Regular columnist Mia reviews the latest “offering” from the SNP.


Yesterday morning I was pleasantly surprised by a headline in the National:

John Swinney says SNP majority in UK election would be independence mandate”

The article said:

Asked directly if a majority of SNP MPs at the next General Election would represent a mandate to begin independence negotiations with Westminster, the deputy FM replied: ‘That is correct, yes.’ 

At last! I thought. Nicola Sturgeon is finally using those pretty designer heels to take a step in the right direction.  About time too. After watching her flushing our pro-indy majorities down the tubesfor 7.5 years, this next general election might actually be the first one since Mr Salmond stepped down in 2014 where a vote for the SNP will be worth something…

But my elation lasted as little as the value of Sturgeon’s SNP majority in 2015.  In a matter of minutes I watched in slow motion how the juicy carrot of an MP majority had been swiftly reeled in.  A few minutes later, that lovely headline in The National became the latest SNP party pooper:

UPDATED John Swinney backtracks on claim majority of MPs would be Yes mandate

The article said:

“Sturgeon suggested a majority of votes would be required, as opposed to a majority of seats”

Suggested not confirmed. There we go. Throwing confusion around just like the Devo-Max vow cowboys did in 2014.  It was Devo max until you read carefully the tiny print. Then it became Devo minus.

The ink with the announcement Sturgeon made on Tuesday is not even dry yet and they are already airbrushing the best partof it.

Am I surprised? No. Sturgeon has been reeling out and in indycarrots for 7.5 years now. Reeling carrots has become her signature move.

A majority of SNP MPs as a mandate for independence was SNP policy until not that long ago and it was accepted by Thatcher, Major and many other denior political figures representing England.  A majority of SNP MPs as mandate for independence is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound, not like a maybe/maybe-not referendum with a flawed franchise, welded to England’s consent and with an undefined time frame that relies completely on our partner’s convenience.  With the first option, Scotland can restore its statehood at the next GE. Had this route been used in 2015, 2017 or 2019 instead of forcing us into taking a detour around the wonders of the S30 cul de sac, and Scotland would have been independent already for a few years.

Putting something achievable within a defined timeframe in our hands only to remove it a bit later is a massive let down and sends the message that you either are not serious about independence or you are a feartie.  What could be Swinney’s reasons to backtrack on something as high profile as this? I can think in some possibilities:

1. They never gave to this proper thought so they did not agree on the narrative.  In other words, using the GE as a plebiscite on independence was never really in the cards.

2. It is part of their long-standing strategy to alienate yes supporters and fragment the pro-indy vote

3. Nicola’s masters took the calculator, did the sums and got the runs when they realised the main arteries feeding Westminster were so clogged up that the union’s life expectancy with this route re-opened could be less than 3 years.  The union was subjected to an emergency bypass by means of another extra-large and democratically sounding obstacle, designed to block any attempt from Scotland to reclaim its right to power of attorney and issue a DNR form for the patient.

4. It was always part of a game where the only aim was to secure our vote without being expected to deliver independence and crush the other pro-indy parties in the process. 

5. Realising we can only be told “it is a once in a generation/lifetime” or “now is not the time” if the referendum route is followed.  Once the route of a majority of MPs is restored, it will be “the right time” at every general election.

6. Realising that re-opening that route means Sturgeon can no longer transfer to Westminster her accountability for failing to deliver indy.

Speaking as an ex-SNP voter who has given up on them because of their unforgivable procrastination, I couldn’t care less what was the reason why Mr Swinney backtracked.  The only thing that matters to me is that he backtracked from activating the most obvious and realistic route to exit this union, therefore increasing even more my scepticism on his party’s commitment to independence.

In the present context, I do not consider fair, realistic or achievable that a majority of the vote in a GEinstead of a majority of seats is a mandate for independence. Firstly because what determined Scotland’s entry in this political union in 1706 was not a majority of the popular vote.  It was a simple majority of MPs casting the vote. This majority was not pursued democratically either, as this quote extracted from the UK parliament website suggests:

as Country party members were not ordered to attend and vote as was the case with the Court party, the latter was able to maintain a steady majority over its opponents

In other words, the only reason why the pro-union vote won among MPs in 1706 is because those who opposed the union were not called to attend.

But those were not the only undemocratic aspects of the new union.  The most outrageous one, directly clashing with suggested demands of a majority of the popular vote, was that the first 45 Scottish MPs elected in 1707 were voted among themselves by the MPs in the Scottish Parliament.  Yup. They decided not to have a proper election because they were concerned huge opposition to the union among the Scottish people would lead to a majority of anti-union MPs.

This is an extract is taken from Andrew A. Hanham’s article in the “The History of Parliament” (accessed 29 June 2022):

Members of the Scottish parliament who had opposed the Union pressed for a general election in Scotland to elect the 45 Scots MPs.  But it was agreed instead that the first Scots MPs should be chosen from, and elected by, the existing parliament in Edinburgh rather than run the risk of allowing Scotland’s small electorate an early opportunity to elect an anti-union majority.   Virtually all the peers and commoners selected had supported the Union and most could be counted on to support the Court in the new Parliament”

Towards the end of the 3rd parliament of the UK, in 1713, there was the first serious attempt by Scotland’s MPs and Peers to terminate the union.  They took the initiative after watching how one of the articles of the Treaty of Union was violated by the UK parliament.  They did not stop and thought: “Oh wait!!  We cannot move to terminate the union because we don’t hold the majority of the Scottish vote”.  They simply acted upon it.

When the first Scottish MPs to sit in the union parliament were elected in 1707, Scotland’s parliament was not concerned about the percentage of the anti-union vote.  They were concerned about the people electing a majority of anti-union MPs.  If in 1707 and 1713 a majority of the popular vote was not needed to give Scotland’s MPs a mandate to terminate the union, so why should it be now?

Democracy has been, and continues to be, the last thing the union establishment cares about.  If they cared an iota about democracy, they would have reconvened Scotland’s parliament after the 1979 referendum instead of forcing an impossible high threshold; or they would have spontaneously started negotiations for dissolving the union on the 8th May 2015 because Scotland did not hand 95% of its MP seats to a pro-indy party to preserve the union, but rather to do the opposite.

If democracy was the basis of this union, the establishment would have started dissolving the union the day after the EU referendum because at that point it was evident the political routes of England and Scotland were diametrically opposed and incompatible.

So, quite frankly, pretending Scotland can only terminate this union by imposing on us impossibly high standards of democracy is hypocrisy of the highest order.  When the way Scotland entered and has been kept in the union has been anything but democratic, to demand disproportionate standards of democracy to exit the union can only be interpreted as a self-serving absolute ruler demanding the democracy they will never bring themselves to entertain.

The idea of a referendum was made SNP policy at a time when having a majority of SNP MPs was seen as impossible.  In such scenario, the referendum route can be seen as something constructive, as opening a faster route to independence than what was available.  For example, without this referendum route, the movement towards independence by an SNP winning an absolute majority of the seats in Holyrood but not in Westminster, would have not been possible.

But since 2014 things have changed a lot. Firstly, a majority of pro-indy MPs, is no longer impossible. It is now the norm. Secondly, we have seen how it is practically impossible for Scotland to exercise its right to self-determination via a referendum when the franchise is flawed against the natives’ vote and when we are subjected to astronomical levels of interference and power abuse by our partner who cannot face losing control of our assets.

In this context, insisting on a referendum while maintaining all loopholes that allow direct interference from the British state, or handing them a veto in the form of S30, or imposing a majority of the vote rather than sticking to the majority of the seats as it has been traditionally, looks very much like steps designed to barricading us out from any fast route to independence. It is diametrically opposed to being constructive.

If the union started by the vote of a majority of MPs then it is only fit that the union ends with the vote of a majority of our MPs too. 

The second reason for which I consider unacceptable the imposition of a majority of the vote rather than seats, is that the UK of Great Britain is a parliamentary democracy.  It is the majority of the MPs and not the majority of the vote what determines what political party governs.  Actually, that applies only to England. For Scotland is neither seats nor vote what determines what party governs us.  Tories are governing Scotland today on 25% of the vote and a meagre 6 seats.  Scotland was forced out of the EU against its will not because a majority of the people of Scotland voted for Brexit, but rather because England MPs voted to self-award themselves a veto on Scotland’s vote and the right to impose their absolute rule on Scotland to force Brexit, steal its powers and main assets.

The third reason is that Scotland is following UK electoral rules, meaning that anybody from England, Wales or NI can easily relocate their postal votes here.  This is not a proper referendum where Scotland can control the franchise, the electoral registry and where there are systems in place to avoid external interference that may frustrate Scotland’s right to self-determination.  Imposing on this election the restrictive rules applicable to a referendum without applying the concessions, like controlling the franchise and being able to restrict external postal vote movement into Scotland, is not putting yes and no at the same level.  It is setting yes to fail.

The fourth reason is that we are trapped in a political union with an abusive partner who has a huge vested interest in continuing to exploit our assets and territory for its own benefit while claiming it is for ours. Raab’s words recently highlight this point beautifully (quote taken from Hansard – Engagements, volume 717: debated on Wednesday 29 of June 2022)

There are huge assets right across Scotland, and that is why we think we are stronger together in delivering for the people of Scotland

This plebiscite election must therefore not be about democratic virtue signalling.  It is a fight for the survival of our nation, its heritage, its resources and the future prospects of our children and grandchildren.

Our partner hasn’t given a shit about democracy for over 300 years.  The way the apparatus of the UK state conducted itself in 2014 to frustrate a yes vote was embarrassingly undemocratic, power abusive and plainly against our right to self-determination. This undemocratic attitude has continued ever since, therefore now insulting us with more virtue signalling on democracy when it can costs us the survival of our nation and the future of our children is not sensible.  It is stupid.  It is unfair. It is uncalled for. It is not democratic to demand from Scotland to do all sharing and compromise while England’s representatives continue to throw at us all the demands they want while they keep moving the goalposts further away each time we reach them. 8 years of Sturgeon’s democratic virtue signalling took us nowhere.  It lost us powers, rights, control of our assets, 8 years of oil and gas revenues and over 14,000 lives which we might not be mourning today should Sturgeon stopped the democracy virtue signalling and flexed Scotland’s sovereignty muscle by closing Scotland’s borderswhen every other country bar England was doing the same to stop COVID.

This virtue signalling on democracy is now losing many in Scotland the ability to put food on the table and heat their houses at the same time, because despite living in one of the most energy-rich countries in Europe, this misplaced virtue signalling on democracy that has stopped us exiting this union back in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and so far 2022 has allowed England MPs to impose on us outstandingly unfair high caps in energy prices so our energy flowing down to England for free while we are made pay a fortune for it.

The fifth reason is that we are in a colonial environment. Scotland is perceived by England’s grandees as England’s property.  Raab’s comment above illustrates this quite well.

In a context where fairness or democracy have never even made a dent in the way Scotland is kept in this union, and where we are force-fed every day the English convention mantra that Westminster is sovereign and that we as a nation cannot make decisions, there is nothing stopping the British statesending a couple of middle size vans full of “postal votes” and a few busloads of new civil servants, activists and army personnel to “correct” our vote and make it go “in the right direction”.

In other words, unless our partner, who holds control over all government structures, broadcasters, the voting franchise, the rules, the so called “supreme” court and keeps its hand secure on the UK purse, wants Scotland to deliver a majority of the vote for pro indy parties, Scotland’s official vote will neverbe for a majority of pro-indy parties. It will always be close, but not there.

However, with FPTP and the one party state in England in meltdown because the party of government and the one that is meant to be seen as opposition are as useless as the other and so close in policies that you could not even put a paper between them, sending the large number of vans full of postal votes and buses full of civil servants and army personal they would need to revert a majority of pro indy MPs in Scotland might be a bit trickier when the activists need to be manning the fort down south to contain the haemorrhage on the tory vote. 

There is absolutely no virtue in refusing to use a perfectly valid route to independence simply because it does not look democratic or difficult enough to deserve praise.  We are not looking for praise. We are looking for regaining the control of our country and protect the interests of our children and grandchildren.

After stalling independence for 7.5 years, to continue testing our patience with misplaced democratic virtue signalling, carrots and obfuscation is unacceptable.  Unless Sturgeon or whoever takes the driving wheel from her states categorically that A MAJORITY OF PRO INDY MPS is a mandate to terminate the union, I will not cast my vote in the next GE for the SNP.

Why should I? If for the SNP all what matters is the number of pro-indy votes rather than the number of pro-indy MPs, then I better give my vote and the chance of a seat to a pro-indy party more worried about putting my vote to use to achieve independence than wasting it for virtue signalling on democracy


Mia is very good at examining an issue then raising a lot of reasons why it may not be all it appears at first or even second glance. I think the SNP have a major trust problem, not just with Mia but with large numbers of pro Indy folk. Verbal statements are no longer enough, folk need to see serious commitment, consistent effort and clarity. That will take time. For now, certainly as far as I am concerned the Jury is still out.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland


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 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.

58 thoughts on “REELING THE CARROT IN

  1. A majority of MP’s was always my understanding but if we cannot raise 50%+ of those voting in addition, do the Scots really want independence?

    I repeat that the SNP October conference should only be about independence – nothing else on the agenda this time.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Alin – historically it has always been a majority of independence MPs – an opportunity wasted by the SNP when the UK state was at its weakest and EU support would have been at its strongest.

      By what right has Sturgeon decided it should now be a majority of votes? Who did she ask? Not the sovereign people of Scotland whose rights she has just compromised! Someone needs to put this incompetent megalomaniac straight – I hope to hear comment from Alba on this.

      Liked by 25 people

  2. I think it highly likely that Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney clearly did not discus – for John Swinney, deputy FM remember and old stager, to state that he “misheard” the question being asked of him in his radio interview is fairly implausible

    Nicola Sturgeon knows that a) there will be no Section 30 and b) it is very highly likely that the UKSC, a creation of the British Parliament, will rule against a referendum of any kind on the constitutional matter being within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

    That leaves the plebiscitary election strand. The threshold now, as best as I can decipher from the muddle, is much higher than was the case in UKGEs held prior to 1999:

    1. Majority of MPs
    2. Majority of votes

    The first criterion has been achieved in the last 3 British Parliament elections, so in theory is doable and probably will be be.

    The second hurdle has only ever happened in the “tsunami election” of 2015 when 50% was scraped by the SNP. Together with the Scottish Greens they managed 51.3% of the popular vote.

    The final proviso is that conditions 1 and 2 must be for a single party, the SNP (or, as Nicola Sturgeon would say “my party).

    The obvious question is why make it more difficult than it needs to be? Johnson got an 80 seat majority from 43.6% of the vote in 2019. The Tories still formed the British government and had a commanding parliamentary majority of 80 seats.

    OK, Nicola Sturgeon said the UKGE would be a “de facto referendum” as justification for her additional qualification.

    But why volunteer that? Why not hold something back?

    The British will now obviously demand that a “40% of the electorate rule” will be imposed a la 1979.

    We are already in chains, handcuffs and manacles. Why stick or head under water as well?

    Liked by 20 people

    1. A demand that an independence vote has to be a vote for the SNP is an outrageous abuse of democracy – something we should expect from the nuSNP. This attempts to conflate self determination with the nuSNP. This is deeply unacceptable and needs stopped in its tracks – before the people have to show up at Holyrood and stop it. These chancers are taking one too many chances.

      Liked by 20 people

      1. It does look like another of Nicola Sturgeon’s “my way or the highway” ultimatums, albeit camoflauged (though not very well)

        And I use “my way” in a very first person singular sense.

        Liked by 12 people

      2. The reason I believe that the historical precedent was a majority of seats is simply that this possible to achieve while respecting democracy and different visions for the future. In order to achieve a majority of seats plus a majority of votes it is necessary to vote for a single party – or the number of seats may be lost to a split vote. Yet again we are seeing Scotland deprived of democracy withing this union, in this case by the nuSNP who, if they are forced to pursue independence, will only do it if they can stuff a ball gag into Scotlands mouth and hear their voice alone.

        Liked by 13 people

    2. Also a General Election will be held on the Franchise chosen by the Electoral Commission, which the Conservative party now controls. There’s plenty of time too, before 2024, to change seat boundaries and persuade more pro-Union voters from across the Border to come and live in Scotland for a few months.
      Never trust a Tory or the British Establishment!

      Liked by 14 people

  3. Sturgeon knows fine well the looming global supply chain collapse and potential collapse of the fiat currencies plus prolonged proxy or actual war with Russia and “partners” will make any referendum/ election a non-starter for the foreseeable. This is all about keeping the puppet in place for the next few years as they realise she hasn’t much time left before the masses start to question her commitment to the cause. This strategy appears to have worked even amongst those who should really know better which is frustrating. She cannot be trusted with anything and everything she says and does is a subversion. I also suspect we will be living under emergency Westminster “War Time ” powers over the next few years so it’s a non-starter for me anyway.

    Liked by 18 people

  4. Thank you Mia for sifting through this and looking at all the possible options. I haven’t read all your article, am just heading out, but will finish it later. So apologies if my tuppence worth is already stated.

    By throwing in the ‘over 50% of the vote’ into the FPTP franchise (a moving of the goal posts she has no legal authority to do, and a dangerous precident to set), she has given the SNP a chance to win a majority of seats…. and then… do nothing. Sadly, something they have lots of practice in doing.

    The next part of their plan will either be to nobble the voting franchise, so that only an SNP vote will be recognised as a plebicite indy vote, and/or go all out war on Alba (and other Indy candidates) and accused them of ‘splitting the indy vote’.

    It does indicate though that Plebicite GE is the British Establishments more favoured route. (It will keep the SNP in power, and the current SNP will keep us in the Union). Though no doubt they will have game planned the Ref option also.

    It also means, that if the vote is interfered with, Scotland can be allowed a ‘win’, but not a victory. Very, very clever.

    So, we need to win, and win big. And as we work alongside our SNP colleagues, we need to ensure the voters have a plan B option for if/when the SNP stallwarts drive with the handbrake on, spike the guns and pull their punches.

    Liked by 15 people

  5. I think the correct position is something along the lines of.
    “Pro-independence parties will be uniting to form a plebiscite election. A majority of pro-independence MPs sends a clear message that the Scottish people demand independence. If you feel that this in any way “games the system”, I suggest you (Labour, LibDems & Tories) follow suit and form a united front.”
    We know that supporters of the Conservative and Unionist Party will lend their vote to Labour to achieve a pragmatic, tactical end (Edinburgh South). Why wouldn’t they, the neo-Liberal party of Sir Keir Starmer presents no great threat to their comfortable existence. The same cannot be said for Labour voters. There are ideological fault lines between the other pro-Union parties that prevent wholesale, surrogate exchange of votes. This is more pertinent now than in 2014. Westminster isn’t under the control of “nice”, pro-EU, “call me Dave” Cameron, it’s the plaything of hard right, xenophobic, little Englander to the core, Boris Johnson.

    As to any perceived “iniquity” or “gaming the system” of pursuing the majority of MPs route, remember who the “audience” for this plebiscite election is. The outcome of the election changes nothing (automatically) at Westminster. The “audience” is the UN and the international community.
    At some future point a negotiated “divorce” settlement will be put in referendum form to the Scottish people, but this will be done under UN supervision. A UN, de-colonialisation unit defined franchise and restrictions on English interference from their propaganda arm, BBC Shortbread and the oligarch controlled msm.

    Liked by 18 people

  6. The only Section 30 Scotland needs is the section of 30 from 59 Pro Independence Scottish MP’s who are willing to end the Treaty of Union.

    30 Scottish MPs is an outright majority for Scotland’s representation in Westminster, and thus has as valid a majority for Scotland as 326 MP’s has as an outright majority for Westminster. That is Scotland’s benchmark threshold. 30, underpinned by the Claim of Right, and their will cannot be overruled. 30 seats to end the Union.

    That Scotland has in the past returned 56, and 45 Scottish MP’s elected on a Pro-Independence ticket yet done nothing, absolutely NOTHING, is a stinging indictment of the SNP’s cowardice and constitutional incompetence. How long are we going to listen to the SNP shifting the goal posts to suit their careers rather than Scotland’s deliverance?

    We need 30 honest pro Independence MP’s. That’s it. But they need to be a trustworthy 30 determined to deliver. Even Thatcher, the sworn enemy of Scotland knew it. 30 Solid MP’s. Not SNP gobshites squirming out of mandates, who will whistle the years away doing nothing except getting pissed up making a fool of themselves in Westminster bars, or eyeing up the Speaker’s chair. We had Labour MP’s doing that for decades, but we hoped the SNP were cut from a different cloth. Under Alex Salmond I believe they were.

    Make a Plebiscite General Election and 30 Pro Independence MP’s our primary objective, Plan “A”, and make it a YES led cross-Party initiative to get them. Have every YESSER committed to that singular objective and for the love of god, get Scotland OUT OF THIS DAMNED UNION!

    If I have to listen to one more SNP screw-up, or weaselly excuse, I’m going to spontaneously combust. To Hell with your gold standard bullshit and naive pedantic legality. You might sound slightly more convincing if you actually understood the legality of Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution and International Law.

    Liked by 23 people

    1. “The only Section 30 Scotland needs is the section of 30 from 59 Pro Independence Scottish MP’s who are willing to end the Treaty of Union.”
      This is what we rally around as well as sound input from Salvo and SSRG.

      Liked by 11 people

  7. Another good post by Mia.I see the Plebiscite Election as outlined by Sturgeon and Swinney as nothing more than a power retaining strategy as their jackets are on a shoogly peg as it is and one of the few ways to get the voters to vote for them if they do not deliver Independence by the next Westminster Election. Knowing full well that a Section 30 order will be refused we then move on to a Plebiscite Election minus the Inclusive proclamation of the SNP from a few weeks ago. So instead of a majority of MP,s being enough to end the Union the SNP want over 50% of the vote to be the decider.Is it 50% of those eligible to vote or those who actually vote? How likely is it that a single party will secure 50% of the vote on their own? So if there are say 75% of MP,s SNP voted in on say 45% of the vote the SNP retain their position as the largest party in Scotland while not having to progress Independence.Just another version of the SNP 1,SNP 2 or the vote for the SNP but no one else as per the council election,s.Power before people as usual, Survival at all costs.

    Liked by 14 people

  8. Bingo! Excellent article and sums up the state of things. Independence is too important to be left in the hands of one politician or party. We the people must own the cause and take the campaign to the streets to demand our independence. Politicians ( at least some of them) can not be trusted and some individuals are easily corrupted by the establishment. History is watching what unfolds here and today’s vanity and virtue signalling will be a legacy of shame in the future history books on our independent Scotland and how we struggled while they did nothing.
    Independence campaign is not owned by any party or organisation. It’s owned by the people of Scotland and we want it delivered now. The high energy prices and cost of living crisis is a con, they are looting our resources knowing time is running out. It will get worse before we finally rise up and do something about it. Time is not on our side.

    Liked by 18 people

  9. What are SNP MPs going to do at Westminster if they stand on a manifesto solely consisting of independence and the Scottish electorate return, say, 57 of 59 MPs at 48% of the total vote?

    Are they really going to sit there and say “well, we’re 2-and-a-bit % short so despite an electoral landslide then we’ll just go about our daily business here, even though we don’t really have a manifesto for it, but we’ll try again at the next GE”?

    Liked by 13 people

    1. That’s exactly what they’ll do in that scenario ; but I seriously doubt that scenario will arise , for the reason that I seriously doubt any ( real ) opportunity to vote for Independence will arise under this regime . Some local , UK or International * crisis * will appear to provide a pretext for yet more jam the morra deferral .

      Paradoxically , if that proves to be the case , it might be better – from an Indy POV – than a Ref or Plebiscite GE under the woeful * leadership ” of NS et al , our chances of victory beset on all sides by * agreed upon * conditions , provisos , requirements ; a multitude , as it turns-out , of ” ifs , buts and maybes ” .

      No matter how hard I try I just can’t envisage Independence happening with these people in control

      Liked by 5 people

  10. Absolutely correct – it is all about keeping the SNP MPs in their seats in Westminster – loved by those SNP MPs on the gravy train. The Tories, for SNP MPs, are not in opposition to their power base as they would be had they been Labour MPs. And you are right about the Devo-Max the Vow and all that crap; no one is going to fall for that again. Anything Labour wishes in the way of federalism to keep Scotland in the Union will have to be put into law at Westminster before the next GE – fool me once…….Timing is everything they say, my concern will be that when things get really bad (as if they are not really bad already) – the economy, wages, strikes and everything seems to be falling apart, people will accept policies from Westminster that would otherwise never be tolerated ‘anything will be better than what we now have, right?’ we are already seeing it in the expansion of NATO – spend to increase to 2.5% of GDP- forget global warming, forget Baines, not Bombs, forget OAP pensions, spending on education, the NHS ………. This is just the start of Britain becoming just another federal state of America, when the money is needed to fix Britain’s broken economy, America will step in with privatisation. Just as Romany was cock a hoot at America wishing to build a large American base in their country (for their defence of course) but think, lots and lots of American servicemen all with healthy pay packets, spending on, wine, women and song, high spending in the local economy and beyond, no need for a tourist trade when you have thousands of men and their families permanently in your country. This is how America buys its way into your life, and a good deal for America, they get to keep their arms industry healthy selling all that expensive gear to NATO, paid for by the European taxpayer, what’s not to like, all we like sheep:

    Liked by 10 people

  11. Absolutely agree Mia, and I’m furious.
    Firstly if we are using the UK system of general election then that is a FPTP election – end of story. Second we are already at the mercy of the U.K. electoral commission, counting companies, London establishment, establishment media, boundary changes, and of course voter ID – and let’s face it, lots more will be dreamt up before then. So what does the SNP do? Bursts the tires of the Indy vehicle, Just as everyone is working to tune up the engine.

    If they want a PR election then the only one in existence would be that of the Scottish elections – unless of course London wants to usher in PR – something I’m sure which would be very much welcomed around the U.K.

    I actually think that the YES movement needs to be digging it’s own tunnel. We need a Tom and a Harry, and leave the dicks to themselves.

    Liked by 15 people

  12. “remember who the “audience” for this plebiscite election is”

    To me, the front row of that audience is Scotland itself. The rest of the audience will have to go with whatever that front row decides. Not the other way round. But that front row needs to speak loudly and make its voice heard above the deafening background noise.

    Because of centuries of a toxic union and the superiority complex of our abusive partner, Scotland is the first that needs convincing that IT CAN exit this union; it is SCOTLAND ITSELF, and not the unelected crown, England, its representatives, its useful idiots in Scotland’s parliament and government or external interests who get to decide the route to terminate the union; and if Scotland considers that route to be valid, then it is valid no matter what everybody else says.

    Political parties are far too used to dictate the way we have to go and the rules we have to follow and then use our votes to claim we endorse their choices. But most of the times we cannot vote for the options we really want because that option has been purposely removed from us so political parties can claim there is no mandate for that favoured option. In my view this is what appears to be happening right now with the majority of MPs route to independence. They are frantically trying to airbrush it. We should not let them get away with it.

    It is not our interests what dictate that routes political parties choose. Never this has been more obvious than with the ferry fiasco or the GRA nonsense. It is not our vote either what dictates the routes. If it did, we would still be in the EU or we would have had our independence referendum in 2016. Our vote is used to justify a posteriori a decision taken by somebody else before we have been given the chance to cast our votes.

    It is lobbyists, bribes, foreign and personal interests what has been dictating that way for 300 years. I think it is time we say no, thank you. Political parties must be a vehicle SCOTLAND drives to get to wherever SCOTLAND wishes to go, and not a vehicle used by third party interests to drive Scotland towards wherever those third party interests wish Scotland to go no matter how damaging for Scotland itself.

    No political party represented in Holyrood, and I mean none, is in any position of credibility today to take the moral high ground and talk about democracy because each and every single one of them has assaulted Scotland’s democratic rights and right to self determination at one time or another.

    The tories have been imposing their toxic rule on Scotland on 25% of the vote and 6 MP seats. Labour only holds one MP seat, yet you would think they hold a majority of the seats if you look at the self-entitlement of Starmer and England labour senior representatives and MPs in blocking our democratic right to choose, unless of course we choose them. Libdems abandoned their democratic credentials the minute the irreconciliable difference between Scotland and England was made obvious in the EU referendum. At that point, democracy was cast aside by the libdems because preserving the union is more important (for them) than democracy.

    Those three parties self awarded themselves the right in 2015 to veto Scotland’s democratic vote in the EU ref, in a way that it didn’t matter a damn which way Scotland voted. Those parties had already decided that brexit would be forced on Scotland if England wanted brexit. The SNP undemocratically let England drag us out of the EU againt our will by letting our 2016 mandate expire, and since 8th May 2015 has been deliberately ignoring the majority of pro indy MPs we have been sending to Westminster, using that majority to preserve the UK instead of to terminate it. The SNP and Greens are undemocratically determined to deconstruct the word woman and undermine women’s rights and presence no matter what actual women think of it.

    A majority among the MPs who cast a vote (not even the majority of MPs) was sufficient to tie Scotland into this union. Therefore a majority of Scotland’s MPs casting a vote to terminate the union has been and must remain as the main route to untie Scotland from it. Sturgeon has been allowed to block that route since 2015 for goodness knows whose interests, certainly not ours. We should not let her get away with it any longer. She has no right to re-write history. She has blocked independence for long enough.

    Liked by 17 people

    1. Check out the pics of Sturgeon and the Queen – they are mates. Sturgeon has enjoyed her high office – privy councilor Sturgeon is keeping the natives in check and will exit after our failed referendum (of whichever flavour) to pursue trans rights with the UN.

      Liked by 10 people

    2. ” it is SCOTLAND ITSELF, and not the unelected crown, England, its representatives, its useful idiots in Scotland’s parliament and government or external interests who get to decide the route to terminate the union; and if Scotland considers that route to be valid, then it is valid no matter what everybody else says. ”

      That one paragraph is the summation of our case . No fat , no added sugar , no artificial ingredients . The real thing .

      Brilliant Mia

      Liked by 4 people

  13. It is obvious that the Westminster Parliament operates exclusively on the currency of seat power, a currency only available to English parties, and which is enough all by itself to allow an English party of government to wield the unlimited sovereignty of the UKP over the entire UK, including over the sovereign country of Scotland.

    As seat power confers unlimited sovereignty on English parties, it must confer the same on Scottish parties, at least as far as Scotland is concerned. Since we are forced by Westminster itself to use Westminster’s rules, then Westminster has no business denying us any legitimate outcome from those rules. If Scottish seat power lets us revoke the Treaty on behalf of Scotland as its sole representatives in that place of ultimate power, and end the Union, Westminster’s own rules require it to accept that outcome. Challenging its democratic legitimacy is simply irrelevant at that stage, certainly for Westminster, and may be only be addressed after the declaration has taken effect, when Westminster’s rules no longer apply.

    Liked by 11 people

  14. In a nutshell, Clootie. This is precisely what I feared would happen: just another version of the SNP 1& 2 instead of making it a whole movement franchise. Yes, it is blackmail and we won’t get independence either at the end of it. What we will get is the claim that GRA reform was hugely applauded by the populace when it is detested by any thinking person. I cannot vote SNP under any circumstances. Can someone please explain to me why half the population of Scotland should even contemplate entering an independent Scotland that has deliberately sacrificed all their rights? It is like saying that Afghanistan is independent and, therefore, females are better off. Baloney! Only men will be better off in those circumstances, particularly the ones on frocks. This is a game by a very manipulative leader and her ‘wokie’ cohort. If anyone tells me it will all be changed when we get independence, I’ll scream. Are the women and girls of Afghanistan better off because the British and Americans have pulled out? Did the Taliban re-introduce their rights? Nah! Neither would they in Scotland. That’s a fairy story for the bairns. Once gone, they will remain gone and the fight will have to start all over again. There will be no independence either. The UKG and courts will be blamed for stymying it this time. It’s a con. All that will come out of it will be another term for the SNP/SGP, the GRA reform will be hailed and women will have been kicked in the teeth in both instances. Had enough now. If the SNP/SGP leadership remains the same, I, personally, will not be voting for it ever again, in any circumstances. Other females must make up their own minds about the betrayals.

    Liked by 13 people

  15. Robert J @ 11.08

    Your question provides its own answer. Business as usual for the SNP gravy train. Why can’t more people see this as clearly as you?

    Liked by 10 people

  16. We may, with very good reason mistrust utterly Nicola Sturgeon and her clique. But she has now set off a course of action and we must all get behind that.

    Sturgeon is not independence. She is the leader of the SNP. The SNP is not independence. They are only one strand of it. The desire for independence is bigger than Sturgeon, bigger than the SNP. And things change too.There are many in the SNP who earnestly desire independence. There are many outside the SNP who desire independence.And the campaign of 2014 showed exactly the enthusiasm, commitment and unity that came together in the fight for national freedom.

    We ran them close in 2014. Closer than we maybe realise. And we have learned lessons too. And so we chart a course forward. Of course there will be obstacles and challenges. But we can tack, gibe and ensure that our ship steers the right course. We can recreate the spirit and unity of 2014 but this time we can win.

    The UK state is weaker than it has ever been. The economy tanks as inflation soars, wages drop, living standards decline, the NHS fails and all in the shadow of the Norther Ireland problem, the Brexit disaster, the illegal unilateral breaking on international agreements, and an absolute head to head with the EU, and a pound that has lost twenty percent of its value since Brexit.

    Quite frankly who in their right mind would want to be a part of this busted flush of a faded empire long gone when there is the opportunity to be part of a smart small richly endowed Northern European country.

    So yes, challenges ahead. But if we all get behind the course now set I am sure that between us all we will ensure that the course, or should I say courses plotted, will be the right ones.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Would like to go along with that Willie but can’t until the SNP confirm their plan includes all pro Indy votes irrespective of which pro Indy party receives them. I have no intention in granting the SNP a monopoly on independence. The reason? They cannot be trusted. The fact that we are having to argue this is absolute proof of that.

      Liked by 17 people

      1. No, Scott, Nicola Sturgeon would not commit to an entire independence movement vote when asked the other night. If she really was committed to independence, she would hold out the hand of reconciliation and welcome all comers, regardless of their stance on various topics. If independence really does transcend ‘petty’ squabbles – I don’t believe they are petty, but I’m willing to concede the point to get an agreement – then she would make that plain now.

        Liked by 11 people

      2. And then the union will win & Sturgeon will say that ‘supposed’ indy people didn’t want it badly enough. We and ALBA & ISP, will get the blame for failure. WE caused division, WE didn’t really want it, WE wouldn’t come together… blah blah blah…

        Liked by 5 people

    2. “who in their right mind”

      That’s a very interesting question, especially after 3 centuries of colonialism, and what we know colonialism does to the mind.

      Liked by 8 people

  17. The next hurdle to put in front of the Yes voters is an announcement that they will stay with sterling for an undisclosed time during the emergence of a new Scotland. That would set the cat amount the pigeons.

    Liked by 7 people

      1. Precisely, and sticking with sterling for anything over the initial year of independence rather than adopting our own currency – if we don’t automatically rejoin the EU, which might be so advisable, anyway, for a while – will tie us into the crash that is coming the UK’s/rUK’s way because Brexit hasn’t even kicked in properly yet, let alone other world factors.

        Liked by 7 people

    1. That’s why it’s so important to highlight the policies of the other independence parties – i.e Scottish floating currency and efta application. The growth commission cannot be allowed to hang over us.

      Liked by 7 people

  18. So when it comes to the GE, the entire independence campaign will be in the hands of the SNP? That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence as they’d likely try to get over the line through the cult of personality.

    Just when Scotland needs a Mick Lynch, what have we got… expenses collectors, benchwarmers, pension anticipators and dull, insipid nobodies that couldn’t motivate me to get into bed with Jennifer Lopez.

    Liked by 13 people

  19. Willie @ 12.38

    The only thing that has been plotted is a continuance of SNP control. And it’s a very good one to achieve that.

    It has no chance whatsoever of delivering independence.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. It’s actually ingenious when you think about it. If only they put as much effort into strategies for getting us out of this rancid union as they do in keeping themselves in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. Still, a lot of folk are excited so it’d be cruel to tell them that Santa doesn’t exist just now.

      Liked by 10 people

  20. Clootie said..I am being blackmailed!

    If you want Scottish Independence you have to vote for Sturgeon and the TransCult.”

    That is what she meant by that very obvious announcement, you MUST Vote MY PARTY if you want to get even close to a plebiscite…

    Well after my 52yrs of voting SNP 12 years of membership, there is NOTHING that will ever make me vote HER PARTY.. Because there is NO way she even wants INDEPENDENCE, none in HER cabinet do, majority of HER MPs dread the very thought of INDY it would sim them lose their high salaries, high expenses, & put a slight damper on their very gracious Pensions..SHE/HER & HER party can go to hell as far as I am concerned, her Blackmail will not work for me..

    Liked by 12 people

  21. That devious self promoting narcissistic apology for a First Minister would get a full time job at Hampden. She is good for nothing except moving goalposts.

    If anyone every needed proof that independence is the last thing she wants, that statement about votes not seats is all you need.

    Why, oh why won’t the dunderheids who follow her like lemmings wake up and smell the sh*t that she spouts?

    Liked by 9 people

  22. Who would ever have believed, even just 25 years ago, that by 2020 the Scottish people would have voted in three successive SNP majorities of Scotland’s MPs to Westminster, and also elected three successive SNP devolved governments in Edinburgh, and yet this all-powerful national party machinery still refused Scots their right to independence in preference to maintaining a colonial setup and protecting the interests of the Imperial power, and is now also introducing laws which further oppress the people?

    Nobody, not even those opposed to independence, would ever have believed such a scenario, just 25 years ago, at a time when the election of just one national majority of SNP MP’s would have meant Scotland was ending the UK union arrangement. And now our SNP elites themselves seek to raise the independence hurdles again. Which clearly indicates who they are really working for, as Mia implies.

    Postcolonial theory also confirms the likelihood of this seemingly mystical choice by the dominant national party elites in their preference to run cosy colonial administrations on behalf of the imperial power rather than take the tougher decision to respect the peoples democratic right to an independent state. This betrayal, for that is what it is, represents a serious blow for a people and their nation, and rightly sickens the independence movement which has campaigned long and hard for national liberation, only to be badly let down at the final hurdle.

    Liked by 16 people

  23. The constant arguements for achieving independence either without a referendum or through a non section 30 approval referendum are getting somewhat repetitive. There isn’t a non Section 30 route. Sturgeon clearly intends to test this in the Supreme Court knowing she will most probably lose. Then everyone will wait for a meaningless plebiscite election which will enable the SNP to avoid scrutiny of their actual performance in Gov. Then whatever the result nothing will happen because – wait for it – it requires a Section 30 approval.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. That is why we must go back to the Scottish constitutional tools. The Scotland Act is no longer – if it ever was – worth the paper on which it is written. Holyrood is Westminster’s creature. Back to basics, back to the source of the Union. If you want to know why a river is drying up, you follow it to its source. If the source is poisoned, the river will be poisoned, too. The Treaty of Union (international law, and the superior), translated into the Act of Union (domestic law and the inferior) are where it all went wrong. The Scotland Act, in establishing a Scottish devolved administration but not an English one is fatally flawed. Either demand independence or demand that England be devolved (EVEL is illegitimate under both devolution and under the Treaty). People are trying to point his out, but they are systematically ignored by the loyalists who can’t see the wood for the trees. This effort by the SNP must fail because: a) the Supreme Court has already upheld Westminster sovereignty; and, b) there will be no second S30 Order. Finally, all a plebiscitary election that does not include all of the independence movement, will do is re-elect the SNP on another term ticket and the numbers voting for them alone will be too few to carry the day. It would be quite simple for Sturgeon to say: all for one and one for all. She won’t, of course. She wants us all to vote the SNP back into power with yet another promise of yet another referendum or some such useless gesture. ALBA and ISP and all the other dissidents from other parties, and none, need to keep up the pressure on her to make this a fully plebiscitary election across an entire independence movement coalition or back off and bring forward new proposals.

      Liked by 9 people

    2. Well with Sturgeon in charge you are probably right but I think Salvo and the SSRG have a big role to play here. More later after I explain at the weekend’s Salvo launch.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. That’s the only thing that is keeping me sane at the moment! I’m so tired of people telling me I have to shut up about SNP/Sturgeon & her sleekit management of the Indy rules, that we’ve got to UNITE to win Indy. The naivety of so many people – and so many BOT accounts – is frustrating beyond words! I don’t see anyone telling Sturgeon to quit whining & unite the country! So all this SNP stuff has just left me wanting to not bother with Indy anymore. But – I know that’s what they’re (unionists) counting on. They KNOW we won’t accept the old nonsense they spouted last time, & know we know better than to believe any of their promises… so dividing & driving people away from Indy is the only thing they have left & it’s the only thing they’re counting on achieving. So I hate to give up! BUT… *sigh*…

        It’s only Sara Salyers & the likes of Mia and Lorncal etc.who understand the real power Scotland has, (and Breeks & few others here) that is keeping me from giving up. It’s knowing that ALBA is in the fight but I hope Alex understands what is going on & has some tricks up his sleeve! It would be nice to think he will use the Claim of Right & SALVO… Or something…

        Anyway – I hope you have a good SALVO launch Iain, & that its very productive. Enjoy! 🙂

        Liked by 5 people

    3. “The constant arguements for achieving independence either without a referendum or through a non section 30 approval referendum are getting somewhat repetitive”

      Far more repetitive and tiresome are the continuous goalpost moving and the inane arguments used to block Scotland from dissolving this union despite sending consistently absolute majorities of anti-union MPs for the best part of 8 years.

      “There isn’t a non Section 30 route”
      Yes, there is.

      The Section 30 route only applies to the devolution settlement, that is, when you are trying to follow a route out of the UK utilising a devolution tool. Holyrood is the devolution tool. But using this tool means Scotland accepting to demote itself to the status of a region of Greater England. I don’t recall ever having been asked consent for that demotion.

      The first question we should be asking ourselves regarding that route is if the devolution settlement is actually still intact. Because if it is not intact, then the “need” for a S30 becomes academic.

      Does the devolution settlement remain intact? You tell me. Personally I think not, as I think that by butchering the Scotland Act, as collateral they also destroyed the status quo that legitimised their beloved No vote from 2014.

      England MPs blinded by their greed, their rush to put their paws on Scotland’s assets and for unlawfully transferring power from our parliament onto themselves, butchered the Scotland Act. They did this unilaterally, that is, without Scotland, the rightful owner of those assets and powers, giving consent for them to do so.

      Forcing someone to have sex without their consent is rape. Taking somebody’s belongings without their consent is theft. Knowingly mis-selling a product under the wrong specification is fraud. The three of them are crimes. So how do you call to the act of sabotaging devolution by savaging the mutual agreement that supported that settlement so England MPs could put their hands on Scotland’s powers and assets without Scotland’s consent, claiming it was “for our own good”? What kind of feeble constitutional law we have that does not consider such action as a crime against Scotland?

      That Act was a contract between Scotland and Westminster, and what Westminster violated were some of the fundamental conditions stated in the contract. Considering that the butchering was not consented by Scotland, until what point such unilateral act of unconsented vandalism has not rendered already such mutually agreed contract null and void?

      If you are thinking in the English convention mantra that Westminster is sovereign and can do as it pleases, then let me tell you it is not for many reasons. But the relevant one here is that the status quo which was presented to us during the 2014 referendum was one that had the Scotland Act intact, therefore butchering that act is an effing big change in material circumstances that changes the status quo which legitimised our 2014 vote. You destroy the status quo without both parties consent and you de-legitimise the result that rests on it.

      Forcing absolute rule over Scotland is unlawful under the Claim of Right. Butchering that Act and forcing over Scotland a new status quo without Scotland’s consent is forcing absolute rule over Scotland. Had Nicola Sturgeon been a proper pro-independence leader instead of another Westminster puppet without a backbone, and she would have told Westminster to shove their butchered Act and their S30 where the sun does not shine.

      After the butchering of the Act, asking for a S30 is legitimising the vandalism made by England MPs to that Act and legitimising the theft of our powers. Nicola Sturgeon hasn’t earned my respect y humiliating Scotland with such capitulation, when what she should have done is to fight for Scotland’s rights and declaring that Act void.

      There is of course another dimension of devolution relevant here, which is until what point devolution was ever lawful in the context of the union in the first place. In 1707 Scotland signed a treaty with THE KINGDOM OF ENGLAND, not with Westminster or the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”. The Scotland Act is a contract between Scotland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. In the context of the Union where Scotland is an equal partner and not a region of Greater England, such contract should have been between Scotland and the Kingdom of England, not with an entity whose legitimacy to act on behalf of Scotland relies on Scotland’s continuous consent for it to do so. So, how lawful is such devolution settlement when a parallel one was never designed for England? Until what point is lawful for England MPs in the context of a bipartite union of two equally sovereign nations to claim they “own” more of Scotland’s powers than Scotland itself?

      The more you look into devolution in the context of the union, the more absurd and unlawful it looks and the more it looks like a strategy designed to transfer power from Scotland into England MP’s hands.

      But I digress. Moving away from the devolution dimension, one cannot forget that since 1707 Scotland is an equal partner in a bipartite political union that stands over an international treaty. Scotland can and should exercise its legitimate right AS AN EQUAL SIGNATORY of that treaty, and not as a devolved region or a pretend region of Greater England, to terminate that treaty. It does not need any S30 for that. The only thing it needs is a majority of pro indy MPs with a backbone, with principles, with conviction and with loyalty to Scotland.

      Terminating the treaty means removing the legitimacy of Westminster to continue acting on behalf of Scotland. As a matter of fact, and arguably, issuing a mandate for an independence referendum since 2016 has already removed that legitimacy from Westminster, so one wonders until what point Westminster can lawfully deny Scotland anything under such circumstances.

      I am of the opinion that the situation where we find ourselves in, being first demanded to hold an S30, then denied one, then being told “now is not the time” while England MPs force absolute rule over us to take control of our assets, despite 3 absolute majorities of SNP MPs and despite mandates for indyref since 2016, is because we do not have a real pro-independence leader in charge of Bute House.

      “Sturgeon clearly intends to test this in the Supreme Court knowing she will most probably lose”
      Sturgeon has no intention in delivering independence, that bit is clear. 8 years of wasting our time, the best opportunities any pro-indy leader could dream of and investing all her energy in blocking the main route for Scotland to end this union while enabling brexit, prove as much. Her announcement on Tuesday was no different.

      “Then everyone will wait for a meaningless plebiscite election”
      It will be only meaningless if Nicola Sturgeon is allowed to get away with blocking the route again. What we need to stop this serial timewaster is another pro-indy party willing to run on a mandate where a majority of pro indy MPs is a mandate to terminate the union. I wonder if Alba would step up to the plate and help us bypass Sturgeon’s uncommitted SNP.

      “which will enable the SNP to avoid scrutiny of their actual performance in Gov”
      This is nothing about the abysmal performance of Westminster’s satellite government in Holyrood. This is all about the survival of the union and ensuring England can keep its hands in our resources to survive its brexit at our expense.

      ” Then whatever the result nothing will happen because – wait for it – it requires a Section 30 approval”
      If nothing happens it will not be because of a stupid S30 whose need has always been dubious at best. It will be because we don’t have a serious pro-independence leader leading our majority of pro indy MPs to terminate the union.

      Liked by 10 people

  24. If we read the small print the announcement was that a Section 30 would be requested and if it was refused the next Westminster Election would become a De Facto NOT a Plebiscite Election. What,s the difference, well De Facto is something that is morally right but is actually illegal therefore has no legal standing whereas Plebiscite is a statement of intent which is legal and would stand up in law. So essentially what you would be voting for in a De Facto Election would be another mandate for a Scottish Government to progress Independence giving the SNP the majority vote but no difference to the Status Quo as there would be no legal obligation to proceed Independence especially as the SNP have stated that there must be over 50% of the votes cast for Independence to begin negotiations. Independence not on the SNP,s agenda just self preservation at any price.

    Liked by 9 people

  25. FM Sturgeon ” is pushed towards independence in some ways, but without wanting to risk the reproduction of SNP hegemony, which is her main main priority. So she’s not going to risk anything that’s going to be electorally damaging. She wants to keep things within official channels. But she does want to try to push in that direction and if it doesn’t work out, then she just had another two years of focusing public energy on conflict with the Tories, having rallied the party base”.

    “part of the reason that the SNP has been so persistently successful is that independence is part of the formula that works for them.If you don’t have, at the very least, the ability to blame the problems on Westminster, then they become accountable for a whole succession of problems in terms of the governance of devolved Scotland,”

    Worth reading the whole essay

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Agreed, Ben. We have to engage the working-class/unemployed to even have a chance of reaching the magic numbers. Unfortunately, the SNP/SGP is solidly middle-class establishment whose most profound solidarity with any movement is an exercise in puddle-deep virtue-signalling. Anything remotely working-class and socialist is avoided at all costs. They can’t be placated by shallow, uncritical thinking s***e. The trick of trying to get us all to vote against our own interests but for the SNP’s in a plebiscitary election where the entire independence movement is represented by the SNP, is a smart one, but most of us not in thrall to Sturgeon and cohort idolatry have spotted the sleight of hand.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. ” but most of us not in thrall to Sturgeon and cohort idolatry have spotted the sleight of hand. ” . Yes Lorna , neither will we be fooled ( or surprised ) when they pull another carrot from the hat . Spot-on as per LC

        Liked by 2 people

  26. JohnWilliams

    Well spotted. The dictionary definition of de facto is : ‘in fact, whether by right or not’.

    Once the Supreme Court has ruled that a genuine referendum without a s,30 consent is outwith the Scottish Government’s power, to say you will now go ahead with a ‘de facto’ referendum on election day would get short shrift in any court. You can’t turn an election into a legal referendum, never mind one that would be illegal for two reasons!

    Someone on Wings posted about it being ‘a rose by any other name’.

    Oh to be able to see what legal advice has been given by the Lord Advocate (or any other lawyer) on this point. Could this be why they have (as usual) done everything to prevent people knowing what the legal advice was. How awful if they have been told ‘ you can’t do that’ but have gone ahead anyway. Where have I heard that before?

    Liked by 7 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: