This week put a spring in the step of the independence campaign.

After years of inactivity a route forward was finally announced. Little wonder Scottish nationalists are ringing the bells. We are looking forward to the referendum promised by the First Minister of Scotland on the 19th October next year. Everyone will put their shoulders to the wheel to shove the independence wagon forward but we should be ready for bumps along the road.

Nicola Sturgeon announced three things. She wants Boris Johnson to agree Indyref 2 with her, just as David Cameron agreed Indyref 1 with me some ten years ago.

If not she will pop off to the UK Supreme Court to ask for their permission to conduct our own referendum.

Then if that does not work she intends to turn the next UK election into a “plebiscite poll” on independence.

The first of these initiatives requires the backing of a campaign of real grit to force Johnson’s hand to respect Scotland’s democracy. The second is a Hail Mary option. There is little chance of the UK Supreme Court protecting Scottish sovereignty. The third has possibilities but will require clear thinking if it is to succeed.

It is certain that bungling Boris will snub Sturgeon and refuse to agree a referendum. But why should Scotland take no for an answer? He is the weakest Prime Minister in British history. Over the next few months he will be fully engaged in trying to save his own political skin. Right now on his very doorstep in London striking rail workers are taking common cause with striking barristers as the UK heads into the summer of discontent, as family budgets buckle under soaring prices.

The British establishment is deeply underrating the fury among ordinary Scots that the referendum we voted for democratically last year is being blocked undemocratically this year. In these dramatic circumstances why shouldn’t a determined Scottish campaign of popular demonstration in Scotland, parliamentary intervention at Westminster and diplomatic initiatives bring Downing Street’s “big dog” to heel?

In the 19th century Charles Stewart Parnell used London’s own rule book to bring Westminster to a standstill to force attention on Ireland’s cause. The SNP still has 44 seats. ALBA has two. Perhaps it’s time to play Parnell with Westminster. It might just be the straw that breaks Johnson’s back.

The appeal to the Supreme Court is the most difficult to understand of the First Minister’s manoeuvres. It may have a Scottish President and Deputy but it is now a conservative inclined court which will instinctively side with the UK Government. Last year on the issue of the rights of children they knocked back the Scottish Government on a similar argument with Westminster- and that on legislation which had already been passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament! But the key argument is one of principle. The custodians of Scottish democracy and the sovereignty of the nation are in the elected Scottish Parliament not appointed judges on a bench in the Middlesex Guildhall, two minutes walk from the Palace of Westminster. 

That brings us to the ultimate backstop – the declaration that if there is no referendum in October next year then the next UK election should be turned into a plebiscite on the single issue of Scottish independence.

Ignore the bleating from the terrible twins of unionism – Labour and Tory. If all else fails then it is perfectly legitimate to use a democratic election to progress the independence case instead of a referendum which is being blocked and obstructed.

Two-faced Tories whine that you can’t fight an election on a single issue, conveniently forgetting that they won the 2019 election in England on the slogan of “Get Brexit Done”. 

However, things are not all plain sailing for the independence cause. Such an election test would exclude 16-17 year olds and European citizens who are allowed to vote on the Scottish election franchise. After some confusion it is now being said by the SNP that the “mandate” in the election will require a majority of votes as well as seats.

That is an extraordinarily high bar to set since no party in Scotland has achieved that since 1955. Even Labour in its best year of 1966 fell a whisker short as did the SNP in the peak year of 2015.

If that was to be achieved it could not be by a single Party – the election would have to be fought by a united movement preferably with a single independence candidate in every seat. A “plebiscite election” would not succeed if it is just party political business as usual on the Yes side.

Obviously the vast majority of such candidates would be sitting SNP and ALBA MPs but it would be wise to bring the Green Party on board as well as key independence campaigners out-with party politics aiming to unseat the remaining unionist MPs.

And what then? Such a ballot would electrify international opinion but there are forces at Westminster who would die in the last ditch to stop Scottish independence just as they have refused to concede an independence referendum. The Indy MPs elected in such a vote would require not just to stand on the independence ticket but to pledge to take the political action required to bring it into being.

Their job would not be, as is happening now, to settle down in London but instead to settle up 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.

47 thoughts on “ALEX SALMOND SPEAKS OUT.

  1. Just on the Plebiscite, we have difference of opinion from Swinny saying if we win more seats and Sturgeon saying we will need to win more votes and listening to Harvie on Sunday politics he’s saying he’s going to do a full blown manifesto about green issues and then a question on Independence if its past by the party then you have Sturgeon saying the SNP will have a single question in their manifesto. When Harvie was ask about people in his party who are unionist how would you calculate who’s vote’s for green issues and who’s voted for Independence Harvie couldn’t answer it, hasn’t anyone in the SG been talking and if they have what where they talking about because not one of these MSP knows how Surgeon plan B works.

    Mr Salmond will you please offer your services to the SG and explain how a Referendum is achieved and how a plebiscite works?

    Liked by 10 people

    1. They wouldn’t listen – Sturgeon is fully aware of the implication of demanding 50% of the vote – a bar easily raised now it has been introduced and, in the absence of any clarity, will be ruled to be ’50(+?)% of all possible votes that could have been cast’.

      Sturgeon needs stopped in her unionist tracks. She had absolutely no right to introduce this additional hurdle. All she wants is a trans activist job with the UN – a position that requires the approval of the UK PM – so will she stand up to Westminster? Sturgeon wants to hold an unwinnable referendum and exit with the PMs blessing to New York, leaving our hopes and dreams dead in a ditch.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. The FM had no right to do this as the people of Scotland were not asked. It is not the Westminster system which is a winner takes all by gaining the most seats, but she has made, knowingly or unknowingly, the people of Scotland a hostage to the UK government, which will interpret whatever the result in the way most advantageous to it.
        I am raging at this betrayal. it is time we, the people spoke out as we must no longer let her get away with this.
        It is cleat that she no longer speaks for us.

        Liked by 7 people

  2. . . . and in comes Alex Salmond to respond to last week’s announcement in straightforward, succinct and non-pejorative terms, statesmanlike as always. Thanks Alex. Thank you too Iain. Your speech at the Salvo launch yesterday moved me to tears, as did Sara’s. The Yoons won’t know what’s hit them when this independence juggernaut hits them and runs right over the top of them to the restoration of our independence.

    Liked by 16 people

  3. ….. Aye.

    It’s hard to add anything after Alex Salmond speaks.

    It’s true we lose the 16 and 17 year old votes, but it also raises questions about second home owners who will presumably have to choose between addresses to register in a General Election.

    I don’t agree with the 50% share of the vote. Democracy is served by the process of electing our Government, which requires 30 from 59 Scottish MP’s to form a Scottish majority at Westminster. That we formerly returned 56 out of 59, must surely stand as an embarrassing gaffe on our part, but an absurdity which Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy would repeat. We have a legitimate way to win, so we invent a way to lose? Isn’t that Westminster’s job?

    “Why” do we need a high benchmark? Why should we extend that grace to a graceless Union which has plundered and belittled Scotland for centuries? I would end this Union with a snap of my fingers if it got the job done.

    Liked by 11 people

  4. Why did Alex include voting for the horrible anti-women party (the Greens) as part of the huge INDY vote needed in a plebiscite, & leave out the likes of the ISP. Whose members and voters agreed to step aside to give him & Alba a better chance in the HR Election..For me it will be ANY genuine Indy party, and that does NOT include the SNP or the Greens, as an Alba member, I am disappointed that ISP or any other Genuine Indy party gets no mention in Alex’s statement.

    Why he can keep on backing the LIAR Sturgeon & her nasty party also beats me.. HE & ALBA & ISP & all other GENUINE Indy parties need to come together like the UNIONISTS do Because Scotlands needs RID of the SNP as much as it does the TORIES.. ISP were a party before Alba and they were the first party to talk about a Plebiscite Election. The SNP never did, and I do NOT believe they ever will. Hence her trying another stitch up, this time by trying to do what she knows will never succeed with her stupid (it is the votes that county) and really what she means is ONLY the votes for HER Party as she likes to remind us the NU-Sturgeon Nasty Party is..Scotland needs a leader I still think Alex is our only hope, he will not be bought by WM, his love for this country is genuine. But he has to stop being NICE to & About the SNP.. He should be doing what the Irish did, & fighting to remove the so called sitting Nationalist Party.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. “In the 19th century Charles Stewart Parnell used London’s own rule book to bring Westminster to a standstill to force attention on Ireland’s cause. The SNP still has 44 seats. ALBA has two. Perhaps it’s time to play Parnell with Westminster. It might just be the straw that breaks Johnson’s back.”

    That is the type of act of determination required. However Sturgeon and the Comfy slippers brigade are unlikely to find a backbone at this stage of their careers ( Careers instead of mission)

    Why should Ireland be treated as a geographical fragment of England – Ireland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
    Charles Stewart Parnell

    Liked by 12 people

  6. There is far too much confusion already on the pleb. election:

    1. MPs only?
    2. Votes only?
    3. MPs plus Votes?
    4. Yes Candidates?
    5. A Single Party only?
    6. Pro-Indy Candidates Votes combined?
    7. etc?

    People have made announcements and there are different opinions – see Sturgeon, Swinney, Salmond and Cherry statements in the last few days.

    We also need to make it absolutely clear that it is the Scottish people’s right to vote as frequently, whenever and however we wish on our constitutional arrangements.

    The Claim of Right is the basis of our sovereignty and must be front and foremost in any campaign.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. I agree with you duncanio, but I don’t see this as a new confusion. I actually believe it is an old confusion which has bedeviled the Independence movement for decades.

      For me, the two greatest omissions in the 2014 YES Campaign was firstly a failure to address the rotten media bias, and the second omission was the Constitutional Sovereignty of the people.

      That is why I think the SALVO initiative is going to be pivotal, because it is cutting through our ambiguous confusion and distilling the question of Independence into a binary debate over sovereignty.

      We’re not quite there yet, but I hope we have fought our last Independence Campaign where we Scottish Independentists “didn’t really know” where the finishing line actually was.

      We “should” have been Independent when Scotland returned 56 out of 59 SNP MP’s to Westminster.
      We “should” have been Independent then the Sovereign Components of the UK returned conflicting and incompatible votes on Brexit.
      We “should” have been Independent when the Articles of Union were breached with Scotland’s colonial subjugation.
      We “should” have been Independent when the Articles of Union were breached by the NI Protocol.
      We “should” have been Independent when the truth emerged about the colonial plunder and exploitation of Scotland’s resources for the benefit of London.

      This damned Union has more lives than the proverbial nine lives of a cat, and a similar capacity for landing on it’s feet. Our Scottish “Democrats” are doing a piss poor job of looking after Scotland’s Constitutional Interests.

      Enough is enough. If the Claim of Right is purged from the Treaty of Union, then SALVO dictates there cannot be a Union. No more free lives for the Union. We make this one stick. If the Union has such contempt for the Claim of Right, then justice requires the Union to come unstuck.

      The clarity of argument which SALVO will provide is long overdue, and it will strengthen our hand immeasurably.

      Liked by 16 people

  7. So we will have a scenario where a pro-indy result of say 48% of votes (with 50 something seats) wont be enough. Meantime, an English registered party with 35% of the vote can effectively legislate to end the Scottish Parliament and cut off all routes to independence.
    Not enough people understand who and what the barriers to independence actually are.

    Liked by 14 people

  8. So what if Scotland’s own referendum breaks UK legislation? We, the sovereign people of Scotland gave our democratic mandate to our own parliament in our own country, and we fully expect and require that it carries out that mandate, and if that means some legislative changes need made to get it done, that’s just paperwork, and the authority to make those changes is then clearly implied.

    That a government we didn’t vote for, in a parliament of a different country thinks we aren’t allowed to ask ourselves a simple question because one answer might deny them free access ot our wealth and resources, is nothing less than an outright and selfish abuse of our rights, our democracy, and our constitutional sovereignty.

    Ultimately this is about whose sovereignty reigns in Scotland, our own one guaranteed in the Treaty, or Westminster’s 2nd-hand Scottish sovereignty devolved to it in 1707. It certainly can’t be England’s sovereignty since that died in 1707, and even if it didn’t, it doesn’t cover Scotland. It is also about who the Scottish Parliament is answerable to, its own sovereign electorate, or that foreign government we haven’t voted for since 1953.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. I agree with everything you said there except “our own parliament”.
      Unfortunately, the devolved ScotGov parliament in Holyrood is subordinate to that in Westminster and always will be, as it was created and can be dissolved via English/UK acts of parliament. I despise this predicament but it’s our reality.
      We need to start doing anything and everything we can WITHOUT Westminster’s consent or approval.
      It needs to come from the people – a grassroots movement, external to Scottish or UK government processes.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. But it is our own parliament; we mandated its establishment as a sovereign people, and Westminster was obliged to provide it, and it certainly wouldn’t have done so if it thought it could get away with denying it to us. As we alone elect its members as our executive representatives it therefore wields our sovereignty in our own country on our behalf, and not on England’s or Westminster’s behalf.

        Just because Westminster decided its powers does NOT mean that those are the only powers it can exercise, because those were set only by domestic legislation in the UKP. But Scotland’s national sovereignty sits above not just legislative authority, but also above the UK Parliament’s constitutional authority, as the sole source of any sovereignty over Scotland. We were and still are that source; its tap is ours to turn on or off, and where and how we direct the flow of its power, and if that power is enough to end the Union, it can certainly add powers for our parliament.

        If we mandate extra powers for our parliament to exercise in Scotland, we really do have the authority to do so even over Westminster’s objections. And as Breeks says, Westminster has no moral authority to insist we respect its rules. Power grabs can work both ways, and the UKP has already set that precedent!

        Liked by 6 people

      2. “But it is our own parliament; we mandated its establishment as a sovereign people, and Westminster was obliged to provide it”

        You are absolutely right. It is our parliament. It should behave as our parliament. We elected it. Scotland demanded it.

        But unfortunately, for as long as the cowards currently sitting on it, continue to dance to Westminster’s tune and continue to let Westminster tie Scotland’s hands behind its back with the ever changing “Scotland Act”, Holyrood does not and will never act as Scotland’s parliament.

        Holyrood is at present acting as Westminster’s vision of what Scotland’s parliament should look like: an echo chamber with no power and no risk to the union.

        The ridiculousness of all the situation surrounding the Fabiani’s farce is a testament to this. Unbelievably in a so called democracy, a parliament, allegedly the law-making body, was gagged and threatened with prosecution by the collusion of UK civil servants with the COPFS! If that is not an example of killing democracy stone dead, what is. This would have never happened should it be a real parliament responding ONLY to the people of Scotland and not to the toxic interests of the English establishment.

        Now, should at some point those cowards sitting in Holyrood suddenly grow or find themselves a second-hand backbone somewhere, learn again how to abandon the supine position, say “enough is enough” in voice loud enough that can be heard beyond a 5 cm radius, and demand from Westminster to stick this act it butchered in its rush to steal our assets, right where the sun does not shine, things may actually begin to change. But until then, Holyrood is just, at all practical effects, Westminster’s mini me.

        Liked by 7 people

  9. “We are looking forward to the referendum promised by the First Minister of Scotland on the 19th October next year.”

    It seems to me that there’s a wee bit of menace behind that statement, i.e. time to deliver or else!

    Liked by 7 people

    1. reply to Xaracen
      Unfortunately, though we elect our MSPs, it is by a system designed to give automatic places to people from parties controlled from outside Scotland, and the Civil Servants take an oath to the Queen and are loyal to their Whitehall masters.

      Liked by 5 people

  10. Now that the referendum genie is out of the bottle, the SNP leadership may find it very difficult to put it back when the time comes and they all start focussing on re-election (as every politician does). It’s up to us to ensure that it becomes impossible to re-bottle independence as a re-election tool this time. As a number of commentators have already said – start campaigning now, regardless of personal misgivings about the real motive. Work towards the goal as if it is genuine and the momentum will become unstoppable. Ensure that there is no more room to maneuver and weasel out of another promise. This time we can force it. It will be hard work but we can do this.

    Liked by 10 people

  11. I’d set two tests of Sturgeon’s integrity when it comes to truly fighting and winning a plebiscite election.
    * Who stands in East Lothian and Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath? If Sturgeon runs SNP candidates against the ALBA incumbents, the game’s a bogie.
    * Will all candidates stand on an unequivocal abstentionist platform? If not, it’s just another exercise in carrot dangling.

    Liked by 13 people

  12. Picking up on the comments about press and media bias, an issue that will continue to be used as a weapon against the independence movement, I note from the Yahoo News today that a BBC radio programme was pulled from the catch up site to edit out comments made by Dianne Abbot about Boris Johnson’s rumoured attitude to women.

    With the BBC saying that 5he catch up will be back online as soon as the programme has been edited the MSM has concomitantly dinged the news.

    Exactly the same type of governmental bias that stopped the Times early print run after it ran the story about Carrie giving Johnson a blow job at work. Again the media stepped in a blocked the story being carried.

    And they said Pravda in its day was biased.

    Liked by 11 people

  13. Alex Salmond stated in 2014 that he would respect the result of the referendum. He lied. He doesn’t. I’m quite happy with the Brexit result as I voted Leave.
    What about the TWO MILLION who voted ‘No’? There is no accommodation for them in his statement.


    1. Yes there is, they get a vote just like the rest of us… very accomodating.

      Brexit fundamentally breaches the terms of the Treaty of Union, you seem to have double standards when it comes to the 62% majority Scottish vote to remain (ie, just ignore that in favour of your personal preference) and the 55% vote for NO which you appear to be using as a magic wand to get everything you want now, no more democratic elections necessary.

      PS, where’s my Devo Max… you promised.

      Liked by 14 people

    2. Re Pamela Wilson – 62% voted to remain in the EU, in anyone’s book thats q bigger mqjority than voted No in 201 ! The No side based their argument on saying a no vote would be secure if they voted to stsy in the UK. They lied. As they did with the vow breaking the purdah rules. That’s a material change in circumstances. And people are entitled therefore to change their minds. That’s democracy! Denyng them that right is locking them in a prison. . We have elections every 4 to 5 years to give people that right as we have referendums also. The No side are democracy deniers Pamela Wilson may be happy to remain in a rotten food bank Britain with food and fuel bills soaring to unprecedented levels denying us our right to democratic choices. but whether she likes it or not the SNP hsve been given mandates a plenty as the majoeity party since 2014 for them to end this rotten union . It’s just a pity they wont deliver otherwise this rotten unjust so called union would be confined to the dustbin.

      Liked by 9 people

  14. Alex needs to get a grip of some of his members and supporters, who are still saying the opposite and bad-mouthing the SNP and Niciloa. We all know who they are.


    1. The way to “control” this is for Nicola Sturgeon to state clearly that any Independence campaign will involve all parties that support Independence and that votes for any of them as long as they are standing in favour of Independence, using a common agreed formula, will be counted as full Yes votes. Anything less and she is betraying Scotland and I, for one, will not be quiet about any such betrayal. I want Scotland to win. Clear enough for you?

      Liked by 15 people

      1. Clear enough for me, but it does not work that way in elections. Give them no chance to quibble about a good result.


      2. They will always quibble even if there is nothing to quibble about. We should not be surrendering anything to them in advance. It is about time we did a bit of quibbling.

        Liked by 6 people

    2. Unity of purpose would dictate that Nicola Sturgeon should appear united with Alex Salmond. That would imply a rapprochement which thus far she seems incapable of. The longer she delays making some kind of gesture or statement, the more febrile the Unionist media will become.

      Liked by 5 people

    3. How about NS ” having a word ” with the buffoon who loudly , self-righteously proclaimed he had contacted a venue in Glasgow where ALBA had intended to hold a meeting . And was * successful * in the venue cancelling the meeting

      That he is a Green Party councillor is neither here nor there . Sturgeon as * de facto * * leader * of the Independence Movement and having – supposedly – just initiated an Independence campaign , which anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows must have a unified front to have any chance of success , is seemingly content to let this kind of idiocy pass without comment tells you all you need to know about the sincerity and commitment of her and her minions to actually achieving Independence .

      I’m going to assume Alex Salmond knows it’s all a farce and is simply giving NSNP sufficient rope to hang themselves with when the inevitable happens . ie nothing

      Liked by 7 people

    4. “Alex needs to get a grip of some of his members and supporters, who are still saying the opposite and bad-mouthing the SNP and Niciloa”

      How about Nicola Sturgeon getting a grip on herself, her apparatchiks, government quangos and the accusers disrespecting the ruling of a jury in a court of law and bad-mouthing Mr Salmond and Alba?

      Sending a draft to an English court after you have been in power for 8 years and after you had your own cabinet member succeeding in trashing Mr Keatings’ case on the basis of being hypothetical, does not inspire much in terms of trust, does not give you confidence that she knows what she is doing or that she actually seeks independence instead of attempting to block it.

      Setting up a referendum-level threshold for a yes vote to succeed in what is at all practical effects a UK general election where she cannot offer any of the advantages and guarantees a referendum would offer, because Scotland has absolutely no control over the franchise, no control over the voting rules, no control over the amount of people from down south or the Commonwealth that can vote here and no control over the level of interference the British state and its political arms are going to exercise on our campaign or the amount of money raised elsewhere in the UK they are going to throw at it, does not inspire any trust or confidence at all on what she is doing. It seems she is setting a disproportionately high threshold and totally unbalanced against a yes vote from the very start. The mandate to deliver independence should be what was traditional policy in the SNP and what was widely accepted as a mandate for independence, even by Thatcher, until she removed the wheels from the SNP: Scotland sending a majority of pro-indy MPs to Westminster. The UK is a parliamentary democracy after all, and what led Scotland into this union was not the popular vote, but a majority of votes for the union cast among Scotland’s members of parliament.

      So, what is she playing at?

      Liked by 9 people

      1. She not only cannot control who votes but she cannot control what votes are counted.
        Expect dirty trick whatever way we vote, referendum or GE, some votes may be ignored or ‘lost’ while others may be added, particularly of they are postal votes. We need to have independent monitors of the whole system.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. ” So, what is she playing at? ” . Russian Roulette with our Freedom Mia . BTW most entertaining seeing you demolish Mr Civic on WOS 🙂

        Liked by 5 people

    1. It is essential for Salvo and the entire YES movement to put the Claim of Right front and center and remove the unionist SNP from that position. Sturgeon has been forced to fire a starting gun she hoped never to fire – now the reins need to be taken from her.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. Which Claim of Right are you / is everyone talking about?
        The 1989 one contains all the language you want about sovereignty and self-determination, but is only an informal political statement and not a law.

        The 1689 one is a proper law but, as far as I can see, merely asserts the right of the then parliament to remove the then monarch. That probably sets a precedent, but I can find no specific words relating to popular sovereignty.

        What is going on?


      2. Join Salvo and find out. The Claim of Right validates the Treaty of Union and contains conditions that protects the absolute sovereignty of the Scottish people. It cannot be struck down without voiding the Union.

        Liked by 9 people

  15. Ever considered that “should Scotland be independent” is the wrong question – and asked yourself the crucial uestion – why isn’t it independent?

    Start with this extract from the [Pre-Introduction] Draft Bill – then ask a question:

    “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for ascertaining the views of the people of Scotland on whether Scotland should be an independent country.”

    Question – is there an alternative for ascertaining YOUR view on whether Scotland should be an independent country?

    An alternative – which is available NOW!

    An alternative – which requires no S30 request.

    An alternative – which requires no Supreme Court assessment nor adjudication.

    An alternative – which does not ask for an anonymous (X) in a box, never to be seen again.

    An alternative- which asks you to exercise YOUR Claim of Right as a Sovereign Scot with YOUR personal signature.

    An alternative – where YOU nor Scotland have nothing to lose – but potentially everything to gain for the independence of YOUR country.

    Across Scotland, for well over a year now at every rally that alternative is being supported by increasing numbers of Sovereign Scots.

    Their individual VIEWS on whether Scotland should be an independent country are already known and recorded.

    Recorded for the world via documents lodged at the UN, and with copies retained for all future generations to know.

    The Declaration of an individual Sovereign Scot – has ONE purpose – to regain the independence of Scotland.

    Rather than ask “should Scotland be independent” – ask yourself why it isn’t independent!

    What is the ONLY reason it isn’t?

    If, like me, you decide it was the Treaty of Union, then you will understand why the Declaration initiative opening words are:

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

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

    Liked by 8 people

  16. Jings, where to start in response to many of the comments here concerning rules, laws, procedures.

    Westminster’s attitude to such matters is quite simply how to game the situation to Westminster’s benefit.

    2014 Indyref? – purdah broken – the “Vow – remember the 3 fire alarms at a polling station – the angry ladies in Argyll concerning transporting of voting boxes? Meanwhile in the Westminster jungle – prolong’g the UK parliament, Rwanda, Brexit “oven ready”,Irish protocol negotiated and signed by the UK, now questioned, by the UK

    Face it, we have to recognise, challenge, and deal with cheats and liars. Procedures, laws, protocols are “only words” all subject to “re-interpretation” by Westminster to obstruct Scotland’s quest for independence.

    The connection charges imposed on Scotland by the National – private company? – Grid are ludicrous. UK Oil and gas revenues, and taxes, anyone have a clear explanation?

    Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the compliance of fools.

    Fool or wise? Your choice.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. I have said many times before – it is NOT in the interest of the present “ Pretendie Scottish Government “ to get independence- that would mean taking real decisions about real things with no one to blame –

    Liked by 6 people

  18. The call is for unity and that call is a sound one. But let us be crystal clear Sturgeon is absolutely not a unity player.

    Her actions over the last eight years has been to destroy unity, to destroy people like Alex Salmond, or the AOUB, or the Yes movement. In fact at the last election she focussed the campaign to encourage voters to deliver both votes to the SNP as opposed to SNP 1 and Alba 2 thereby denying the people of Scotland an independence super majority in Hollyrood. Instead we got a shortfall SNP Government with sixty two seats whereas it could have been around 90 seats had folks lent their votes to the SNP and Alba.

    So yes, unity is important, critical, essential but let us be under no illusion Sturgeon is no team player. Rather she is a vicious nasty wrecker. Indeed, with a referendum called she could have held out a hand of friendship to unite the movement but steadfastly hasn’t done so.

    But as many have said before independence is bigger than Nicola Sturgeon, bigger than the SNP. And so whilst we should be ever mindful of Sturgeon’s form, we should all nevertheless all cooperate whilst keeping a good eye on Sturgeon and the clique. She as I have said is not the independence movement.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: