WE SHOULD BE TERMINATING THE TREATY OF UNION.

Regular columnist Mia thinks we should be terminating and voiding the Treaty of Union. Tuesday we will hear from Nicola Sturgeon her new plan now that it has been finally admitted that the Gold Standard Section 30 route hits the buffers after eight wasted years of missed opportunity.

. It is my personal opinion that what really is at play here is that an immediate consequence of such win in the courts would be the unilateral dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain by Scotland. There is no way Sturgeon would be able to keep fooling yes voters into keeping the UK going after it is ruled by the courts that the treaty has been breached and therefore it is at all effects void.

The obvious unintended consequence of dissolving the UK of Great Britain after such win would be the invalidating of every single agreement/treaty/trade agreement etc signed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain since its conception, and of course losing every seat (UN, NATO, etc) the UK currently holds.

It would be for England like having to start from scratch, which, if I am not mistaken, will be precisely the position Scotland is expected to start from no matter if we follow this flawed referendum and S30 route, or if we follow the route of unilaterally terminating the treaty.

It seems therefore that this referendum route might be designed far more to appease England (and USA?) than to benefit Scotland, because terminating the treaty would put Scotland and England on the same footing.

When you look at it from this perspective, you also start to understand why the USA and other foreign third parties may have a huge vested interest in blocking this route. Perhaps this may explain the continuous traveling to and from USA of SNP people and their participation in these “leadership” exchanges. It might also explain why Sturgeon and others in Scotland’s politics, appear to be more worried about USA’s politics than Scotland’s. This might also explain the strange change in foreign policy tendencies among the SNP leadership, or the sudden amnesia regarding Israel’s foreign policy towards Palestine.

You also get a vibe that this might be the case from the way in which Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are so desperately trying to inculcate on us that the only path to independence is the route of a referendum effected by Holyrood and therefore requiring consent from “the Uk”. Turns out that this referendum route is the only one I can see where you actually need consent “from the UK” to exit it. If you are pursuing legitimate unilateral termination of the treaty on the basis of breaches of fundamental conditions in the treaty and/or change of circumstances, you don’t need permission from the UK.

You can see this also in the way she is desperately running away from a plebiscite election, which is the obvious alternative, and one that has been available to us already 3 times if you only count GE, 5 if you include Holyrood elections too.

You can also see this from how quickly she run away from the “change of circumstances” that would have made easy to seek a termination of the treaty under international law. Since 2014 there have been not one, but many changes in circumstances that would warrant the termination of the treaty. Yet, all of them seem to have been forgotten by Nicola Sturgeon. In fact, she let the 2016 mandate expire. The previous Holyrood government was the point when the change in circumstances could have been used to their best effect. Since 31 January 2020, brexit is no longer a change in circumstances. It is the status quo. Is that why she let our 2016 mandate expire, so brexit could not be used as a change in circumstances?

From where I am sitting, it seems this referendum route where the question is simply “Should Scotland be an independent country” rather than the obvious one “Should Scotland terminate the treaty of union”, means Scotland is giving up its legitimate right as an equal signatory to terminate that treaty at any time of its choosing.

By preserving the UK of Great Britain after departing from it, in my opinion Scotland will also be renouncing to its legitimate right to a fair share of ALL the goodies it helped to pay for and create during the last 300 years. That route implies Scotland behaving as a region of Greater England. It is like demoting Scotland to the status of Wales. I fail to see how this is the best route for Scotland unless negotiations that ensure Scotland gets its fair share of the assets have already been conducted and the exact outcome is already known. Have those negotiations already been conducted or this woman is trying to take us into a blind alley?

In my personal opinion, the last 8 years have not been at all about fighting to get a referendum. A referendum was never needed in the first place. The carrot dangling has been part of a game of smoke and mirrors, a game whose main aim has been to ensure the Kingdom of England remains as the continuator state of the UK and inherits, of course all those seats and all the main assets.

It is my personal opinion that there might be some kind of agreement or understanding already in place whereby the referendum will not be called until the Kingdom of England is left in a position where it can survive on its own as the continuator state of the UK.

The way Sturgeon quickly back-peddled in 2016/17 from independence suggests this too. This is included as Sturgeon’s foreword to the “Scotland’s place in Europe” document released in December 2016:

“Following the Brexit vote both the Scottish and UK Governments made a number of commitments.
The Prime Minister said that Article 50 would not be triggered until there was a UK approach, that Scotland would be “fully engaged” in the process and that she was willing to listen to “options”.
For the Scottish Government, I said I would seek to bring people in Scotland together in common cause and to build as much consensus as possible.
I said I would explore – not just my preferred option of independence – but all options to protect Scotland’s place in, and relationship with, Europe.
And I said the Scottish Government would – in good faith and a spirit of compromise – seek to identify a solution that might enable Scotland’s voice to be heard, and mitigate the risks that Brexit poses to our interests within the UK.”

Please note the part where it says “Article 50 would not be triggered until there was a UK approach”. Well, was there ever a “UK (4-nations) approach” we were not told about? Did Sturgeon and the SNP agreed something with England’s government so brexit would go ahead against our will? Seems that way, doesn’t it? Brexit certainly went ahead changing completely the circumstances, yet the treaty remains intact.

Please also note the part where she says “the Scottish gov would in good faith and spirit of compromise seek to identify a solution that might enable Scotland’s voice to be heard, and mitigate the risks that Brexit poses to our interests within the UK”

The only “solution” that might enable Scotland’s voice to be heard somewhat while mitigating the risks of Brexit, and the only way to preserve Scotland’s interests within the Uk (whatever those are) is if Scotland remains in the UK and has more autonomy. This woman appears to be asking for FFA here, not demanding independence if A50 is triggered. This foreword was published in December 2016. A50 was not triggered until 29 March 2017, so what happened between 20 December 2016 and 29 March 2017? What happened between 6 May 2016 when we issued the referendum mandate if circumstances changed and the day this foreword was published in December 2016?

In hindsight, and looking at that foreword, it seems crystal clear that her short term objective was never independence but rather just mitigating the impact of Brexit. That is, in my opinion, a gross misinterpretation of the mandate we gave her in 2016 and acting against our will. We did not give a mandate to mitigate brexit. We gave her a mandate to call a referendum if circumstances changed and Scotland was taken out of the EU against our will. That mandate was activated the minute A50 was triggered. So either this woman has been fooling us and lying to us since November 2014 and that mandate for a 2016 referendum was part of the game of smoke and mirrors, or she reached some sort of agreement with Westminster before she handed to Westminster consent on behalf of Scotland to trigger A50. She had no right to do such thing. Even less to let our 2016 mandate expire and let the “change of circumstances” massive opportunity to terminate the treaty to be missed.

That some kind of understanding might have been in place would explain hers and the SNP allowing the A50 vote to take place and A50 to be triggered without Scotland’s consent. It would explain her capitulation speech in January 2020. It would explain the sumisive way in which she stood aside and left England’s representatives to negotiate all trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand etc, no matter how damaging for Scotland, and the way she stood aside when the Withdrawal agreement from the EU was negotiated, despite it stomping all over our popular sovereignty.

It would also explain her non real opposition to our laws to be rewritten to accommodate the new “Internal Market” legislation.

Mr Salmond and ALBA are pursuing a more aggressive route out of the UK. Something that does not fit with the narrative of a submissive referendum where Scotland acts as a region of Greater England and seeks consent. Some kind of prior understanding with the Uk gov (and perhaps USA’s) would also explain the way the actions of the civil service in Scotland, Sturgeon’s government, the COPFS, the UK press and the UK government colluding to push Mr Salmond out of politics and to silence Alba. Every time Sturgeon, an SNP MP/MSP, counsellor or apparatchik starts blabbering against Alba and Mr Salmond, the immediate question that comes to my mind is “what kind of understandings with the UK (and USA’s) gov might Sturgeon’s SNP already have that makes them turn round and attack so viciously their own troops and pro-indy colleagues? 

I read a couple of days ago an article where it was mentioned that Stuart Hosie said that the route of the referendum is “the cleanest one”. Well, in my view that very much depends on the perspective you look at it from. It is the cleanest and hassle free only when you look at it from the perspective of England’s and USa’s interests. It is the cleanest for them because in that way it is ensured England will remain as the continuator state so all those treaties, seats and agreements remain valid. It is the cleanest for them because Scotland would never be in a position to contest any of those seats or main goods. It is the cleanest for England because it has all the administrative, government and militar infrastructure it needs to continue acting as an independent state from day one. Scotland has not even half.

But when you look at it from the perspective of Scotland, frankly I do not see it as a “clean” option at all. The only two advantages I see for Scotland are that it will not need to inherit any of the UK debt and the UK will have to ensure Scotland is equipped with the government and administrative infrastructure to operate as an independent country from day one. But when you look at those “advantages” more carefully, they are not that great advantages either. Firstly, if we do not take any of the debt, then we may have to renounce too to any of the shared assets. And if we depend on the UK gov to ensure our infrastructure is in place, we may be waiting for decades until that happens and worse, they will be done not in the way we want them to be but in the way they suit the Kingdom of England (and USA) as the continuator state and its interests.

Needless to say that under Hosie’s “cleanest” option, Scotland walks away with no trade agreement apart from one with one with the Kingdom of England as the continuator state. You can imagine how dependent that would make us of England and how little leverage that would leave us with. Say bye bye to joining back the EU.

The cleanest way is, in my view, to unilaterally terminate the treaty and forcing England to the negotiating table because it is put at the exact same footing as Scotland: with no treaties and no trade agreements. And then negotiating from there. But I can see how that would upset USA and others.

I think Mr Hosie was not meaning “the cleanest option” in the strict sense of the word. I think what he might have been meaning is that this would be the “easier” option for them and the path with less resistance from USA and other international powers with a vested interest in England retaining the seats and agreements. From where I am standing, it might be easier for them because they are handing all control to the UK government (and perhaps also USa’s) over the process and over the timeframe. But this might well be to the detriment of the Scottish people’s interests.

MY COMMENTS

Mia as always asks some interesting questions and poses scenarios that are both possible and plausible. At the root of this suspicion is the inexplicable absence of any public move towards Independence through the period between 2016 and present. A period marked by clear opportunity after the other and when the UK state, through Brexit was in deep turmoil and unpopularity. Today we await Nicola Sturgeon’s new message as she finally concedes the years of “Gold Standard legal Section 30 referendums” have taken us precisely nowhere. It is going to have to be outstandingly good and deliverable if anyone is going to give it any credibility at all. Many have already, quite rightly, decided to look elsewhere for the answers.

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.

24 thoughts on “WE SHOULD BE TERMINATING THE TREATY OF UNION.

    1. Absolutely Clootie, I believe in 2015, she was bought off. If she wasn’t she had all the reasons in the world especially after the BREXIT vote to make her move, the very fact Scotland was never even included in any negotiations, was another reason she could have fired the starting gun..But she wasn’t interested was she?

      She proved that by not even fighting the 2017 election in which the Tories won 13 seats in WM..& in my opinion that was also part of an agreed plan, The plan to get Alex Salmond OUT of politics, (she was helped of course by KEZIA who was leader of Labour then, & who instructed all Labour voters to vote Tory in seats where Labour were not 2nd to SNP..Once he lost his seat, that was the start of trying to finish him off with the LIES & PLOT to jail him.

      Because HE would always be a threat to the UNION if he remained in politics. So had to be destroyed..

      Thank goodness for the Jury in that trumped up trial, Because we know that Dorian would have jailed him in a heart beat if like Craig Murray there was NO jury involved. She listened to women perjure themselves and never once did what would have happened to any perjury and that was charge them & hopefully jail them..

      Alyn Smith said in 2015 in reply to a question about another referendum,

      “We had the decision, we respect the decision, I think there is lots we can do with ENHANCED DEVOLUTION. I think that is where people really want us to be. The more we talk about not accepting the result of the Scottish people, ‘ We Wuz Robbed’, The BBC was against us…I just don’t see that it helps..

      He said, his view was widely shared at the TOP of the SNP.

      “Nicola has had the best line on this, It will happen when the people of Scotland want it to happen- and I don’t think the people want it to happen anytime soon.”

      I have the screen screen shot of that statement he made, it was in a newspaper that had been archived. I felt then it was the opening to why the announcement that this election is NOT about INDEPENDENCE was also made..

      They are DEVOLUTIONISTS, settling for handing all of Scotlands assets over, so long as they can get to stay in power. She is going the referendum route (IF she ever goes at all) simply because she knows SCOTLAND can;T win a referendum run on the same franchise as 2014. She will be glad to step down there as I am sure she has a nice cushy very highly paid job lined up.

      Liked by 10 people

  1. “Should Scotland terminate the treaty of union”?

    That indeed should be the question posed:

    1. It is clear and unequivical – you don’t need to define ‘Independence’.
    2. This implies that self-government is the norm – the opposition will have to justify the Union.
    3. The answer options of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ have effectively the same meaning as in 2014 – so no confusion.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. The problem is, duncanio, that the Treaty itself is flawed because it has been misinterpreted from day one. If we are to have any weapons at all, we must show that the Treaty was and remains misinterpreted. That requires that it be ‘sound’ in law (Scots Law) before we try and dissolve (resile) it or we could be faced with David Cameron’s ‘we subsumed you in 1707″ wherein we become not a nation which could morph fairly seamlessly into a state but a region of a Greater England which is seceding from the parent state. Yes, the Treaty needs to be resiled, but we also need to make the political move towards independence – preferably not via any kind of pre independence referendum, but a plebiscitary election here all the independence parties have independence at the very top of their Manifestos. The constitutional tools can then be used as powerful back-up and as negotiating chips – because, folks, we are going to need them.

      Liked by 10 people

      1. lorncal – it has always been accepted, even by Thatcher, that a majority of independence MPs can open negotiations for independence. Much as a majority of Tory MPs held and won their Brexit referendum on 37% of the UK vote. This was further confirmed in the Claim of Right, accepted by Westminster. All of our problems arise because the SNP insist on driving this from Holyrood, not through our MSPs (if they are driving it at all and that is very doubtful).

        As Sturgeon marches the troops up the hill yet again we should campaign hard on the democratic deficit of the UK, easily shown by Brexit, and the desperate need for a government accountable to us. Let the SNP defend their track record to the SNP YES voters – for the rest, we should not even try to defend the indefensible. We need to get Alba front and centre. We need to get the Claim of Right front and centre. When Sturgeon marches the troops back down the hill this time – and she will – we need Alba to stand in the UK GE on the single issue of independence – catch the rising tide that the march up the hill will have created. THEN we will have our indyref and there will not be anything Sturgeon can do to prevent it. Having carried out Brexit in the way they did the UKG cannot make any argument against this and even if their Supreme Court backs them, the rest of the world will despise them.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Marion: yes, I agree with most of that, but the negotiations are entirely different from independence, and the Treaty, which binds the UK of GB together and is interwoven throughout our entire political, social, economic, legal and constitutional systems will have to be deconstructed article by article. International law now covers many of the anomalies, but, even so, there will be much that the Treaty has imposed. If the Treaty has been breached, if the Treaty itself has been misinterpreted, we are in for a rough ride from Westminster because they will almost certainly try the “we subsumed you in 1707” sleight of hand, as they did in 20131/4. It doesn’t matter that it’s a total misinterpretation of the Treaty, they will try anything, I believe, to get the best deal they can get, even if that means conning us. That is why we must have every argument at our fingertips. The Scotland Act simply cannot be allowed to be relied upon because it is the creature of Westminster, subject to Westminster and part of the Westminster trap – which is what we need to prove in law: that the Scotland Act was illegitimate in constitutional law because it directly and blatantly breached the Treaty by not having devolved status for England at the same time. That so many Scottish administrations and Scottish Secretaries failed to challenge the breaches says it all about the ways in which we have been conned and betrayed by our own people, as well as by Westminster.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. The UK may be a state, but it is not a country. It is the result of a political union based in an international treaty. If you dissolve the treaty you dissolve the state rendering the two separate and different units the state was initially formed from, the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

      Who becomes the successor state should be an agreement between both units. If there is no agreement, both could become the successor states. Czechoslovakia for example did not have one successor state when it split, it had two the Check Republic and the Slovak Republic. The Check Republic and the Slovak Republic also divided up their common goods (like military equipment, embassies, etc) on a 2 to 1 ratio to reflect their populations. I don’t see why the same cannot be done here.

      Personally I have no problem with the Kingdom of England becoming the successor state, but only as long as Scotland is given its fair share of the common assets. By common assets I mean human built. Oil and gas, land or territorial waters and everything contained on them are not “common assets”. They belong to the geographical area where they are.

      And when I mean fair share I mean fair on the basis of its population and Scotland being an equal partner in a political union where Scotland has contributed to all common assets, often by far more than it was its fair share. The oil fund that Norway has today should be a reference of what Scotland’s excess contribution has been to the union since the oil was discovered, for example. How much more Scotland is made pay for putting energy in the grid than England should be compensated too.

      I do not consider fair that we are fobbed off with a referendum where Scotland is treated as a region of Greater England and is made leave just with the bare minimum successive England govs have left of infrastructure in Scotland while Scotland has been forced to contribute to a far superior and in more infrastructure that England has been hoarding for itself for decades of progressive centralisation. And this unfair distribution of common assets is what I think we are heading towards with this submissive referendum Sturgeon insists in taking us through.

      For example there is a huge disproportion in the amount of military bases and equipment between Scotland and England. The investment in Scotland is below Scotland’s proportion of population and we all know this is by design to make Scotland look dependent. That discrepancy should be addressed and compensated during the negotiations, as should be the fact that huge investments with no parallel in Scotland have been made in airports in England, and that England has plenty developed and functional exporting and importing trade sea ports while Scotland, despite having a larger coastline and having historically trade ports too, is now disproportionally equipped. Scotland contributed to all those ports in England. It is only fair we are compensated for that disproportion.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Yes, Scotland is under-developed in all respects given its primary role has been to serve the needs of the imperial power, including in relation to population size which might well have been closer to 9-10 million today were it not for persistent ‘banishment of the natives’ policies and frequent imperial wars as a consequence of London rule since 1707. Assessing any ‘share’ of assets based on current population levels would therefore tend to ignore the negative impact of the ‘union’ on Scotland’s people.

        Liked by 10 people

      2. Agreed, Alf. All negotiations must be very, very carefully worked out in our own best interests. That has to be our starting point, and we will need the toughest negotiators to get a decent deal. So much of what ends in England starts in Scotland – pipelines, cables, terminals of all kinds – and we need to be aware of that. We also need to get our territorial waters back because, even if they have no fish and little mineral value, they will still affect our maritime borders and allocations in international law. Your own speciality, ferries, could well be hampered in the future if our sea lanes are compromised, as could maritime trading routes. International law will answer many of these issues, but we need to be aware of that, too, and not allow England as the UK to railroad us as has happened so often in the past. I’d be looking to invite international observers into all negotiations unless they are so sensitive that they require to be held under the radar.

        Liked by 9 people

      3. Agreed.

        Scotland’s wealth contributions to the UK’s economy far exceed its population share, and its alleged share of the UK’s national debt must take that excess contribution into proper account. Starting with a population ratio of debt in what is clearly a financial matter is a deliberate negotiating ploy to put us on the back foot. There needs to be a proper independent financial accounting process here, and that must go back many decades in order to establish the truth of the real liability of Scotland to that national debt. It has been clear for a long time that HM Treasury has been playing very fast and extremely loose with their figures.

        And we are not talking of a share of ~ two trillion pounds here, but of a far far smaller figure, and even then, we would only pay something if England also actually pays something. This is because, as Professor Richard Murphy has repeatedly pointed out, the UK’s National Debt isn’t really a debt, and it is actually a really bad idea to attempt to pay that ‘debt’ back to whatever entity or entities they think it should be paid back to. In his view those entities would be seriously upset if that were to happen.

        Liked by 4 people

  2. With you all the way Mia. Dissolve the Union. Claim of Right. no referendum.
    independence is normal asking for permission is not

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Mia: as you say, we can split and become two successor states. That, however, might not be in our best interests. I am fairly sure that England as the UK will want to be the successor state. If it does become the successor state, we can walk away with no debts, i.e. no obligations. However, any joint assets would almost certainly remain with the successor state unless we also managed to negotiate a settlement of those. Some assets would have to be settled, such as pension contributions and other things. We would need to negotiate either the removal of nuclear weapons or their leasing. The point is that we cannot simply walk away, and any resiling of the Treaty must be done in law, in international law because the Treaty is an international document. We would also need to renegotiate the handing back of our territorial waters, the settling up for pipelines and other encroachments on our territory that do not terminate in Scotland; the negotiation of continued UK access to oil and gas or a settlement. That is why we need to be very careful and we need to prepare our case equally carefully. Only the very best constitutional lawyers and our most astute politicians need apply. It won’t matter a jot in the end of they had been Unionists so long as they are willing to fight our corner when it counts. International law itself covers many of these aspects of separation and we need to use that, too. The declaration of our independence will just be the start, and, if we end up with a plebiscitary election – which is becoming more possible by the day – that will be a form of UDI that will rattle the UK of GB state itself. We have to be prepared for anything now, even the fall of the SNP through their own hubris.

    Liked by 8 people

  4. I will await the announcement before passing judgment but Iain is right in saying it will have to be something spectacular to impress even the most ardent of SNP voters (if they are at all serious about independence for Scotland) or many more will vote with their feet.

    Personally, I can not see any daylight on independence taking place before the Holyrood elections, Sturgeon is never going to get away with both votes SNP for another mandate, allowing the Tories to march in on the list vote, as I have always suspected was the dell between the SNP and Tories, feet under the table at Westminster, on board the gravy train and part of the old boys network there, but only if they do not rock the boat in Scotland. This will depend greatly on Yes getting their act together, putting forward concrete proposals for an independent Scotland and by backing a plausible party that will take us there. If that party is to be Alba, then they too must set out clearly their road to freedom, not more reasons why we should be independent, the case for independence if not clear to the voter by now then it never will be.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Couldn’t agree more, threewheels. The time for persuasion is past and it is time for action now. If I hear another allusion to ‘soft NOs’, I’ll scream. Don’t waste time and effort on persuading the unpersuadable and get down to brass tacks. If tomorrow is yet another damp squib, nothing will save Nicola Sturgeon – or, indeed, anyone remotely associated with her. All those self-serving politicians of the SNP need to concentrate their minds now and accept that they either do the right thing by those who elected them – and that doesn’t mean an unwinnable referendum that sensible people know is a waste of time anyway – or step aside and let the real independence parties take the helm.

      Liked by 8 people

  5. I like Mia’s idea of an announcement about “terminating and voiding the Treaty of Union”.

    If nothing else it would be a tremendous publicity scoop for the SNP, setting the fox in the henhouse . And the papers and TV political chat-shows ablaze!
    It would certainly open up the topic to legal and constitutional experts worldwide who would shine much needed light on it
    The public would be better informed about what Scotland in Union and Independence really mean

    The SNP are never, and I mean never, likely to do it

    Liked by 8 people

  6. The dissolution of the Scotland-England state should not allow the latter to walk away with the «assets». That seems to be the scenario many on the gung-ho English side consider its entitlement. It is a prewarning that the divorce proceedings may be anything but velvet. Accordingly, Scotland needs skilfull leadership prepared for a hard fight.
    In view of the current condition of the British State its «by jingo» leaders will ensure the fight goes down to the wire.
    Such a pity those eight years have not been used to hone the appropriate skills.

    Liked by 9 people

  7. Where in the Treaty of Union does it say that Scotland needs a Section 30 to resile from the treaty.

    In fact does the Treaty of Union actually exist. Seems not. Westminster is supreme. Scots do not exist. Our history, our Scotland, goes all the way back to Magna Carta.

    How stupid of me to think otherwise

    Liked by 7 people

  8. Excellent work Mia . Well done in particular for highlighting the very strong likelihood of , ahem …..* involvement * by U.S * interests * in our affairs and collusion twixt it and our lionheartless paper tigers .

    Something is VERY wrong in the heart of Wokemark

    Liked by 7 people

  9. October 19th 2023
    I see the update:
    Nicola Sturgeon says she has asked the lord advocate, Scotland’s top law officer, to ask the Supreme Court if the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for a consultative referendum on independence.
    The lord advocate has agreed and will be lodging the request today.

    Now that actually is clever because it does not touch on the sovereignty of the Scottish people and it does not touch on the rights of our MPs to open independence negotiations.

    I can’t believe I am saying this but that actually looks like a cunning plan: leave the doors we can use wide open while putting the disrespect for Scottish democracy in this “union” into the limelight to show folk what kind of a “union” this really is. Harder to sell the calamity of this full English Brexit when it is clear Scotland is a prisoner, not a partner. Did the SNP just do something right?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Not sure, Marion. Has all the work been done on the Scottish constitutional tools? If the Supreme Court says no, what then? An advisory referendum? What then? None of the councils under Unionist control will help to hold a referendum that does not have Westminster’s backing. Nicola Sturgeon and her cohort have shown not the slightest interest in facing down Westminster and the British State thus far, with far greater advantages at their disposal. I hope I’m wrong, but it looks to me as if she wants the Supreme Court to do the dirty work and veto the referendum, while Johnson blocks a S30 Order. It would be in keeping with events to date. Anything else would be a huge departure from what we have come to expect. But you may well be right and I wrong. I do hope so.

      Like

    2. “Did the SNP just do something right?”

      I am not convinced even one bit that they have, Marion nor that this is not another delay strategy and more smoke and mirrors. For example:

      1. The question is : “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
      What does independence mean in this context and what route is she hoping to follow to reach that independence? The route where Scotland is demoted to the status of Wales and is seeking to secede from the UK so the Uk gov and parliament retain all control over the process, the timeframe and the assets and will send us packing with the bare minimum?
      In other words, what does a yes vote lead to, the termination of the treaty or some kind of undefined limbo where we (and our assets) remain at the mercy of Westminster for an undetermined number of years to come?

      2. She hopes for the vote to be on 19 October 2023. Wonderful. So what happens after a yes vote? When does Scotland become independent? What kind of timeframe does she have in mind? Does she have any timeframe in mind or her ultimately goal is simply delivering a yes vote and then let Westminster deal with it in the way they see fit?

      3. She says the referendum is “consultative”. Excellent. What does this mean in practical terms? Does this mean she might just choose to do the same she did with our 2016 mandate for indyref, to let it expire? Does it mean the yes vote might not be taken forward because Westminster says so?

      4. The EU ref was “consultative” as well. The group leave got away with breaking the law and yet the courts ruled the referendum did not need to be re-run because it was “consultative” therefore the government and parliament did not have the obligation to implement it. Is making the referendum “consultative” opening extra doors for the apparatus of the British state to stick its sticky hands and manipulate the campaign and our process at leisure?

      5. Nicola Sturgeon mentioned that if the referendum is blocked the SNP will be running on the next GE on the single question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”. We know the key to end this treaty of union lies on the hands of our MPs, just as it has done for the last 300 years. But she is being super careful to avoid mentioning the repealing of the treaty of union by the MPs. If her intention was to include the bit of the general election as a shot across the bows to signify to Westminster that if they don’t concede on the referendum she would follow a more drastic path, then she should have gone the full length and said openly that in absence of a referendum, the next option is to withdraw our MPs from Westminster, reconvene Scotland’s old parliament and repeal treaty of Union and the and Act of union with England. Why didn’t she mention it? Is it because it was only a nice sounding platitude with no intention to be used, but to give the false impression that a real plebiscite election is in her cards?

      6. In the event of having to go to a GE as a plebiscite, what would determine a yes vote, a majority of SNP MPs or them holding the majority of the vote? And what if we deliver a majority of SNP Mps but not a majority of the vote? Does this mean the SNP continues with its union business as usual? Couldn’t this be interpreted as a strategy to ensure the SNP gets a majority?

      7. In the event of having to go to a GE as a plebiscite and obtaining a yes vote in such a general election, what would that vote mean? What would SNP MPs do to deliver independence? Continue to beg for recognition by Westminster or would they finally grow the backbone to withdraw from Westminster, reconvene the old Scottish parliament and terminate the treaty?

      8. There is a GE in the horizon. What happens if Johnson or the Tories take the rug from under her feet and call a GE before the 19th October and then the English court rules that Holyrood does not have power to call that referendum? What is the plan in that scenario? Continue with the begging for an S30 or directly delay the whole thing to 2026 and beyond?

      9. The results from the census 2022 have not been released yet. We now know the Scottish natives voted for independence in 2014 but their vote was frustrated by settlers. What is Nicola Sturgeon going to do to ensure the yes vote from natives and therefore their self-determination is not frustrated by settlers again? Can you even say this referendum is an exercise in self-determination if you are knowingly using a franchise that will frustrate their attempt to self-determine?

      10. What about the other loopholes that can be abused by the British state to frustrate a yes vote? Is she going to leave them wide open so they British State can abuse them again?

      11. What is she going to do about the UK gov propaganda mouthpiece the BBC?

      12. How is she going to stop UK civil servants breaking their code of conduct “to save the union” as many did in 2014?

      13. How do we know this move has not been just an strategy by the British state establishment via Nicola Sturgeon (and her handlers) to remove from us the opportunity to use a General Election to issue a mandate to terminate the treaty of union? .
      There is far too much uncertainty and vagueness here. It seems more like an appeasing strategy rather than an effective, carefully calculated one. It definitely gives a disproportionate weight to the route where Scotland has to demote itself to the status of a region of Greater England so the referendum can take place under the umbrella of devolution instead of effecting Scotland’s legitimate right to unilaterally ending the treaty.

      She did not convince me at all to get behind this referendum, particularly with the absence of a timeframe, lack of detail of how she expects to actually deliver independence and of course with all the loopholes present in 2014 still being wide open today, particularly now that the “consultative” nature of the referendum will be opening a whole set of extra ones.

      I would be more trusting had she been more forceful regarding the plebiscite and stating clearly that a majority of SNP MPs would lead the unilateral revoking of the treaty of union. Westminster only has to shift up a couple of hundreds of thousands postal votes to Scotland to ensure the SNP does not get over 50% of the vote. This will be easy now that we don’t have yet a census to refer to.

      Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: