Speaking to the Foreign Press Association at the Royal Overseas Club in London this morning (Wednesday)

Former First Minister and ALBA Party Leader the Rt Hon Alex Salmond warned the contenders for the Tory leadership that outgoing Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “veto over Scottish Democracy will not stand”. 

Meanwhile ALBA Westminster Group Leader Neale Hanvey MP announced that he will be writing to the remaining Tory leadership candidates informing them of  Scotland’s Claim of Right and challenging them to respect the mandate for a Scottish Independence referendum, given by the Scottish people to their elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament and urging them, if elected, to agree to a Section 30 Order which would allow a legal and consented referendum to take place.

Speaking at the Foreign Press Association Alex Salmond will state:

“Whoever is elected Tory Leader and becomes Prime Minister must be made to realise that the will of the Scottish people and their elected Parliament cannot be denied indefinitely.  That is why ALBA is advocating a coordinated campaign of popular demonstration, parliamentary intervention and diplomatic initiative to break Westminster’s stranglehold over Scottish Democracy and to force a change of position by the incoming Tory Prime Minister.”

Continuing Neale Hanvey MP will state:

Scottish Democracy is not the plaything of Tory leadership candidates, as they attempt to out-bid each other in terms of who can be the most muscular and ardent Unionist.The Conservative Party have not won an electoral mandate in Scotland since 1955, so if Tory MPs are allowed to change their minds over who is Prime Minister and if the Tory Party is allowed to choose a new leader then so too must the people of Scotland be allowed to choose their own future in an Independence Referendum.

“That is why I am writing to each of the remaining Tory Leadership candidates today reminding them of Scotland’s Claim of Right, that it is for the people of Scotland and the people of Scotland alone, to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs.  I am challenging them to respect the mandate for a Scottish Independence referendum given by the Scottish people and urging them, if elected, to agree to a Section 30 Order which would allow a legal and consented referendum to take place.”

Concluding ALBA Party Chair Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh will state:

“If Scottish Democracy is to mean anything there must be a Scottish Independence Referendum on 19 October 2023 as the First Minister has promised, no ifs, no buts.  The refusal by outgoing Prime Minister Boris Johnson to respect Scotland’s mandate for that referendum to take place and his outright dismissal of the request for a Section 30 Order is a defining moment in Scottish politics on which the constitutional future of Scotland itself will be determined.”


I am delighted to see Alba putting the Claim of Right front and centre of our demands that Scotland’s will must be respected. The other week Westminster sought to remove all reference to the Claim of Right from Hansard but it is a document that now uncovered must never ever be buried again. This is another step forward. I got an update from Salvo today that also suggests the First Minister seems to have identified its power as well. A good day!

I am, as always



Unfortunately some pro Indy sites operate censorship if a blogger dares to criticise the SNP, no matter how justified that criticism might be. This transforms them from being pro Indy sites to being only propaganda sites for one Party. By this very act they damage Independence by limiting freedom of speech. Never a very wise action. Sensible people enjoy debate and like to decide for themselves and not have this determined for them by others. This site promotes Independence and does not censor except in exceptional circumstances where abuse or known falsehoods are submitted. Please share articles from this site to overcome all attempts to close down free speech in Scotland.


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.


Now that Salvo has been launched it needs everybody to join and get behind this important, vital even, development. I have never encouraged readers to donate to Yours for Scotland indeed I operate a limit that even when people are overcome and demand the ability to donate I operate a strict limit of £3 per donation. I said that any excess to the costs of running this site would go to worthy Yes events. I have made some donations in the past but yesterday I gave a three figure sum to Salvo. I want to do more so while I am keeping, at this stage, the maximum donation to £3 I am now encouraging readers of Yours for Scotland to donate regularly with the assurance that every penny raised, over the running costs of this site, will be donated to Salvo. Salvo is a people’s movement and it needs us, the people of Scotland, to give them the funds they need. Thank you.


  1. It beggars belief, that the current “leadership” of the SNP, sees fit to recognise the authority of an English Court ! This is yet another direct breech of the Articles of Union, and should be given no credence by the SNP.

    Liked by 19 people

  2. Our movement has recently acquired a case of great depth, breadth and erudition, with the argumentation to match. Now if that isn’t something to wholeheartedly get ourselves behind, I’ve got to ask what will be? Meanwhile, the Unionist case based, as it was in 2014, on visceral, kailyard sentimentality, has matured in no discernable way in the intervening years..

    Liked by 17 people

  3. I am somewhat disappointed that the focus is on a referendum to be honest. However, that said I appreciate that for the no voters in Scotland we need to evidence that is the will of most of the people in Scotland that Scotland’s independence is returned. But it cannot be a referendum as was held in 2014, lessons must have been learned. If we can all see that then surely Alex Salmond can too, so I am assuming he is playing a smart game and all will become clear.

    Liked by 14 people

  4. Scarily, according to Martin Lewis the money expert, a 65% rise in energy costs on top of the rise we have already had is inevitable in September. Yet I don’t hear any of the Tory leadership contenders mention that. Probably because they haven’t a clue what to do about it.

    If the catastrophe heading our way doesn’t waken the Scottish people up nothing will.
    Thank God ALBA are taking action to regain our independence. The main problem is getting the message across to the Scottish public. Unionist politicians and the media have been working very hard to keep the people in the dark.

    Thousands of people are going to freeze and starve this coming winter, but the main priority seems to be to keep Scotland in the union.

    Liked by 11 people

    1. WHY do we need an S30?
      WHY do we need a referendum?
      We have a majority of, albeit mainly useless, pro indy MPs in Westminster, a majority of pro indy MSPs.
      Westminster continues to ignore Scotland’s Claim of Right, continues to break the terms of the Treaty of Union.
      How many more mandates need to be given to them before they actually have the guts to declare Scotland an independent country?
      The pathetic apologies for MPs continue to beg and grovel while lapping the WM gravy trough, the MSPs are so scared of the narcissistic bully that is Sturgeon. Until the people wake up to fact that Sturgeon has NO INTENTION of claiming independence we will continue to be ground under the WM boot.
      I am utterly disgusted by all of them.

      Liked by 16 people

      1. If we don’t get independence soon, all our energy resources will go south of the border and more and more people will come to live here because of climate changes. We need to move urgently to prevent this!

        Liked by 3 people

      2. We just want to ask ourselves a serious question, but because the Westminster establishment is so afraid of one potential answer to it, an answer it cannot legitimately deny or reasonably argue against, it has pulled out all the stops to prevent us from having the means to ask it in the first place. That it has to break international law regarding the UN Charter’s Right to Self Determination, and break a cast-iron Treaty obligation that requires the Scottish constitution to be respected and upheld, and to deny the simple democratic legitimacy of a clear mandate for the question to be asked, tells you just how dependent the Westminster establishment is on Scotland remaining under their sole control.

        We are sovereign! We need not justify to anyone why we want to ask that question, nor justify ourselves to anyone if we choose the answer Westminster is afraid of. It seems to me that if Westminster is so desparately afraid of that answer, then that question really really needs to be asked, and it is really Westminster who should be made to justify its stance, not us!

        Liked by 4 people

  5. Oh well. That’s them telt. They will be shaking in their boots.. A referendum you say, Alex Salmond has said that the ref will be run on the same lines as 2014. He said he will have none of that nativist stuff.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Sorry to put a dampener on others’ enthusiasm, but I agree with Lulu Bells. I’m afraid we should be careful what we wish for as, pushing for this referendum, while we are being set up to fail, is just going to give the unionists credibility in saying the population doesn’t want independence and we’ll not get to try for again for a long time, during which our natural assets will continue to be stolen and sold off leaving us all impoverished even further.

    My hopes are pinned on the Claim of Right and Salvo, but can we get enough momentum and publicity about these in time? I truly hope so.

    Liked by 17 people

    1. Whatever route we go down we cannot permit Sturgeon a comfortable no conflict path with her claiming to be the voice in Scotland.

      Every day from now until whichever path(s) develop it must be drive, drive, drive. Every action such as that in the article brings into sharp focus her inaction and lack of commitment.

      Liked by 10 people

  7. Scotland is waking up to the very simple reality that it is not for a Westminster Prime Minister and English MPs to say that the people of Scotland have no right to decide on their future.

    Telling a people, a nation that they have no rights to speak either now or in the future is absolute feudalism. No voice, no election, no choice only the diktat of a foreign power. It’s straight out of the worst of history and its what people have died fighting against.

    And the naked hatred to Scotland from English MPs is now on view for all to see. The fiction of a functioning democracy, a union of equals exposed exposed as my England and Scotland my colony..

    The starting gun for Scotland to reclaim it’s independence, has now been fired. And the English know it, and they will fight as viciously as they always do to retain a colony, subjugate a country. But they cannot and will not win.

    Scotland’s right to choose can not, can never, be taken away from us, and I for one, after an eight year hiatus am once again becoming enthused about what our future will hold. Our movement is moving forward and the English colonists know it and fear it. With our shoulder to the wheel they will not stop us.

    Liked by 14 people

  8. This is what I want to hear, battle talk not whatever the UK wants. We at no point should be allowing a foreign country never mind a party we just don’t vote for to say if and when the Scots should leave this union, it just isn’t on.
    The New SNP have settled down not up at Westminster, hence they are haemorrhaging support back home.

    Liked by 14 people

  9. On an different matter I don’t think anyone watching the news today will not be aghast at the absolutely horrendous London fires.

    The sight of an entire village with dozens of houses on fire really bring home the reality of climate change. It also however reinforces for our English cousins the absolute disregard that their government has for safety and security.

    Indeed, as their country literally burns, their Tory government who is at war arming and training against Russia, who is at economic war with Russia, is now in a state of stasis as the Tory Party rips its guts out in a battle to secure the next leader. And of the Prime Minister still in post, well he dings Cobra meetings, convenes social parties at checkers for supporters and goes on wholly unnecessary and gas guzzling jollies on an RAF fighter jet.

    There used to be matches on sale called England’s Glory and in the current circumstances they grimly describe the London chaos.

    And all the while with the economic and physical war in Ukraine, the elite corporates make soaring profits pumping oil and producing armaments, whilst living standards bomb. Money for the few, misery for the many. It’s the English Tory way.

    But hey, that is what they chose. England’s Glory alright!

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Willie.
      I heard a speech the other night made by JFK shortly before he was killed. In it he spoke of peace and equality for all, not just Americans. He said he wanted a truly peaceful world without conflict.

      A short time later he was assassinated.

      Liked by 11 people

  10. ….meanwhile the beloved Nicola will have a rainbow session of selfies to guarantee the backing of the 0.05% of the population seeking the GRA.

    The remaining SNP members waiting for her cunning plan to appear reminds me of those deluded fools in Germany towards the end of WW11 convinced themselves that any moment now the promised secret weapons would be used.
    Amazing how Cult Leadership stops critical thinking.

    Liked by 12 people

  11. I am with Lulu Bells and the others who agree with her. I would like to see more reference to the Claim of Right suffixed with 1689 which would show Scotand previously existed before the Union. Reference to the Treaty and Act of Union of 1707 and how the Claim of Right was embedded therein might enlighten a few in the SNP hierarchy.

    Part of the problem is the ignorance that the Treaty of Union created the United Kingdom and did not involve Wales or Ireland – purely a matter betweeen Scotland and England. I would also like to see considerably more reference by our independence politicians using words which cleary demonstrate Scotland was previously independent e.g ancient nation, return to independence and so on. I do not think I have ever heard Nicloa Sturgeon using such words, one could be forgiven for thinking she does not know Scotland’s history – it’s all about fairness and equality for her but that is not a reason for independence – that is for good government wherever you are.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Absolutely agree Alin Scott that we need to reinforce Scotland’s existence prior to the Act of Union and how Scots have rights that cannot be extinguished as the English Prime Minister and his English MPs dictate.

      These are rights that should not be be hidden no matter how hard the English colonists try to hide them. England is not our masters, any more than they are the masters of India or half of the African sub continent. Scotland is free to choose and chart its own course and it is so important that every Scot understands that.

      Liked by 12 people

  12. I’m also in the club that’s more than a little suspicious about a referendum, however, to play devil’s advocate, and worse than that, to contemplate the possibility of a second NO vote being returned by that referendum, in ALL circumstances, the Claim of Right is vital.

    A “NO” vote can, and must, be respected as the declared will of the sovereign Scottish people, and the Claim of Right is the right to choose our own Government remains OUR prerogative.

    If the Scottish people choose Union or Independence, the choice is our sovereign prerogative.
    If the Scottish people choose to make every vote a plebiscite on Indy, it is our prerogative.
    If the Scottish people choose to stay in the Union by annual subscription, it is our prerogative.

    All that baloney about once in a generation, and forfeiture of any Constitutional status is precisely that, baloney.

    With a YES result, a NO result, or an absolute tie, Scotland remains a sovereign Nation choosing to end the Union, or choosing to keep it going. That is OUR prerogative. That is the Claim of Right in action, and if there’s no Claim of Right, then there is no Union.

    So yes, I hope with every fibre Scotland does vote YES, but our worst case scenario is no “worser” case scenario than a rerun of 2014. They CANNOT remove the Claim of Right from us. No Claim of Right, no Union, and any Scot undermining that state of affairs is committing Treason by explicit and literal definition of the word Treason. You might have got away with it in the past, but more power to her elbow, Sara Salyers is “on it” now, and SALVO is going to hunt you down.

    OK, so to stop playing Devil’s advocate now, I believe we can be moderately reassured we cannot lose anything by referendum. Nothing is irreversible.

    But! Setting aside the result of any referendum, even without a referendum, it is my firm conviction that the 1707 Treaty of Union is a complete fraud as it stands. What the Union and United Kingdom purports to be, is by itself incompatible with the Claim of Right. The ramifications of that reality are huge and existential, but even in a brief, immediate sense, at the very minimum, Scotland should have the power of sovereign veto on ALL UK legislation.

    The Claim of Right surely requires it.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. I agree and the points to emphasise (in summary), in my opinion, are:

      1. The Scottish people can assess and reassess their constitutional arrangements however, whenever and as frequently as they wish without interference from a foreign power. That is our right.

      2. The (Scottish) Claim of Right (sovereign people) contradicts the (English) Bill of Rights (sovereign parliament) hence why the ‘British constitution’ is not written down or codified. In effect it doesn’t and cannot exist.

      Liked by 9 people

  13. We (mostly) tacitly accepted the terms of the 2014 referendum. Does it have to be the case that the terms of any future referendum/plebiscite will be decided by those outwith our sovereignty? And should any referendum decided thus not be declared merely advisory?

    The sovereign people of Scotland were not asked who should be allowed to vote. Do we have a classic ‘chicken and egg’?

    A lot of questions – please excuse my naivety.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. As expected, it is left to Mr Salmond and his two Alba MPs to sort out the absurd mess Nicola Sturgeon has thrown us into for the last 7 years.

    Johnson, May before him, and presumably whoever will be parachuted to PM by England’s tory members, only have a “veto” on Scotland’s democracy because Nicola Sturgeon and the three SNP MP majorities, have allowed those tories to keep exercising that veto.

    These are the words of Lord Foulkes of Cumnock during the House of Lords debate about Scotland’s independence on 24 June 2014. They recognise the importance of a majority of MPs:

    “why did winning the Holyrood election, getting 44% of the vote, give the mandate to Alex Salmond to have the agreement with Cameron that there was going to be a referendum? We, the Labour Party, controlled the majority of Westminster seats in Scotland. It did not get 50% of the vote; he assumed that there was a mandate and Cameron accepted that. We all accepted it”

    “We all accepted it”. He said. The labour party had at the time the majority of Scotland’s MPs, therefore they could have vetoed that decision. Why didn’t they? In my view, it might have been because to really exercise the power of veto they would have to threaten to recall the Scottish MPs from Westminster, which is a de facto suspension of the treaty. Labour is a staunch unionist party and would have never taken such a dangerous route, that is why, in my view, they had no choice other than accept the referendum. You can see on this how a very smart Mr Salmond might have got them exactly where he wanted them.

    But if this is true, what it means is that Sturgeon could have rendered May’s or Johnson’s veto’s worthless if only she had shown the teeth of those 3 SNP majorities.

    This line of thought appears corroborated by this quote from Lord Maxton also in the House of Lords debate on 24 June 2014:

    “I also believe that, if Scotland votes no, a very long time must pass before we have another referendum on this issue. A 60:40 result is good enough. It should be enough to say, “No, no more, we are not going to have any more referendums on this issue. There is only one way that could occur, and it will not be from a vote in the Scottish Parliament. It could occur only if the SNP gained a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Then there might be a case for saying, “We will hold another referendum” ”

    This is an interesting quote. Lord Maxton is clearly stating that there is only one circumstance under which they thought they could not stop Scotland having a referendum: if the SNP (or anti-union MPs) won a majority of the seats. My guess is they could not stop it because those MPs could potentially suspend the treaty and reconvene the old Scotland Parliament.

    Excellent, so if less than a year after that debate we got a majority of SNP MPs, why haven’t we have our referendum?

    Lord Maxton made that comment when Mr Salmond was in control of the SNP. At that time, a vote for the SNP was very much a vote for independence. But what happened the minute Sturgeon took control of the SNP? She removed the dentures of the party and have been trying ever since to decouple independence from voting for the SNP.

    These are the words of Mr Mundell in the House of Commons in reply to Patricia Gibson on 27 January 2020,a bit over a month after General election 2019:

    “I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but in my constituency and other constituencies in the week of the general election, SNP candidates told voters that the election was nothing to do with independence, but that they were to vote SNP if they were against Brexit or if they were against Boris”

    These are the words of Mr Dave Doogan (SNP) on that same debate on 27 January 2020:

    ” Yes indeed, we did write to non-SNP supporting members of the Angus electorate, and I am sure we did that elsewhere in Scotland. It was to invite them, notwithstanding their views on the constitution, to take a view on a more progressive way forward for the country of Scotland, and that is exactly the view that they took and I am pleased that we did that.”

    Stating that a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence is a deliberate way to undermine both, your mandate for independence and how you can use the SNP majorities, as Douglas Ross in the same debate is quick to point out:

    “I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman confirming in the House of Commons, so that it will be on the official record, that the SNP garnered votes at this most recent election on the pretence that it was nothing about independence—it was not supporting independence—but less than a month later we are here discussing constitutional issues, because it is all the SNP can bring forward”

    Painful as it is for me to admit this, I think Ross was not far from the truth here, but for the opposite reason to what he had in mind. He clearly was trying to portray the scenario where the SNP’s mandate for independence/indyref is invalidated by the fact they were inviting union supporters to vote for them.In other words, for Ross, non independence supporters voting for the SNP is the proof they do not have a mandate. However, for somebody like me, who wants independence and not necessarily indyref, the problem with Sturgeon’s SNP is not how many non-independence supporters were endorsing them because of their good governance. That is totally irrelevant, as long as they stood on a clear stance for independence. I mean, when did the tories invalidated their own mandate if labour supporters voted for them?

    The big problem for me here is that the SNP only talks about constitutional issues AFTER the election has passed and AFTER they ensured the constitutional matter and independence WERE NOT included in the manifesto so they could not be used, leaving the begging for the referendum as the only path. That union supporters voted for them is in fact blurring the real issue here, which is that the SNP is only acting as a pro independence party AFTER the election has passed and ONCE the tools to act as an independence party have been swiftly removed by Sturgeon.

    The following exchange is from the debate that took place in the HoC on the 17 March 2021, just a few weeks before Holyrood election 2021:

    T Perkins (Lab)
    “The question I ask SNP Members is, how should someone vote this May if they want independence but think we should have a referendum in a few years’ time, rather than now?… and What about someone who thinks that the SNP is doing a good job and wants to carry on electing an SNP Government to run the Scottish Parliament but does not want independence? How should they vote?”

    R. Thomson (SNP)
    “The answer in both cases is surely to vote SNP, because the decision about independence is a separate one—for a separate referendum. It is to decouple the issues. That is why we support a referendum”

    T. Perkins (Lab)
    “I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point; it is a really important one. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) was saying earlier, “If they vote SNP, they know what they are voting for: they’re voting for an independence referendum”, but the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is saying, “No, if they want an SNP Government, they should vote for us and the referendum is a question on another day.” The mandate that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East was claiming at the start is not actually a legitimate one because it will actually lead to exactly what has just been said. I am grateful for that clarification”

    I mean, if this is not undermining your own mandate and handing the opposition an open goal, what is? And, by the way, giving Mr Thomson’s answer, those who voted SNP in 2021, what did they actually voted for? Anybody actually knows? And what mandate, if any, has Sturgeon actually got with this approach? This is madness.

    What of course none of the representatives from colonial parties at the debate asked and indeed none of the SNP MPs present during the debate advanced at all is how someone like me should have voted in GE 2015, Holyrood 2016, GE 2017, GE2019, Holyrood 2021 and how they should vote in the next GE if they really want independence, they want it now and they do not want a referendum because after 7 wasted years, they clearly see the devolution route Sturgeon’s referendum take us through is clearly a folly and an excuse for it never to taking place?

    Sturgeon has been doing since 2015 this silly dance of actively removing the power from the SNP MP majorities before the elections and then transferring her responsibility for not delivering onto the tories while having the toothless (politically speaking) SNP MPs whining about the claim of right and Scotland’s right to choose against England MPs. She has done this at every single election ever since. You only do that when you have not intention whatsoever to deliver independence, but still pretend that you do. You do that when what you want is to disable your best weapon to ensure it cannot be used, and when you want to hand ammunition directly to our opponents. This is what we have had for 7 years. It is getting rather boring now.

    That debate in June 2021 was a third party opposition day, therefore brought up in the HoC by the SNP. The title of the debate was “Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future”

    Predictably, at the end of the debate the resolution was:

    “That this House believes the priority of the Scottish people is to recover from the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, and that it would be irresponsible to hold a referendum at this time”

    369 MPs voted in favour and 55 against.

    The most puzzling thing of the whole debate is that some SNP MPs mentioned the claim of right and the right of the people of Scotland to choose their future. Yet, by the mere fact of bringing this debate to the HoC opening the door for over 500 England MPs to stick their nose in what is at all effects a matter for Scotland, and to give them an opportunity to bring all their grievances as to why Scotland, in their view, cannot/should not choose its future at this moment in time, they were actually negating that claim of right. They were inviting external MPs, not endorsed by a single vote from Scotland, to actually make a decision on Scotland’s future. In other words, they were giving them a veto by sharing our sovereignty in choosing our future with over 500 England MPs. Why Scotland’s constitutional future ever be discussed in that chamber is beyond me. Has England’s sovereignty ever been discussed in the House of Commons in this way?

    Mr Wishart had an animated and eloquent speech on that debate. But in his speech he mentioned this “I always wonder what exactly the Scottish people think when they watch these debates and some of the curious views of Conservative Members—I am sure they find it all very amusing and bewildering. One of the reasons we bring these debates to the House is to allow the Scottish people a glimpse of the Westminster Tories’ thinking on our nation”

    I don’t know how representative my views are in Scotland, but what I think when I watch these debates is what on earth is the SNP playing at? I do not find it amusing or bewildering. I find it insulting. I am not referring to the comments of labour or tories. I have stopped listening to any of them a long time ago. After denying repeatedly the legitimate right of the Scottish people to elect their future, I do no longer waste my time in listening to them. I tend to skip their boring lethanies of platitudes. My grievance is with the SNP. What right do they have to question our sovereignty, constitutional rights and right to choose by inviting over 500 England MPs to stick their nose in what is a matter for Scotland. If you really respect the Claim of Right and you really believe Scotland has every right to exercise its sovereignty and choose its own path, then you put at their disposal the means to do so. You do not open the door for that right to be questioned by bringing the matter to a foreign chamber inviting ten times more foreign MPs than you have. That is not upholding or respecting the Claim of Right. That is handing them an invitation to breach it.

    Mr Wishart says that one of the reasons to bring these debates to the HoC is for the people of Scotland to see the Tories’ thinking. The problem with this approach is that we also see Sturgeon’s SNP thinking, and that is the odd one out. We all know the colonial views of tories, labour and libdems. Those have not changed in the last 7 years. What is troubling is watching and hearing in those debates how after 7 years in that chamber, the SNP keeps repeating the same platitudes, the same soundbites, and worse, despite having every majority it could possibly had need to deliver independence, even by Thatcher’s standards, they are progressively more and more entrenched in devolution and more determined on their (and our) subordination to England Mps and England’s government in such an unhealthy way that they are clearly no longer the party of independence, but rather the part of the permanent fight for the survival of meaningful devolution.

    I must admit I am saddened to see Mr Salmond also playing Sturgeon’s game of dangling devolution as the only route to exit the union. I am very annoyed that this bogus referendum approach has, for 7 years, distracted us from the elephant in the room:

    Nicola Sturgeon has done absolutely nothing to use 3 absolute majorities of anti-union MPs to terminate the Union. All what she has done is to distract us away from the real power of those majorities by keeping our focus on devolution and a path to independence that deliberately makes us subordinated to the UK gov and England mPs.

    I am glad to see that I am not the only one who has found Sturgeon’s strategy odd. This exchange took place between Alan Brown (SNP) and Toby Perkins (Lab) on the 17th March 2021, just a few weeks before the 2021 election:

    A. Brown (SNP):
    “If the hon. Member properly analyses the polls, he will see that they show that the majority of people do want a referendum in the next few years, so that is wrong. He rightly acknowledged that it is for the Scottish people to decide, so when does he think the Scottish people should be allowed to make that decision, as it were?”

    T. Perkins (Labour):
    “It is a matter for the UK Government. It would be one thing for the SNP to go into a general election campaign saying, “A vote for us is about independence,” but it is not the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, so it is very odd for the SNP to ask people to re-elect it on that basis”

    Mr Perkins brought up something I have been wondering since 2015: if you have in front of you a direct route to independence which is GE where a majority of MPs can terminate the union, why are you wasting your energy and mandates, and our time insisting on using a separate devolution route that is full of obstacles and that relies on Westminster consent?

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: