MIA RETURNS TO THE FRAY

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:

Regular columnist Mia returns after a short absence as she comments on the Robin McAlpine article I published yesterday.

This raises the question about whether the Scottish Government has known this for a while” 

In my personal opinion it stands to the obvious they have known this since the first day they started drafting the Referendum Bill. You just have to read the wording of the Overview for the Referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament website to realise of this (accessible at https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/referendums-scotland-bill).:

“This Bill would give the Scottish Government power to decide that a referendum can be held in Scotland and to set the rules for the referendum. The rules include who gets to vote and how campaigns are regulated.

THE BILL WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR REFERENDUMS ON ISSUES WHICH THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR. These are known as a ‘DEVOLVED’ matters.” (my capitals)

On the section “Why the bill was created” this bit is included:

“The Scottish Government wants to create a framework for how any future referendums ON DEVOLVED MATTERS will be held” (My capitals)

The Union is categorically classified according to the Scotland Act as a “reserved matter”. That should be reserved or not and that this is an encroachment by England MPs on what is at all effects Scotland’s right to decide under the claim of Right and our status as a co-signatory of the Treaty of Union, is a completely different matter.

The matter here is that for Holyrood to act “lawfully” within the constrains of the Scotland Act, which is what will be immediately called in any legal challenge, unless we get that stupid S30, independence will continue to be stalled.

This Referendum Bill also brings forward another question: are the noises from certain SNP quarters regarding a “consultative” referendum without S30 another red herring?

In my personal opinion they are, because that Referendum Bill cannot be used for anything that is not devolved. Consultative or not, the Union is not devolved, so this bill advances us absolutely nothing – ergo, another bill will be needed, so back to square one and back to more delays.

Let’s bear in mind that it was not England’s gov who wrote and brought to Holyrood this Referendum Bill. It was Sturgeon’s government. Because they redacted the draft themselves, it stands to the obvious they knew exactly what the limitations of that bill were from day one and therefore how much this approach would restrict Scotland’s lawful right to call a referendum on independence to exercise its legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the Treaty of Union. They cannot blame Westminster for this, this falls squarely at Sturgeon’s lap.

In my opinion, this Bill is and has always been designed to be a cosmic size red herring with three important functions:

1. To pretend things were moving forward for independence because yes supporters were getting restless. In reality this bill advances nothing at all.
2. To push away from the table every other avenue that should remain open to us to pursue independence, like for example a plebiscitary election. For as long as we continue to believe a referendum is possible, we will not search for alternatives
3. it is the ultimate gatekeeper of the Union. If Westminster cannot withhold the S30 any longer, by ensuring with this Referendum Bill that the same flawed franchise as that used in 2014 remains permanently in place, by ensuring the Electoral Commission (an UK outfit that should not be allowed anywhere near our referendum) has permanently a finger on the pie and by ensuring the campaign regulations will not exclude outfits with HQ located somewhere other than Scotland (for example England political parties, Uk gov and Secretary of State) and can therefore continue to pump money into the No campaign, they will ensure Yes will not win.

The “Referendum in 2023” is in my opinion another red herring, this time specifically designed to distract us from demanding the next GE to become a plebiscitary election. How many here think Johnson is going to survive as PM until 2024 and a GE is not going to be called in 2023? 

“But there is another possible explanation – that the Scottish Government deliberately didn’t ask the question.”

There is, in my personal opinion, a third possible explanation:

Asking the question might have never crossed Nicola Sturgeon or her government’s mind because their intention was always to use Holyrood, the S30 and the Referendum bill as either the gatekeepers of the union or tools to forcefully stall independence at the point England as the UK gov is at its weakest politically, internationally and economically. This period started the moment the disparity on the results of the EU referendum between Scotland and England were shown in 2016 and will continue until:

a. Enough laws have been written behind our backs and enough of our assets have been handed over by this political fraud so England will have sufficient control over Scotland’s assets, borders and markets to survive out of the EU and to ensure Scotland cannot return to it and risk a hard border between the two.
b. England has rode the tsunami of its own brexit stupidity (the threat of astronomical inflation is just a sign the brexit tsunami is still in swelling phase) .

Sturgeon’s behaviour of deliberatly cutting our potential exits for the sake of some virtue signalling are either the pinnacle of stupidity and incompetence or a disgusting act of betrayal where, for the sake of our neighbour, she is deliberately forcing Scotland to suffer untold damage by forcing Scotland to follow the slowliest and most damaging exit route so the other country can reap the biggest cut of the shared benefits at our expense.

Every single loophole used in Indyref2014 by England as the UK establishment to frustrate independence remains today, EIGHT YEARS after, as open as it was on 18 September 2014 and ready to be used again. Actually, that Referendum Bill ensures they remain open in law. That Referendum bill appears to be just an invitation for our right to self-determination to be frustrated and abused all over again. This time with the backing of the law.

I challenge any of the SNP leadership to prove Sturgeon actually has had during the last 8 years any intention for Scotland to terminate this political union. I challenge any of them to prove the Scotland Referendum Bill is anything else other than a sly attempt to force Scotland into a cul de sac, and I challenge them to prove the combination of the S30, the Referendum bill and this new claim of a “consultative referendum” are anything other than tools designed to deprive Scotland’ from its legitimate right as an equal partner in this union of unilaterally terminate the treaty of union forcing England to the negotiating table.

I challenge them to prove the S30, the Referendum Bill and this “consultative referendum” are anything other than tools aiming to demote Scotland from its status of equal partner to that of a region of Greater England to ensure England will remain as the UK continuator state after Scotland’s independence and therefore in control of all the goodies that Scotland has been contributing to for the last 300 years and in control of the government structures Scotland will exit this union with.

For as long as a political fraud remains in control of the SNP and our executive in Scotland, a referendum is the secure way to ensure Scotland continues to prop England and remain welded to it in this toxic union. If we want Scotland to become independent, the route to that starts not by asking permission to hold a referendum but by repealing the treaty of union. For this we need REAL pro-independence MPs who are willing to stand on a manifesto of refusing to swear allegiance and take the seats , in a manifesto to relocate to Scotland and re-open Scotland’s ancient parliament and on a manifesto that will initiate straight away the repealing of the Treaty of Union. The successors of the old Scottish parliament are not the amoebas sitting in Holyrood, busy voting to cancel freedom of speech freedom of demonstration and thought and voting to suppress women’s rights. The successor of our old parliament are our 56 MPs plus the self-serving 16 Scottish peer lords who have, of course, a vested interest in the union to continue to preserve their juicy sinecures and privileges.

There is only one way to terminate this union and that way is by repealing the treaty of Union. Only by terminating the union Scotland will regain its statehood. Anything else is just either a distraction or creating a status of permanent subservience to England’s interests.

MY COMMENTS

How far would the Independence cause advance if Mia was in Parliament? She has the brains, the determination, the drive to push effective argument. tactically sound that clearly identifies England’s game and the strategic ability to put in place the team and tactics to bring this all to a head. The SNP NEC have centralised the candidate selection process and that is why both Parliaments are stuffed full of nodding dogs who have surrendered all individual ability and fight in favour of the continued salary they now enjoy. Where we need lions we have tame pussy cats. It is very sad.

I am, as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some websites that claim to be pro Indy have turned out to be only Pro SNP sites and have sought to ban any websites that dare to question SNP Policy or tactics. They seek to avoid the public being aware that alternatives to waiting for Westminster to “grant” Scotland a Section 30 to hold a referendum exist. Issues like the flawed franchise, the Claim of Right route, the work of the SSRG and Salvo fill them with dread. As this blog promotes all routes, including alternatives I am banned from these sites and am therefore very grateful to my readers, who knowing about these efforts to ban and suppress go out of their way to subscribe and to share my articles far and wide. It is a good thing that attempts to restrict free speech and censor are defeated in this way.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Free subscriptions are available on this site from both the Home and Blog pages. This will ensure you will be notified every time a new article is posted. Each article already gets posted to many thousands of people, I hope you will come and join us. You will be most welcome.

41 thoughts on “MIA RETURNS TO THE FRAY”

  1. I fully agree with the article assessment.

    We do not have a champion of the Scottish People fighting for the recovery of our Nation’s Independence. We have a career focused business manager determined to hold a franchise by blocking all competitors. Independence to her is merely a marketing tool for the SNP business unit.

    Liked by 24 people

  2. Totally on the ball, Mia. Unlike the sheep following Nicola Sturgeon’s crook, you have looked at what she actually does, including the detailed wording of the Bill, and, critically, what she omits to do. The truth and the corresponding betrayal of the independence movement are in plain sight for anyone prepared to open his or her eyes.

    Liked by 25 people

  3. Having read the above and previous contributions including those from Sara Slayers, Robin MacApline, Alf Baird et al it seems this advice to those who seek self determination is as useful today as it was 100 years ago,

    “Don’t be ‘practical’ in politics. To be practical in that sense means that you have schooled yourself to think along the lines, and in the grooves that those who rob you would desire you to think.”

    – James Connolly

    Liked by 17 people

    1. Agreed, the Sinn Féin strategy is the route to independence.
      Any genuine champion of independence would have realised this by now.
      A more recent quotation; “… if you do not play you cannot lose.”
      Marla Daniels (a shameless 20th Anniversary reference to The Wire)

      Liked by 14 people

  4. The question of whether Holyrood can hold a referendum under the Scotland Act “constitution”, is NOT the same question as whether the Constitutionally Sovereign people of Scotland can hold a referendum. The answer to one question is irrelevant to the other.

    The powers, (or lack of them), of Holyrood are not the same powers of a sovereign Nation.

    If it is proposed that the constraints Westminster can impose upon Holyrood should bind the sovereign people of Scotland, then Holyrood is unfrocked as a fraudulent colonial mechanism intent on Scotland’s malicious and unconstitutional subjugation.

    Liked by 15 people

      1. Nicely put – when will people stop thinking that ONLY the SNP can get us independence? If that’s case, they have failed miserably and it’s time for the people of Scotland to take over, while Nicola’s busy having her photie taken with pro-life US congressman Aderholt while screaming how awfy it is fur these puir women in America, but. Women in Scotland however, as you were, chest feeders, womb carriers one and all

        Be kind folks

        Liked by 5 people

      2. Duncanio; “The Holyrood Parliament is devolved from the Westminster Parliament.

        The Scottish people are not.”

        I’d suggest a more accurate description is;

        ‘”The Holyrood Parliament’s ‘powers’ are devolved, the institution itself is not.”

        And that’s because it was the sovereign people of Scotland who decided they wanted it, not Westminster, and its membership is elected exclusively by them in their own sovereign country. As such Holyrood’s MSPs exercise that sovereignty on our electorate’s behalf as their authorised representatives. It is clearly not for England’s MPs to hold Scotland’s MSPs to account, that right is ours alone.

        But it was England’s MPs who decided what powers it would have, and who insisted that the new parliament was never to have the authority to challenge Westminster in any meaningful way even on matters in Scotland.

        But Westminster’s sovereign authority over Scotland is subsidiary to that of the Scots themselves, and thus to their representatives in their own Parliament. And that is for the simple reason that the sovereignty that the UKP wields over Scotland IS Scotland’s own sovereignty ‘devolved’ to the UKP, so it has no right to prevail over the ultimate source of that same sovereignty, which is us! When push comes to shove, Scotland’s sovereignty is for us to wield, and us alone.

        The writ of any other sovereignty does not apply in Scotland without our consent, and we can withdraw that consent at any time for any reason, and reject and eject that writ.

        Like

    2. For me we are missing the obvious: the constitution is reserved to Westminster. Thatcher accepted that means the Scottish constitution is reserved to Scottish MPs – that should have been the focus, not this s30 order.
      We can save the day – Sturgeon belongs in Holyrood. Let her play the game she is undoubtedly playing. But lets separate out the MPs – they hold the constitutional power – they do not need an s30 order – only Holyrood needs that.
      Let Sturgeon run her pretendy indy campaign and lets campaign:
      On the calamity of Brexit and the injustice that Remain voting NI has the open market but Remain voting Scotland does not
      On the separation of state and justice and the abuses that have shown us this need
      On the damage done to the UK by this UKIP UKG: what we once were will not come back to us
      On the one party state Scotland has become within union and the pressing need to be a normal country
      On the need to elect governments on other than a YES/NO vote in Holyrood: The UK GE is the place for a YES/NO vote – we have no representation worth a dam there and our MPs do not need a section 30 order.

      We need to restore Salmonds reputation: his thought that he can work with the SNP is rose tinted glasses to say the least – but then he has had a blind spot where Sturgeon is concerned. She needs brought down HARD and NOW.

      The SNP MPs have disgraced Scotland and all they pretend to stand for.

      Liked by 15 people

      1. As always Mia nails it:
        The successor of our old parliament are our 56 MPs plus the self-serving 16 Scottish peer lords who have, of course, a vested interest in the union to continue to preserve their juicy sinecures and privileges.

        That is where YES must focus.

        Glad to see you back Mia.

        Liked by 13 people

      2. “our MPs do not need a section 30 order” Agreed, they don’t, but they do need a clear mandate for independence, and we currently do not have any means to determine if one exists. What we do have is a mandate to make that determination, but the means to do that is also blocked or at least uncertain. If we can create that means on our own Scottish authority, the rest is down to a campaign.

        My understanding is that referendums are not restricted to governments and parliaments, as I seem to remember a private referendum took place many years ago? So while the Scottish Parliament/Government may well be blocked from initiating an Indyref, another body with deep enough pockets may do so. A Constitutional Convention of some sort may be one way. Who would or could convene it? And could Holyrood fund it?

        Liked by 5 people

      3. Xaracen – if Alba were to do what the SNP has failed to do and campaign in the UK GE on the single issue of opening negotiations for independence and if a majority of Alba MPs were returned then that would be a mandate. No S30 order would be required.

        Liked by 6 people

      4. Even as I finish writing to Xaracen I am filled with dread that the final act of treason by Sturgeon will be a stitch up in her pretendy exercise to try to close down this route. It is not easy to see how she will do it but …

        Liked by 8 people

      5. @Xaracen

        You said: “Agreed, they don’t, but they do need a clear mandate for independence, and we currently do not have any means to determine if one exists”

        Remember what Angus Robertson was suggesting regarding Sturgeon alleged “success” dealing with COVID compared with the UK gov? It does not matter what the reality is. In politics the only thing that matters is what voters perceive the truth to be.

        If it is difficult to establish if the SNP currently has a mandate for independence, then, by logic, it must be also very difficult to establish if it does not have one, and that is the perspective we need to look at it from.

        I argue the SNP has had a mandate to terminate the union since the results of GE2015 were announced.

        The only thing I can remember that could be interpreted as putting a doubt on that mandate is the words of the political fraud in 2015 claiming, before the election, and at a time when it was already known the SNP would win by a landslide, that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence nor even a vote for a referendum.

        What I see in favour of the SNP having a mandate for independence since 2015 is the constitution of the SNP. The constitution of the SNP is clear. Pursuing independence is its raison d’etre. A vote for that party is a vote for its constitution and for its raison d’etre

        Therefore the key here is to establish what is more important and what has bigger relevance for the voters, if the constitution of the political party or the word of a charlatan who claims to be the leader of the party and who might be, knowingly or not, going against the constitution of the party.

        So, what is more important, the constitution of the party or a random manifesto which is incompatible with that constitution and it is at odds with previous ones?

        Neither Nicola Sturgeon nor Angus Robertson nor Iain Blackford or Peter Murrell can provide an answer to that question, because the answer will be whatever the voters and the membership at large perceive it to be.

        From my own perspective as voter, the answer to that question is clear: it is and will always be the constitution of the party. Leaders and manifestos come and go. The constitution has to remain because if you change it, at all practical effects you are changing the party.

        In line with Robertson’s words, it does not matter an iota what Sturgeon wants a vote for the SNP to be. What matters is what the voters PERCEIVE their vote was/is for. My votes for the SNP were always votes for independence. Therefore I don’t give a toss what Sturgeon claimed they were for. I give far more importance to the history of the SNP, its constitution and the clear pro-indy work of former leaders than to Sturgeon’s over-rehearsed capitulation waffle of the day.

        But there is another important aspect to consider here. It is beyond doubt the SNP has had a democratic mandate to call a referendum on independence since May 2016. It is also beyond doubt Sturgeon and the SNP MSPs and MPs have spectacularly failed at delivering this. The failure is not just Sturgeon’s. It is of all of them because it was not only MSPs who were elected on that mandate. It was also SNP MPs through the manifestos of GEs 2017 and 2019.

        Why have they failed to deliver the democratic mandate for a referendum?

        Because they have insisted for 7 years in forcing within the constrains of devolution a subject matter that expands not only beyond devolution, but actually beyond the UK Parliament itself. It is not for the UK Parliament to decide to terminate the Treaty of Union. That is a matter for one or for both signatories of the Treaty if they are in agreement. Those signatories are the Parliaments of Scotland and England

        The manifesto was for a referendum, not for a section 30 order nor for permission from an England MP parachuted to the position of UK PM without mandate from Wales, NI or Scotland. This means the SNP has had the democratic mandate and the moral duty to pursue EVERY ROUTE available to them to deliver that referendum mandated to them by the people of Scotland .

        If the route of the S30 is flawed, as it has been sufficiently demonstrated from already 2016, then Sturgeon and the SNP have had the duty as democrats to test OTHER routes to deliver that referendum. For 6 years they have failed at this. Testing another route is the opposite of passing a Referendum bill to attempt to constrain Scotland’s legitimate right to terminate the union within the boundaries of devolution. Scotland cannot exercise its right to terminate the union within the boundaries of devolution and with Westminster dictating the rules to ensure its own survival. Scotland needs to come out of it first, even if just temporarily, until the referendum result is known.

        If Holyrood is constrained by devolution and cannot deliver that referendum mandate without the S30, without the power to hold the referendum being devolved from Westminster first, and without direct interference in our democratic process from the government and administrative structures of our partner, then it was and still is the duty of Sturgeon as FM and the SNP MPs to take that referendum away from the boundaries of Holyrood and beyond the Scotland Act. Scotland is not defined by Holyrood . Scotland is not even defined by Westminster. Scotland cannot be defined by a Scotland Act that after the assault of England MPs on our powers should have been declared null and void. Scotland cannot be defined by what England MPs want Scotland to be.

        Holyrood may be under Westminster but Scotland is not. Scotland may have not flexed its muscles for 300 years, but it is above Westminster. Westminster continues to exist as the UK parliament only for as long as Scotland gives its consent for it to continue acting on its behalf.

        Scotland gave a mandate to hold a referendum since 2016. This means Scotland has not been sure if it wants Westminster to continue as the UK parliament since that mandate was issued. By denying us that referendum and by allowing Westminster to continue operating as the UK parliament, Sturgeon has, in my personal opinion, defied the Claim of Right and forced us to continue giving legitimacy to Westminster to act on our behalf. I

        So if Holyrood cannot deliver that referendum on independence freely as it is the expressed will of the people of Scotland, what does a REAL pro independence LEADER and political party do?

        They find a way for SCOTLAND (Scotland, not Holyrood) to step out of Westminster’s constrains and legislate for that referendum freely, by itself, so the referendum mandated by the people of Scotland can be delivered freely and without the continuous veto and interference of a self-serving partner with a huge vested interest in Scotland preserving the union.

        And what is the obvious way to do that?

        By reconvening either the Convention of the Estates or/and Scotland’s old parliament. I am happy to be corrected, but I seen nothing in the treaty of union 1707 that stipulates Scotland cannot reconvene neither or both wherever it wants. The Treaty of union says is that the UK has to be represented by one parliament but it says nothing about how Scotland is represented, because that is for Scotland to decide.

        I do not know how the Convention of Estates can be reconvened, but the parliament of Scotland can be reconvened by its successors: A majority of Scotland’s MPs. Just like the Irish did.

        The minute we got the first rejection of an S30 and it was obvious Holyrood could not legislate for that referendum within the constrains of devolution. A REAL pro indy leader would have changed tack, withdraw the MPs and call back that old parliament to legislate for the referendum. If the result in that referendum were yes to independence, then the SNP MPs could have repealed on behalf of Scotland the Treaty of Union and Act of Union from the newly reconvened Scottish old Parliament. If the result was no to independence, then the MPs could go back to Westminster and resume it as the UK parliament.

        With that path Sturgeon could have given us a date for that referendum the day after the GE 2017. There was no need for us to continue enduring Westminster for an extra 6 years. The SNP had the majority of Scotland’s seats in Westminster and the only thing they had to do was to refuse to swear allegiance, refuse to take the seats in Westminster putting the UK parliament on hold and temporarily reconvene Scotland’s Old parliament instead. The same could have happened the day after GE2019.

        Putting the UK parliament on hold until the people of Scotland had cast a vote in that referendum and decided if Westminster would continue as the UK parliament or just as the Kingdom of England’s parliament would have been the right thing to do. The assumption that Scotland should be okay with Westminster acting on its behalf for an extra 7 years after sending 56 SNP MPs to Westminster is quite a stretch, and if I may say so, abuse of power.

        In other words, you can argue the SNP has always had a mandate to pursue Scotland’s independence through its constitution. And because Holyrood cannot legislate for indyref without the power to do so being transferred from Westminster, a denial to that power transfer back in 2017 has given them the green light to pursue an alternative route to deliver a referendum that is not constrained by devolution.

        The Treaty of Union does not state Scotland cannot reconvene its old parliament at any time of its choice. The gaslighting from unionist politicians and the pussyfooting of the pro indy ones has led us to perceive it to be the case. As a signatory of the Treaty of Union, Scotland gives consent for Westminster to exist, not the other way round. Again, the distortion and obfuscation peddled by colonial politicians together with the fear of pro indy ones to leave the conforts and convenience of devolution what has led us to perceive the latter to be the case.

        In my opinion there is nothing in the Treaty of Union to stop Scotland temporarily suspending Westminster as the UK parliament to send its MPs to reconvene Scotland’s old parliament. The only thing that is clear to me is that the MPs cannot be in both parliaments at once. Either they are in the Parliament of Scotland, or in the UK parliament. It seems clear therefore that both parliaments cannot exist simultaneously. And that might just be the implicit exit clause from the Treaty.

        Liked by 6 people

      6. Marion -a plebiscite election could be fine but until Alba’s popularity shows a meteoric rise we will still need the SNP to get on board with it, and I think that will be far more of a problem than it has any right to be for a so-called party of independence, and I say that as an Alba founder member and ex-SNP member/activist.

        Alex Salmond might make more impact if he went direct to the UN to explain Scotland’s Charter rights problems in all their gory details to the relevant decolonisation committee. And even then we’d need international observers to ensure fair play because the unionists, the UK Govt and the media will pull out all the stops to spike that plebiscite. Now would be a good time to get that rolling, given that the UK’s international standing is in such poor shape. Lets make it even poorer!

        We have been subjected to overt and covert dirty tricks and worse for generations, and we’re not just fighting the UK state, we are also now fighting the SNP leadership.

        Liked by 5 people

      7. “we will still need the SNP to get on board with it”

        No, we do not. What we need is to send a shot across the bows:

        -‘No plebiscite election and walking away from the seats?’
        -‘Then no vote for you. You can shove your faux referendum, your delays and your complicity with Westminster where the sun does not shine. We will not wait for you anymore’

        We have indulged Sturgeon’s useless SNP for 7 years. And where did that take us?
        To over 10,000 deaths due to COVID, to billions of our pounds being pocketed by tory donors, to our best assets being handed over to our detriment, to our powers being stolen, to our standards being trashed, a brexit we never gave consent for, to an astronomic increase in the price of food and energy and to ridiculous levels of inflation.

        Voting for them will lead to another 5 years of the same pain. So what difference will it make having Sturgeon’s SNP or having a colonial party on the seat? Absolutely none.

        No more concessions to the SNP. Time is up.

        Liked by 9 people

      8. ” ……..his thought that he can work with the SNP is rose tinted glasses to say the least ” . Agreed Marion . We can ( provisionally ) applaud Alex’s generosity of spirit in proffering the hand of reconciliation to someone who sought to destroy him : but when that hand is continually bitten by that person the time must come to retract that hand and use it – metaphorically – slap down the ingrate who lacks the grace and reciprocal generosity .

        That said , AS may not need to do a thing ; it increasingly appears the fraudulence and bad faith and even * badder * decisions that characterise Sturgeon’s woeful tenure as FM and de facto * leader * of the Independence Movement are becoming so apparent even her staunchest defenders must surely wake-up and smell the vacuity . Surely ?

        Liked by 5 people

  5. The “Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” initiative, now being supported across Scotland by increasing numbers, has as its opening paragraphs these words:

    Exercising my Claim Of Right as a Sovereign Scot, I declare:

    I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Treaty of Union established through the Acts of Union in 1707.

    Since April 2021, in Stage 1 of the initiative, batches of each individually signed “Declaration” are being lodged with the Secretary General of the United Nations, preparatory to Stage 2 and later Stages.

    As part of widening the purpose and understanding of the initiative, (its sole purpose being to help Scotland regain its independence), I am currently asking this ONE single question:

    Will DOMESTIC LAW be used to PREVENT Scotland regaining its independence – and will it be INTERNATIONAL LAW that will ultimately help Scotland REGAIN its independence?

    If you are at all interested and want to follow the initiative from its start and as it develops use this link:

    https://www.facebook.com/X2-113742180011217

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Apologies (pressed enter too soon)… meant to add as an example from a recent post these are extracts:

      It is well recorded that any decision taken by the Sovereign people of Scotland to regain the independence of Scotland should be “legal” and “recognised internationally”.

      The “legality” of a Treaty, such as the Treaty of Union, is a matter of INTERNATIONAL LAW … NOT DOMESTIC LAW.

      Which is why all signed Declarations are being lodged at an INTERNATIONAL level with the United Nations, and why each individual Declaration seeks “RECOGNITION” within that INTERNATIONAL context.

      Liked by 12 people

  6. Thank God for Mia, after Robins post I felt there was No hope for this country, I felt so despondent after reading his post. I know that Sturgeon is not going to ever do the right thing to free this country from Englands grasp. And it will take the same action that a Ireland took, elect the REAL INDEPENDISTA MPs, who will refuse to take up seats in that den of corruption. Led by a leader who will fight for THIS country, as opposed to one who went to to save England from their stupidity of BREXIT. But for that to happen Sturgeon is going to have to be exposed for the real fraud she is, because way too many still see her their saviour. But Thank You MIA, for lifting my mood again.

    Liked by 14 people

  7. @Clootie

    If you’ll kindly pardon me wee addition: “We have a career focused business manager determined to hold a franchise by blocking all competitors. Independence to her is merely a marketing tool for the SNP [5th columnist] business unit.”

    Liked by 13 people

  8. Wholeheartedly agree, a plebiscite Westminster GE is the route to independence. In addition to this being a position of general strategy, the next GE is likely to present an opportunity of unique serendipity. A perfect storm which could be ridden by a canny political leader to the most advantageous negotiating position.
    How so?
    A plebiscite election infers that the candidates standing in an independence platform would be abstentionist.
    Recent political projections have the Tories loosing an outright majority at Westminster. Last night’s by-election results only add to this predictive outcome.
    The reasoning of English political pundits is that a grand coalition of Labour, LibDem and SNP can keep the Tories from office.
    If this prediction were to come to pass, an abstentionist SNP would be holding the whip hand. If the Tories refused to negotiate independence in good faith, the SNP could un-abstain themselves. If the Tories showed reluctance to comply, negotiations could be openly conducted with Labour where the “price” of lending support to a Labour administration was made clear.
    During this febrile period the big prize for the Tories would be the seeming opportunity of government in perpetuity in an rUK, “if only we could rid ourselves of these pesky Jocks.”.

    Liked by 6 people

      1. If only we could get folk to open their eyes and put Alba into Westminster we could put Sturgeon in her wee puppet box where she belongs. This is why I believe Salmond should recover his own reputation and bring her down, if he can.

        Liked by 11 people

  10. Apparently there is more to it than that. I didn’t catch the article in the National, but I heard Andrew Tickell wrote a piece saying that while some specified Constitutional matters were reserved, there was still an opportunity for Holyrood to legislate on “un”-specified Constitutional matters.

    The principle being, that if a matter isn’t specifically devolved or reserved, then Holyrood can legislate on it.

    It’s an interesting perspective, but frankly, I am six and half a dozen about whether Holyrood is critical to our progress, or a massive red herring, and an irrelevant obstacle to be simply got around.

    Right now, Holyrood is acting like a conduit for Westminster to poke its nose into Scottish affairs where it has no constitutional right or jurisdiction, but Holyrood is either oblivious to it or else utterly complicit. I fear it is the latter.

    Liked by 12 people

  11. I agree Marion, she has to be found out for the fraud she is before the CULT start to open their eyes. It is happening, just too slow for Scotland to ever have anything left to rebuild on. She needs brought down in a way that NOBODY, media included can deny what she has done & is still capable of doing as much damage to Scotland before she heads off to some other life of grandeur.

    Liked by 11 people

  12. Good article but much as we would like to think it, England does not have a parliament and we have to face facts. There is only the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which in turn, has created three devolved administrations under its jurisdiction.

    At the time of the formation of this new Scottish administration, Winnie Ewing informed us the Scottish Parliament was “hereby re-convened”, a comment we all enjoyed immensely, although in truth it was nothing of the sort. To pretend it was, is a trap we have made for ourselves. A subsequent name change from Scottish Executive to Scottish Government simply created problems.

    A devolved administration pretending to be a full government in the eyes of the public will falter because of its limitations whereas an assembly has obvious limitations in the public view. Had we retained the Scottish Executive name, it would have been a running sore for many and may have aided our cause.
    The mess we now find ourselves in has taken us backwards and it is from there we have to re-start, if we are able to do so. In my view there is little prospect of Scotland achieving independence right now, and in the words of Kate Forbes we have to “reset”.

    Why are we trying to create a new Scotland in a devolved assembly? Why are we wasting the vital resources of time and energy to create new policies (the latest being social care)? Why do we not keep these policies for an independent Scotland and meantime run the ship with a skeleton crew while using most of our resources to build and make our case – then ask the people if we wish to resile from the Treaty or Act of Union?

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Exactly Alin – the fight for independence belongs with our MPs while Holyrood ought to demonstrate competence over those areas it can, while being accountable and transparent. Using Holyrood to lead the fight for independence is exactly what has landed us in this mess. If any UKG turned around and said that the constitutional decisions for Scotland belonged in the hands of English MPs there would be riots.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. I doubt if there would be. The English could build a pipeline through all our best scenery, drain Loch Ness to supply themselves with water while relocating Nessie to Lake Windermere, and 50% of the folk up here would just say that it’s for our own good.

        Someone or something is needed to light a fire under them. Beats me what that could be though.

        Liked by 7 people

      2. You could be right Dave in which case we would become NI – as much as there may be 50% who do not care there are more than a few who care a great deal. It is a tragedy when democracy fails.

        Liked by 6 people

  13. Susie Dent on twitter does a daily unusual “word of the day”. Many times she seems to put her finger on the pulse of Scottish politics at least the SNP part. Today’s word

    “Word of the day (again) is ‘stiffrump’ (18th century): a highly obstinate individual who refuses to budge.”

    Liked by 5 people

  15. So obvious , it doesn’t feel like an earth shattering revolution.
    It takes people of ” positive defiance ” to bring it home.
    Lead from the front, without fear or favour to their own position.
    🐼🐼🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

    Liked by 7 people

  16. All the debate about who has the authority to grant a referendum, or if a referendum has any significance etc etc is a obfuscation of a very simple fact that the people of Scotland are sovereign.

    This is an uncomfortable fact for colonial oppressors like the UK who control the media and much much more.

    Sowing the seeds of misinformation and lies causes uncertainty and interferes with the democratic process. But there is more to it than misinformation. With the rule of law abandoned and a malicious and partisan police and prosecution service, the establishment is now pursuing a policy of taking out political opponents who support independence. Salmond, Hirst, Murray, Millar, Sing and more are all testament to that. Again it is to subvert the democratic process but if one reads the history, the true history of the absolute brutality and barbarity of the British state in its suppression of independence movements across the world as they fought to throw off colonial shackles, folks will see the Britsih for what they are.

    The inhumanity, murderous vicious slaughter meted out by British troops is as bad as the world has seen. Malaya, India, Kenya, Cyprus, et al are all testimony to that. In Malaya they actually had a policy of beheading with British troops actually keeping severed heads as trophies. Massacres in India, killing was, and still is, part of the game if needed.

    And in Ireland in the 70’s and 80’s there was, albeit a lot more hidden, a killing policy. Bombs in Dublin streets facilitated by military units, shoot to kill policies, it was all there, albeit not on the scale of India, Malaya, Kenya.

    And the mindset that drives this policy, this thinking can be illustrated in a comment from a senior military intelligence officer with extensive experience in India and elsewhere. Brought out of retirement in the 70’s to look at strategy for Northern Ireland, the ex MI5 director Jack Morton served as a colonial police chief in India and was director of intelligence in Malaya (now Malaysia) during a communist insurgency against British rule in the 1950s.

    He strongly supported the British empire and once described Indians as “a sort of immature, backward and needy people whom it was the natural British function to govern and administer.”

    His colonial background gave him extensive experience of undercover operations and armed policing and it is understood he was instrumental in setting the policy for extrajudicial killing in Northern Ireland. Fifty years on his report is still being with held from public disclosure – and it reinforces the extent to which the establishment and the secret military – special branch – police – spooks will conclude to oppose independence movements in every which way. Nothing has changed.

    No doubt, Scotland, like Ireland are immature, backward and needy people who are in need of British governance and administration. Certainly puts into perspective what is going on in the background. There is a Dirty War going on in Scotland, and as history, and recent history at that shows, it could get dirtier.

    But you know what, Britain lost its Empire And it will lose Scotland too. People are sovereign and not the colonisers who ultimately always fail.

    Liked by 10 people

  17. great piece of analysis, mia, if only we had someone of your calibre leading the indy movement, we’d run rings round them! we are up against a colonial veteran who fights dirty, uses state organs to propagandize us; its a David v Goliath. But we have other indy movements to learn from. sinn fein: withdraw from their parliament; Gandhi: hit them economically. one clear message, don’t negotiate with them, they are not to be trusted. Here’s my wish, all of us who religiously vote SNP, switch to Alba which has a seriousness about getting out of this toxic union

    Liked by 3 people

  18. A storming return by someone who could ACCURATELY be described as ” The most dangerous woman in the UK ” ( even more accurately as ” The most dangerous woman TO the UK ” ) ; an epithet now almost – almost – laughable when applied to NS .

    You’re absolutely correct Iain , imagine what a game-changing , animating force having someone like Mia ( and Lorna C , Breeks , S Salyers and all the other excellent BTL contributors ) in our Parliament would make .

    We have a shadow Dream-Team available , people with the requisite knowledge , commitment and – above all – fire to take-on and defeat those who would continue to deny us our birthright as sovereign Scots .

    If only we could rid ourselves of the feeble Rainbow Worriers who have been feasting on the life-blood of our cause , draining it of energy and infecting the Scottish body politic with their psychic/social disease/s .

    Then such – or similar – a Dream Team could emerge from the shadow , into the light of public awareness . 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Yes, Mia, this is a holding exercise. However, it could be something very different if we apply enough pressure to the SNP/SGP alliance. We won’t do that through the douce middle-class voters, the so-called ‘soft NOs’ whom most of us on here have yet to encounter, who will mostly choose to stay in the UK, anyway. It is the working-class vote we need to rally. They will vote for independence if they are given enough incentive. Why not organize marches through working-class areas, not just high streets? Make them feel involved and worthy of respect, as was done in 2014? They are the ones who are feeling the worst aspects of this Brexit/pandemic aftermath and it is their children who need the resources most, that an independent Scotland could harness. We need them. They need an independent Scotland that can make their children’s lives better. Of course, we should not write off anyone or try to stereotype voters: some of the most enthusiastic supporters of independence in 2014 and who came to our YES hub were elderly people who wanted independence for their grandchildren.; and women, wary in 2014, have the potential to be a huge source of support if we can fight this self-ID nonsense. The SNP leadership appears to be wanting to appeal to only the douce, middle-class ‘soft NO’ voter who probably does not actually exist.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.