A NEW CONSTITUTION?

This post first appeared on Yours For Scotland in February this year but in recent days there has been widespread interest and discussion about the content which people have enjoyed discussing. For that reason I am republishing it today to make that process easier. Enjoy!

A guest post from Cath Ferguson.

Cath is based in Glasgow and wrote a couple of things for Wings and Bella Caledonia back in the indyref days. Can often be found playing music in bars to take her mind off the political situation in Scotland, the UK and the wider world. 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fergie_Kate

Tip your hat to the new constitution

July 2023: BBC 6 OClock news

Finally, an end to constitutional wrangling.” Flanked by representatives of all parties and none who have worked so tirelessly on UK2.0 – a New Constitutional Future, and with a Scotlands FM Angus Robertson and his wife by his side, Tory PM Michael Gove waves the document for the waiting media. This represents a historic moment for the UK and its constituent nations. For too long now, London has held tight the reigns of power and it was necessary unionists recognise that this is no longer sustainable or desirable. As we head towards the end of the first quarter of this twenty-first century, the time for change is long overdue. We are confident the people of Scotland, England and Wales will ratify this proposal in Septembers referendum, and reject both outdated unionism and divisive nationalism.

***

This, if unionists were sensible, is what they would have done in 2014: put devo-max on the ballot paper, a guaranteed, well worked out form of devo-max. One which the media could have presented as the sensible middle ground, making both unionists and pro independence sides (both at only around 25% solid support in 2012) the fringe outliers. It is likely, with all that has happened since and the growing sense of inevitability around independence, that they will have learned their lesson this time around. And the paragraph above will sound great to most people, who are sick of politics, for whom an end to constitutional wrangling will be music to their ears. It would, however, be a trick, political chicanery. It’s key aim not to bring genuine powers to Scotland but to lock us into a constitution akin to Catalonia’s, as an area which is not allowed to secede rather than the nation in a union we are now. It would rip up the treaty of union and replace it with a British constitution which makes independence impossible. 

Increasingly, it is looking as if the current SNP may have bought into this and sold out independence. There are various pieces of evidence for this: firstly the clear in hindsight shift of focus in 2017, away from independence. In 2017, independence looked inevitable. We had a united, energetic movement, Sturgeon leading the SNP, backed up by ex-FM Salmond ‘off the leash’ and taking on media roles (https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/alex-salmond-in-talks-to-become-chairman-of-newspaper-group-johnston-press/). We had a top QC in Westminster for the legal side.

Yet instead of the SNP capitalising, we then saw the stitch up of Alex Salmond and vitriolic bullying towards Joanna Cherry – two of the key people who would have prevented that shift. At this same time, they turned on all the pro independence blogs and new media, Wings in particular (initially in siding with Kezia Dugdale against him, then into an all out onslaught) and became one with the unionist media. Murray Foote – most famous for the vow – became their PR chief. The independence movement was split via a very deliberately divisive trans rights v womens rights row, an issue which could have been addressed easily with a little talking through was used instead to silence, bully, terrorise and politically persecute. Then there was the ten year economic plan, the selling off of wind assets, jettisoning of the national energy company and acceptance of Freeports (all against the wishes of SNP members expressed at its policy making body: conference). 

It is the Alex Salmond case, however, which appears to provide most evidence. This was not an SNP plot nor was it a unionist plot. Had it been either one of those, the sides would have been clearly drawn. It was a joint action. There is often confusion when people talk about “The Scottish Government”. When Salmond took The Scottish Government to judicial review, many read (and indeed reported) this as him taking his old party, the SNP, to court. But The Scottish Government is a mix of two things. Yes, it is the party of government – in this case the SNP-Green coalition; between 2016 and 2021, a minority SNP government. But it is also the civil service which supports the ministers of that government. There is only one UK civil service, so The Scottish Government, in that sense, is merely an arm of the UK civil service operating in Scotland. The fundamental tenet of the civil service – and one we have to assume upheld by most staff within it – is that it acts on an impartial basis, giving advice to ministers and working to implement their policies without fear or favour. However, when it comes to the SNP, and to independence, keeping the UK together is not a UK party political issue: it is a key plank of UK security, economy and policy, shared by all parties. As Michael Moore said in 2012, “There is no position within government that separates out Scottish interests from the interests of the rest of the UK” (https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-committees/economic-affairs/ScottishIndependence/ucEAC20121218Ev20.pdf). It is hard, then, to imagine the UK civil service in Scotland could ever be “one and the same” as any genuinely pro-independence government it supposedly supports. Its senior leaders ultimately report to the UK government. If there is a conflict between the aims of the UK and Scottish Governments, the UK government will be the one to whom they defer.

The government (ministers and their advisors many within the civil service) are one of three “arms of state”. The other two arms are the legislature (parliament: Westminster in the UK and Holyrood in Scotland) and the judiciary (courts, Crown office, legal system). Essentially, legislature makes law; the executive implements it and the judiciary acts where conflicts or disputes arise. The very name of the Crown Office states who and which “state” that represents. In reality, Scotland – not being a state – has no arms of state: these three arms are the UK state operating in Scotland (some areas of the judiciary remain, for now, relatively independent but are coming under increasing pressure). It has always been regarded a fundamental tenet of any democracy that these three are separate of each other. When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty… there is no liberty if the powers of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive… there would be an end to everything, if the same man or the same body… were to exercise those three powers.’ (Montesquieu, 1748)

So looking again at the Salmond case, it began in the Civil Service, who reported complaints directly to the Crown Office rather than the police, who didn’t want to know (https://archive2021.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/20210120PoliceScotlandtoConvener(1).pdf

The Crown Agent, David Harvie, reported to Leslie Evans at the time. 

(https://archive2021.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=13167&i=119194&c=2325157)

The police were then ordered to carry out what must be the biggest and most expensive fishing exercise the UK has ever seen, in which 400+ women were dragged in for interview, and found nothing (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/jaccuse-2/). This is the polar opposite of how a criminal investigation should work – complaints are brought to police, who investigate and if they can build enough evidence, then use it to persuade the Crown Office to prosecute: this has all the appearance of a decision to prosecute followed by looking for a crime. As this was happening, the SNP leadership were also fishing for dirt and complaints (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-is-victim-of-a-witch-hunt-aide-to-snp-chief-whip-says-5ffjwz3kb). Nothing appears to have been found from any of this. So a very powerful group, close to the FM, stepped in with allegations that should never have made it anywhere near a court (https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-integrity-of-a-nation/). And yet they ended up in the High Court, with lurid and wholly unrepresentative coverage in a clearly delighted unionist media. 

There is no question the SNP leadership were on board with all of this, enabling it. But the idea the UK would allow all its arms of state in Scotland to be taken over by a devolved SNP leader is frankly ludicrous. Whatever you think of Sturgeon or her personality and leadership style, the idea she could cow the entire UK state would seem unlikely, and if she were that good, we’d be independent by now, not seeing political prosecutions aimed squarely at independence leaders. No, what emerges from the fog of battle is a colonial-style agenda, along with a complete lack of separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judicial systems. This is further complicated by devolution, when a supposedly pro-independence government is in “power”, lacking any real power or arms of state, but with the ability to make people believe they are acting differently to the UK government, or in conflict with them.

This, then, is why any agreement being stitched up in London to push “devo-max” onto a weary, bored of politics, country would be seen by history as the biggest betrayal of the Scottish people since the original 1707 treaty of union. Any new future which is born this way: on needing to remove fundamental tenets of democracy and justice, to attempt to jail or silence those who might point out its pitfalls and argue against, can never be good policy. Indeed, for those lengths to be reached feels like the very worst kind of colonialism, rather than any attempt at genuine reconciliation and finding a sustainable way forward. If sustaining the union long term requires legislative bonds and political prosecutions, it is not sustainable. If any new offer of devo-max, federalism or whatever the UK and Scottish establishments together might plan to impose on Scotland were genuinely good, it would not be necessary either: it could be sold genuinely, with democratic debate. 

Debate is what has been shut down in Scotland over the past few years, the energy of so many good campaigners diverted either into defending their own reputations ageists vexatious complaints, or into identity politics which only arrived post Brexit and will disappear as fast as it arrived once it’s no longer needed, leaving many heavily invested on both sides, battered and broken by the experience. However, as yet, there is no end in sight: the Hate Crime Bill about to be implemented makes political harassment and prosecution an even more simple tactic than it has been; an end to jury trials for sexual allegations would mean any inconvenient man can be easily destroyed. 

I hope the SNP prove me wrong on this and will stand up for Scotland in the event the unionists do attempt to push such a truly awful new constitution onto us. However, in the event they turn out to be on the side pushing it, let me set out what I believe the key arguments (while entirely ignoring the massive downsides will be). It may be worth being ready for them.

An end to constitutional arguments forever.

​- Yes, because it will make them virtually, if not entirely, illegal.

Now we’re out the EU, getting back in will be difficult and would involve a hard border with England.

​- This would only be the case if England chose it, and there are other options such as EFTA which would be fast and avoid this (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/19902938.group-wants-see-independent-scotland-join-efta/)

Now we’re out the EU, we’d need to have our own currency and leave Sterling

​- This is actually a positive thing, but it’s also not true. And, again, EFTA is another option. 

And the key one unionists will be able to use:

​Look how appalling Sturgeon’s SNP government were: they removed rights for women, silenced and harassed people, tried to jail their ex-leader, did jail a journalist, turned Scotland into a state where there was no separation of powers. The UK saved you from all that, which is why it’s so critical you stay in the safe arms of the UK. 

​ – <cough> Aye, right. See article above.

The bigger question is, were this situation to play out, who would be refuting these arguments and how could they be heard? If this is indeed the plan, it will happen quickly, without time for the independence movement to re-group and make the arguments. It would be left to the newer pro independence parties such as Alba and ISP. However, if the devolution plan has the full support of the SNP, Greens, Labour, Lib Dems, some Tories, and the entire media, any such arguments will simply be drowned out; the pro independence side painted as dangerous, divisive fantasists, pitted against and lumped in with the rump Tory unionists arguing for an end to devolution entirely. The real meat and intent of the new constitution – to bind Scotland and remove its status as a sovereign nation – would not be reported at all, nor would any other deliberately written in traps and downsides. It is critical, therefore, that people within the SNP and wider movement consider this danger before it is too late. Because if there is a referendum in 2023, and that is the form it takes, it will be too late by then to counter the propaganda. 

And if such a constitution is supported by all Scottish parties and voted for overwhelmingly by the Scottish people, no amount of late realisation, regret, or surge in support for real independence will be any use: the International community would, rightly, say Scotland entered with full choice and awareness. That wouldn’t simply put independence back by ten or twenty years: it would make it impossible. That would be its intention. 

The future is not yet written and it is possible the SNP would still never, despite all the actions and evidence detailed, support such a stitch up of Scotland. I pray that is the case, but the evidence of the past six years since Brexit is not positive, and for that reason the independence movement, and indeed all Scots who care about our future, need to be alert and ready

MY COMMENTS

THIS IS A VITAL ARTICLE. It spells out the disastrous course we are on and where it is leading. It is truly frightening. That it depends on SNP members, the same SNP members that have at best ignored, if not supported, the ruthless removal of all their own powers within the Party, to at long last rebel and demand this colonial manipulation of Scotland ends now.Our powers are being diminished in front of eyes, our assets are being sold off to huge corporations to our great cost. It must not go on any longer. If you care for Scotland examine what is happening and decide whether you are happy with a poor colonial future in an increasingly intolerant country where Stasi like control is being established, or do you want the freedom of full Independence?

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.

27 thoughts on “A NEW CONSTITUTION?

  1. And the prohibition on drinking on the premises at Vauxhall cross and Foggy Bottom is temporarily lifted as they congratulate themselves on a job well done.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. Who authorised this in the SG? English Press article. Why not give the money to local to build a business?

    “Brits will be paid £50,000 as a “golden hello” from the Scottish government if they move to secluded Scottish islands. You can get paid £50,000 to move to a secluded island – and you don’t have to go far.”

    The new scheme is hoping to encourage people to move to the islands, which are struggling with depopulation. SNP MSP for the Western Isles Alasdair Allan told the Times : “Anything we can do to reverse depopulation trends should be encouraged.”

    Liked by 5 people

    1. The only thing that will reverse the process of depopulation is to make jobs and services available. Build it and they will come – and many young people might come from other parts of Scotland where they are already priced out of the market by rUK retirees. Open it up to well-off southerners – and it will be those who come, the middle-class ‘back to nature’ types from urban England – and no one else, including the few locals already there, will be able to stay. Totally counterproductive. Her’s a better proposition, Alasdair: give young women of childbearing age that 50 grand handout to enable them to have children and stay at home. You’d see a baby boom overnight! But, no, if it doesn’t involve hordes of rUK incomers to ruin any chance of independence and raise house prices out of reach, it’s no good, eh?

      Liked by 7 people

    2. i’ve given this an uptick for bringing this actionj by an SNP MSP absolutely appalling. It is a completebetrayal of what we need. What we do need is economic regeneration to enable Scottish families, preferably Gaelic speaking or willing to learn, to find a sustainable way of life in our islands.
      They have been populated since the stone age so it certainlu should not be impossible now.

      Liked by 7 people

  3. We have been so busy expecting an attack by Westminster/ Whitehall that we missed the enemy within. I was one of those who though a Referendum next year unlikely but I am beginning to think it is part of a long term plan.we lose an ill prepared campaign and that will be it for a generation and by that time the settlement plan will be in full operation and winning a Referendum will be impossible.

    While we were on the castle walls Robertson and Sturgeon unlocked the back gate for London.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. I have watched with dismay the total disregard for decency, fairness, democracy, the Treaty of Union and the rule of law that both the SG and the UKG have shown. If something does not suit their agenda they will rig it or ride roughshod over it. Such is our reality.

      For Sturgeon it is enough to go to her UN job leaving Scotland in union and say “I’m the wee wummin that tried” – that’s all this is about for her. The final ‘to do’ box to tick before exit. And remember: Sturgeon needs the permission of the UK PM for that job.

      What is now happening, deliberately or through gross incompetence, is the closing down of the peaceful, democratic routes to independence. They think they are clever. Entitled fools. What comes next will be at their door.

      By what right do we hold our country?
      By our right hands. In the end it is the only right that counts.

      Liked by 11 people

    2. Clootie, I, too, am really worried now – as Peter A. Bell has been pointing out, too – that we might end up with either an unwinnable referendum or one that is not worth the paper on which it is written. I have tried and tried to understand where the SNP leadership and coterie are coming from, but always it seems that they are either grossly negligent through a total lack of nous or they are deliberately muddying the waters. If it’s the former, they are not fit to be in power; if it’s the latter, why? Have they been blackmailed or worse, are they actually in the pay of Whitehall? Something is going on that they are not telling us, but, every day they tarry, more and more are beginning to see the light. It might not seem so now, but people are starting to wonder what is going on – ordinary people who have no great interest in politics.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. It seemed to me the betrayers speech in January 2020 marked the start of a narrative driven by kompromat. Complaints of perjury have now been made to COPFS over the Salmond trial and it has gone deadly quiet. There must have been very compelling evidence for that step to have been taken. Gordon Dangerfield said a few months back he had dynamite in his possession. Once the conspirators get interviewed under caution a lot of hidden truths will see the light of day as they try to save themselves. I think – I hope – the dam is about to burst.

        I suspect there is a race:
        Can Sturgeon hold and lose her pretendy referendum and exit to the UN before her involvement in Salmondgate is made public?

        Liked by 12 people

      2. I hope it all comes tumbling down, but not into the arms of the Unionists, Marion. How on earth did they believe they would get away with all this? Really, how could they believe that? There is a want at the heart of the SNP, and it’s in the head!

        Liked by 8 people

      3. This is my fear too Lorna . NS seems awful confident in stating and restating what the rest of us find implausible eg holding a Referendum next year when no work has been done , no answers given to the questions that were asked last time – and will be screamed next time , on currency , pensions , border etc ; nor have even the preliminary steps been taken vis-a-vis the procedures required to hold one . So either this is another cynical bluff the SNP/GOV already have an excuse in hand to wriggle-out of the ” Towards the end of ’23 ” * commitment * or , as we fear , the plan is some ramshackle , half-hearted bound-to-fail farce held in the bleak midwinter , with the venus flytrap option of Devo Max added to almost guarantee a straight YES defeat . I simply don’t trust a word she says nor would I put anything past * them * . Another possibility is a toothless * advisory ( y’know like Brexit – ostensibly -was ) Referendum , full of muted sound and the fury of a timid mouse . This would – in appearance , * fulfil * her * commitment * while keeping the status quo ante firmly in place

        Liked by 6 people

  4. So much of that is factual and can be verified, Cath Ferguson. Well done. However, we need to stop and think about who exactly is doing this to us. Is it all Westminster and the dreaded English? No. It isn’t. Michael Gove is just one of many, many Scottish players in this charade of a Union: there’s Jim Wallace,; there’s Ming Campbell (both in the Lords) ; there are many more keeping their heads down but spewing poison – such as Andrew Marr, Andrew Neil and Fraser Nelson. It seems that many of the SNP leadership and coterie are also of that ilk. We don’t even need to go to the Lords or Westminster: they are all around us, looking always for an opportunity to feather their own nests while betraying us to England as the UK. Never has a country been more beset by opportunists and collaborators than Scotland. Vichy France had plenty during WW II, but even they pale into insignificance beside our own Vichy Scots with their fake accents or Eton-educated entitlement. Many of them own our land, our rivers, our seas, even, and they manipulate and puppeteer the politicians who do their level best to help them, not us. Start a petition and send it to Gove (rhyming with the glove that is stuck up his nether region all the better to operate him with). Disgusting apology for a human being and even more disgusting apology for a Scot. I wish we could ban these creatures of the British State from ever returning to Scotland. We don’t want them back, England, France, wherever they have perched. Please keep them. No, Gove, we will not accede to your sleight of hand. Never.

    Liked by 10 people

  5. NS seems to make all the choices for the whole of Scotland without any thought of what the rest of us would want, she even goes against her own party’s standing policy. It seems like an Independent Scotland will join Nato and hold onto these nukes under the deal Sturgeon has struck in the USA . If we were ever to have a constitution I hope to god it had a clause preventing MSP/Politicains holding office for more than two terms in Holyrood when the two terms are up they can no longer able stand as a politician again.

    If someone from the future had come and told us before 2014 what Nicola Sturgeon was going to be like as a leader in 2015, we would have all ignored him and thought he was mad. I’m concered for Scotland in Sturgeons hands in 2022, I’d even be more concered if we where Independent. To be honest if someone did happen to come and speak to me from the future I’d be more interested in knowing about the euro lottery numbers than Sturgeon or her party.

    I just like to say to everyone who likes my comments thank you. I’m sorry I’m not able to like back, but I don’t have wordpress, facebook or twitter accounts but the love is there.

    Thank you Ian for all your good work, I’ve no idea how any of us can repay the good word all the bloggers do for Scotland and its people. PS if I do win the Euro the drinks are on Ian.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. I wonder if the New SNP are going to pay the Nationalist to move to England on the hope she doesn’t need to hold a Ref.

      Liked by 4 people

  6. You think things can get worse but do, Debate shut down a media black out all to sell their Greater England to the fools.

    Liked by 7 people

  7. Looking at the council coalitions forming, the idea of an independence referendum in 2023 is even less likely than it was few weeks ago (not that it was ever likely).
    I read an article on the bbc website a few weeks ago regarding the SNP holding a referendum outside of the s30 process. The jist of it was that “it is unlikely that the result would be accepted internationally”. That there is the problem. No, not holding a referendum without a s30, but the media. The media are still the ‘end of level baddie’ in our computer game. Yeah we have social media, but so do they. Nick Clegg anyone?

    So a b#stardised Devo Max option is a clear and present danger to Scotland – remember Jackie bird?

    I’m hoping (maybe beyond hope), that it is starting to dawn on the SNP membership that each and EVERY election from 2015 onwards, whether local, Scottish or at the UK level has always been about the constitution, whether the SNP leadership likes it or not and it will be like this until either we are independent, or crushed. These local elections should be the wake up call. Running a GE on anything OTHER than a plebiscite is simply nonsensical now.

    An Independence Party on the front foot would not only be trying to devolve media, but calling it out at every opportunity. The SNP are to meek to do that.

    The meek shall inherit the tories.

    Liked by 8 people

  8. It is a fair point to make that the Civil Service is a British organisation “conflicted” by Scottish Independence because of the threat it poses to the UK. But even coming from me, a die-hard independentist, if we are honest with ourselves, what else would you expect the British Civil Service to do? Even neutrality puts it’s feet on shaky ground. For the love of God, don’t trust it to do the right thing by Scotland.

    But the huge “pup” which Scotland has been sold, is that Holyrood, Scotland’s devolved assembly, is anything else except a similar British institution just like the British Civil Service. Think about it.

    Holyrood is codified by the Scotland Act, an Act of the Westminster Parliament with Queen Elizabeth it’s head of state. Through the Scotland Act, Westminster is dictating what Holyrood can and cannot do, and Sturgeon’s SNP “government” dutifully nods and agrees.

    Both Holyrood and Westminster are conspiring together to supplant the ancient sovereign Constitution of our Nation, our popular sovereignty and our status under international law, and replace it with the lightweight small “c” constitution of a subservient regional assembly. Scotland’s people are SOVEREIGN. The Scotland Act has NO Constitutional authority to prevent Scotland having as many referendums as we like. The Scotland Act is encroaching into areas where it has NO authority, and every Scottish politician who goes along with that, is being complicit in the attempt to downgrade Scotland’s status from Sovereign Nation to subservient Region.

    I keep referring to my own Red Sovereignty / White Sovereignty argument, because when Holyrood was established, the Constitutional truth was fudged, like the Treat of Union itself was a fudge. The arguments whether Holyrood answered to the Sovereign people of Scotland, or instead, answered to the Palace of Westminster were never resolved in detail.

    Scotland’s Constitutionalists saw Holyrood as Scotland’s Sovereign Parliament in waiting because the people are sovereign, while Scotland’s Unionists we’re delighted that Scotland had embraced and taken to it’s heart, a subservient legislature which gave Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty a faux-constitutional bridgehead in Edinburgh. But critically, for the next 20 years, both completely incompatible and irreconcilable perceptions were allowed to co-exist. And for as long as they were allowed to co-exit, the binary question of who Holyrood answered to remained completely ambiguous.

    All that changed after 2016, when Sturgeon capitulated to Brexit, sweeping aside the emphatic will of the Scottish people, talking utter shite about Scotland’s “only” lawful route to a referendum was through Section 30, and setting all manner of grossly unconstitutional precedents which undermined Scotland’s Constitutional rights as a Nation, and indulged the fallacies of Westminster’s colonial adventurism to a thoroughly sickening degree.

    Sturgeon has single-handedly destroyed the uneasy ambiguous equilibrium of a Holyrood Assembly which “might” be sovereign or might be subverient, and she has GIFTED the apparent ascendancy to Westminster.

    Sturgeon has SOLD SCOTLAND OUT.

    She was wrong, utterly wrong. She had no authority to do it. But now it looks to all the world that Scotland’s Government is a Vichy style puppet government with no Constitutional clout. Holyrood is a White Institution. Not red.

    Had Sturgeon in 2016 grown a backbone and left Westminster in no uncertain terms that Scotland’s emphatic Remain vote was an inviolable sovereign edict, and then created a Scottish Constitutional Backstop to that effect; Westminster was over a barrel.

    Proceeding with Brexit meant subjugating Scotland’s Sovereignty thus collapsing the Treaty of Union, and the alternative, aborting Brexit meant Scotland had a recognised sovereign veto over the UK Government, which Westminster could never have accepted.

    For once, it was Scotland who held both ends of the string, victory and Independence was ours for the taking! …. Up until Sturgeon’s asinine capitulation, which fkd Scotland sideways and let the Union off the hook. She was the toast of Whitehall that day!

    From all we have learned since, and taking the holistic perspective, do you still think ANY of this was down to incompetence?

    The truth will out eventually, but whether it turns out to be incompetence or betrayal, the scale of it is truly Colossal.

    (Sorry for the long post everybody. It’s just hard to convey this stuff more succinctly.)

    Liked by 13 people

  9. This is all a game to keep Scottish resources under Londons control. What is stopping a UK government implementing Devo Max now ,was this not the Vow. This is a distraction to buy of the soft voters. 1.2 million English settlers whose allegiance is to their mother country and will vote for the Union. All getting a vote on a doggy voting franchise. Evil English votes for English laws, EU Brexit referendum that prevented EU citizens voting on Brexit. UN standard for a constitutional voting is for the indigenous population not for the colonial settlers. The colonial settlers can get citizenship after a successful yes vote. The important thing is though they should not be able to prevent our democracy . Wales indigenous population voted against Brexit the English settlers voted for it. Come 2030 the Scots will be a minority in our own country, time to wake up Brothers and Sisters our chance is running out and Sturgeon knows this the real reason she delayed the census. Dissolve the Union.

    Liked by 6 people

  10. There are virtually no homes on sale and pitifully few for rent that are affordable to anyone living in the rural areas of Scotland. Will the 50g be available to local people unable to get a home of their own?

    An excellent article. In this country, Scotland, we are never told how things work or how decisions are made. We are therefor entitled to suspend the benefit of the doubt and draw our own conclusions. I reckon this article is bang on the money.

    We are undoubtedly a stinking colonial mess of a colony. The people have no protection.

    Liked by 8 people

  11. Some facts about a new constitution, if you will allow me the floor.

    To change something, you have to fully understand what *the thing* itself is.

    Forget Devo-MAx, it’s not possible under Scotland’s constitution or that of UK.

    In UK terms, Scotland’s constitution is enshrined by Union with England Act 1707 & the concomitant commitment to Claim of Right Act 1689.

    If you read the former, you’ll see that the terms of the Act of 1707 explicitly state that they are the conditions placed in all treaties (forms of *union*) entered into with foreign princes…. Ergo: all trade treaties, NATO, UN etc are already recognised as being applicable to Scotland, because *notwithstanding the union*.

    Everything rolls over seamlessly.

    So, trading terms are maintained, which means that £GBP can be pegged as equal on day 1 with £Scot and let trade & state investment dictate currency value…the free marketeers will salivate at the prospect. A sovereign state with no debt to foreign states.

    Yes, no debt. The 1707 Act explicitly explains how England’s debt is to be managed and how Scotland’s Treasury was to run a ledger in £Scots mirroring BoE to monitor flow of duties as it’s managed through time. HM Treasury confirmed for 2014 that terms of debt won’t change and IT would honour all.

    Scotland’s economy is as big as it is today. If a nation invests in itself, it will find the right balance over time.

    Ignore talk of all the contracts UK Govt have with oil & gas extractors…Scotland can’t be forced to take them on as written…Our waters, our t&cs…the border guarders like Farage will egg us on here if we frame things clearly and as unambiguously as the much criticised ‘Commissioners’ did in 1707.

    Claim of Right Act 1689
    Union with England Act 1707

    Works of art, linguistically with the terms of both having been broken numerous times by Parliament.

    PS Scotland’s independence will have no effect on England + Wales, or Northern Ireland wrt Treaties etc.

    A silent separation can be had.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. I’m minded more and more of the science fiction film, The Island. (Or in our case The Ayeland!) Anyone who has seen it will recall that people’s behaviours are tempered with the promise of something better (the chance to go to the Island – the last radiation free outside space on Earth), whilst they are ‘kept safe’ in a phoney ‘radiation proof’’ compound. Only one inhabitant actually discovers the truth of what’s going on – they are being bred for their organs.

    We are consistently promised with ‘something better’ after the next election, yet there never is. The entire mainstream political landscape has been bought. The media are the equivalent of the ‘radiation’ drugs taken by the inmates of the isolation unit in the movie – administered for pacification. Frequent media ads are played to the inhabitants talking about the Island and who last won the lottery to go there..

    The period between 2007 and 2014 seems ever more the aberration – a period where a govt, albeit devolved, expressed itself and the will of the people. The sphere of ‘free choice’ we operate in now seems very much like the radiation proof compound in the film. There no longer seems any democratic means of escaping this nightmare – whether you live north or south of the border. Our politicians answer to the corporate/banking neoliberal establishment whilst positing a veneer of democratic hand ringing for the benefit of the plebs. The same establishment controls the mainstream media which has brilliantly socially engineered a population who have either been brainwashed into thinking they live in a functioning democracy, or are suitably apathetic enough, not to vote. Either way, we end up with exactly the same corrupt establishment pulling the strings.

    How things play out from here, will depend on how adept the establishment is at not taking things too far, yet there maybe unintended/unforeseen consequences looming – the perfect storm of brexit, Ukraine, and crop failures due to climactic events. The Arab Spring was triggered by drought and it might be that some sequence of events triggers a reaction that no government can prepare for. I can’t see the radical change needed being implemented by any political parties now – they are blown out of the water by the corporate media. I think it needs to come directly from the people now. Perhaps Boris should have kept those water cannons.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I keep wondering how we do this more quickly,.I mean get the message out that we have 1. a constitutional and protected mechanism for removing and replacing the ‘invading’ government (CoR) It would get international recognition as our own constitution easily meets standards for international recognition and the CoR clause is unarguable. 2, Which does not depend on Westminster or the Scottish Executive arm of Westminster in Holyrood, and 3. And perhaps most urgently right now, inherent in that mechanism are the provisions that redraw political and government organisation and constitutional limits, provisions which would automatically protect the interests of the people from the hardships and loss of rights being imposed by Westminster and Hollywood respectively. We
      need something like the 1988 Constitutional Convention but more representative. And how do we get that?

      Like

  13. Here’s one for a laugh , Blair and Ruth Davidson are in talks according to rumours of forming a new party centre right on politics. The reason for is that the public have become disillusioned by the current political partys, No shit.
    Blair the man responsible for illegal wars and his new side kick Ruth Davidson who defended the Union ,Brexit and WMD on the Clyde.They are apparently concerned for the state of our democracy. News for them we didn’t have democracy under them either. Dr Kelly, Diana the shadowy hand of the British state.
    They can keep their new Pro -Westminster, business as usual party UK, OK does not ring my bell and never will.
    Dissolve the Union.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: