in their homeland which has been imposed on us.
    Lastly, in more recent times we see our native people displaced by incomers able to purchase land and property because of their greater means and we are unable to prevent this.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.