An excellent article from one of my favourite contributors Breeks. I have not the slightest doubt he is entirely right about this. We must ask why not one of the SNP elected MP’s or MSP’s argued this case. Not one!
The essence of the Northern Irish Backstop was very simple.
The Good Friday Agreement was an Internationally recognised peace treaty which explicitly stated there would be no Border infrastructure returned to Northern Ireland as a condition of the Treaty. Brexit however, removed Northern Ireland from the EU, turning the Irish / Northern Irish border into the frontier of the European Union, which required hard border infrastructure which was a specific violation of the Good Friday Agreement.
Thus the Irish Backstop was a big problem for Westminster, because they had the option of a Brexit which expressly violated the Good Friday Agreement, inviting sanctions and pariah status for the UK precisely when the UK needed new Free Trade Agreements. The alternative, the only alternative was to devise a solution of establishing a border where no border was allowed to exist.
This line in the sand was treated with typical disdain by the British Government, but they discovered to their cost that both the EU and the US were resolute in their determination to defend the Good Friday Agreement, and thus, the Irish had their backstop.
The “solution” was the Northern Irish protocol, which removed the necessity of a border in Northern Ireland by creating bespoke status for Northern Ireland which to all intents and purposes kept Northern Ireland in the EU, and shunted the EU’s hard border nominally into the Irish Sea, which greatly disturbed the UK Government because it brokered the high possibility of a United Ireland, and also violated Article VI of the Treaty of Union which required, “ same Allowances, Encouragements, and Draw-backs, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and liable to the same Customs and Duties, and Import and Export”.
So, to summarise, the Irish “won” with their backstop, there is no Border in Ireland, and the UK Government had to devise a workaround which essentially meant No Brexit for Northern Ireland.
Ireland flatly refused to entertain a UK Brexit which violated an International Treaty, and the International Community backed them to the hilt.
So why didn’t Scotland follow Ireland’s lead, and refuse to entertain a Brexit which violated the Treaty of Union, and further still, violated the Claim of Right and Constitutional sovereignty of Scotland? Why didn’t Scotland rise up to defend it’s sovereign interests and the violation of it’s own International agreements? The reason is simple. Nicola Sturgeon capitulated, and subjected Scotland to the humiliation of standing outside in the corridor, keeking through the keyhole, while Brexit negotiations were ongoing.
All Sturgeon had to do was point out that Scotland’s Brexit defied the will of Scotland’s sovereign people, and thus defied the Claim of Right, and then Scotland would have had it’s own Scottish Backstop, and the Westminster Government would have been required to devise a Brexit which didn’t violate the Claim of Right or the Treaty of Union. Scotland’s sovereign choice to remain in Europe would have been respected.
However the Scottish Backstop would have been even stronger, because had it halted Scotland’s Brexit by respecting the Claim of Right, the EU’s hard border would have to be running from Gretna to Berwick, and thus Scotland’s non-Brexit would have violated Article VI of the Treaty of Union.
The reality is, a Scottish backstop would have been a sovereign veto over Brexit happening at all, and the Westminster Government humiliated by having to capitulate to the sovereign will of a Scottish Nation and abandon Brexit, which would have fundamentally changed the hegemony of the Westminster Parliament, and it becomes very difficult to see how the Treaty of Union could have survived after Bonnie wee Scotland subjugated the will of English and took away their Brexit.
How fortunate for Westminster and disastrous for us, that Scotland had a constitutionally illiterate thunderdunce like Nicola Sturgeon “defending” Scotland’s interests, who couldn’t even think of Scottish Backstop when the Irish were drawing diagrams and showing them to her.
In 2016, Independence lay in the palm of our hands. It really, really, did.
A small answer to wullie too… Far from confused or negative, I believe Leah Gunn Barrett has a crystal clear grasp of the situation which would put many an Independence supporter to shame. I would listen again Wullie, and maybe listen to Iain who’s on the Scottish Nation Congress Steering Group.
It’s a funny thing, (not pointing any fingers at you Wullie), but Scotland, for a place so open an welcoming to people from all over the world holds a special disdain for Scottish diaspora who return here with a foreign twang in their accent. Most famously there was Sheena Easton virtually booed off stage in Glasgow. But I saw similar ridicule for a College tutor who’d spent five years in Canada. God forbid, if I spent any time abroad, I’d have to walk around with a bucket on my head just in case I picked up a wee twang myself and could never again risk opening ma gob in Scotland.
The whole world knows Sturgeon is a Scot the moment she pronounces the word “wurruld”, but I cannot think of a person I would trust less on just about anything. Is there not something schizo about a nation which can mourn the Clearances and the loss of our kin, being so sniffy about our diaspora and their descendants having a foreign accent? Maybe it’s a colonisation thing we will all need therapy for.
But it isn’t just Scotland. I spent a couple of years in London, (don’t worry, head was in a bucket the whole time), and I spent some time in digs with an Irish fella who confessed it broke his heart to watch his kids growing up with cockney accents. I had few words of comfort because it was indeed a terrible thing to hear and you couldn’t pretend otherwise. “Well at least it’s not Birmingham” was the best I could do.
MY COMMENTS
Breeks politics is very similar to mine ( I hope) as he is always ready to quote humour and real life examples to amplify his articles. My word of hope is this, the Claim of Right provided the ideal tool to defend Scotland during Brexit. The fault that it was never used lies entirely with the Scottish Government of the time BUT the Claim of Right is going nowhere and there are now growing organisations intent in forcing it front and centre in the Independence battle. Our challenge is to create the opportunity to use it at the best possible time in the future. Events dear boy, events is our future focus. We must be ready. We must have a plan AND we must ensure we have quality and determined politicians at the front. So extensive change is a must.
I am, as always
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND
Beat the Censors
Regretfully there are some among us who seek to censor what others read. Sadly within the YES movement there are sites which claim to be pro Indy but exist to only promote one Party and will not publish articles which come from bloggers who don’t slavishly support that Party to the exclusion of the rest of the YES movement. I ask readers who support free speech to share articles from Yours for Scotland as often as possible as this defeats the effectiveness of the censors.
Subscriptions
Free subscriptions are available on the Home and Blog pages of this site. This allows,for an email of each article to your Inbox and that is now how several thousands get my articles each day. This avoids problems that some have experienced gaining access from Twitter and Facebook. You will be very welcome to choose whatever route works best for you.
Salvo
The work and important development of Salvo has been a beacon of hope in 2022 and as it develops Salvo is creating campaigning hubs throughout Scotland. Salvo will join with Liberation.Scot and as the campaigning arm of Liberation we are looking at very effective campaigns kicking off very early this year and introducing some new campaigning methods as well as those that have worked well in the past. This requires money so all donations to this site, once the running costs are covered, will go to support the work of Salvo/ Liberation. I think you will see it well used and effective.
Liberation.Scot
We are seeking to build Liberation.Scot to at least 100,000 signatures just as quickly as we can. This is part of our plan to win recognition as an official Liberation Movement via the United Nations. We intend to internationalise our battle to win Independence and through the setting up of our Scottish National Congress will prepare and develop our arguments to win progress in the International Courts. Please help by signing up at Liberation.Scot. It is from those who sign up to Liberation.Scot that the membership of the SNC will be created by ballot.
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND 
In 2018 Scotgov submitted a bill called the Continuity Bill to get the Queens signature. This Bill would had it succeeded kept Scotland in the U.K. and the EU. It did not succeed because Westminster took it to the Supreme Court. The SC then sat on it to allow Westminster to amend other legislation to stop the Continuity Bill. The SC stated the Bill was competent.
So Breeks they did try. What they did not do was use this action by Westminster to state it was an attack on the Claim or Right. Incidentally in 2018 WM reaffirmed the Claim of Right once again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t agree Andy. The Continuity Bill didn’t try to challenge Brexit on constitutional grounds, it largely acquiesced to Brexit happening and merely lobbied the UK Government to have the powers returning from the EU to be returned to Scotland as devolved matters, not returned to Westminster as reserved matters. There wasn’t any attempt made to dispute or contest Scotland’s Brexit, but instead, the Continuity Bill was a mealy mouthed diversion seeking to ameliorate the damage of Brexit and make accommodations with Scotland’s subjugation.
The Constitutional defence of Scotland’s rights and integrity as a Nation requires Scotland’s “government”, (however that government is formed; whether elected, a transitional administration, or even a temporary Convention of the Estates), to step outside, and step outside completely, the shadow of Westminster’s “white” sovereignty, and bask in the direct sunshine of Scotland’s “red” sovereignty. Westminster gets NO say in what our Convention of the Estates says and does, because Westminster is a foreign government.
The very instant you adopt process, ANY process or protocol that is written codified by Westminster, you are stepping back into the shadows of Westminster’s realm, and back under the roof of UK “domestic” law, where the 1998 Scotland Act and UK Supreme Court hold sway and can be used against you. The Claim of Right however has it’s feet planted in Scots Law and International Law, and addresses Scottish matters of State outside the jurisdiction of domestic UK Law, and beyond the reach of Westminster’s Supreme Court, and Westminster’s Scotland Act.
As for Westminster “reaffirming” the Claim of Right… This is complicated to grasp, (intentionally so), because it’s the Treaty of Union sophistry at work… the very basis of the Union’s existence, which goes back to the irreconcilable paradox that is implicit in the Treaty.
Ask yourself this. By literal interpretation, what does Westminster actually mean by reaffirming the Claim of Right? Westminster, forever boasting it’s Parliamentary Sovereignty, reaffirms the Claim of Right, which is a reaffirmation of Scotland’s Popular Sovereignty. It’s an absurd contradiction, which we are asked to believe that Westminster is perennially blind to.
Westminster knows the rules, Westminster affirms the rules exist, then Westminster ignores the rules and does whatever it likes… rinse and repeat for 316 years.
Do you see the deception of it? If Westminster ever stopped affirming the Claim of Right, the spell would be broken, the “unwritten convention” would need to be written, and the Union would collapse.
Westminster doesn’t control Scotland by subjugating Scotland’s sovereignty and crushing the Claim of Right. It’s more subtle than that. Westminster controls Scotland through being in total and absolute command of parliamentary and governmental protocols; in other words, the mechanisms which would allow Scotland’s Sovereign people the tools and opportunities to come together, talk amongst ourselves, and act as one body that is empowered to implement the Claim of Right and weaponise Scotland’s sovereignty.
If you will, Scotland owns the car outright, our documents are all in order.
Scotland owns the engine. It’s sound as a bell, and we own that outright too.
But via the Treaty of Union, Westminster has commandeered the gear box; Westminster has assumed total control of the bit which connects owner and engine together and facilitates the movement.
Westminster never has subjugated Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution. But what it has subjugated, and subjugated completely are the traditional protocols of Scottish government, and installed it’s own invasive protocols in their place.
The one niggle I have with SALVO’s plans and our Liberation Movement is that we are seeking an audience with the UN through channels which are restricted to Nations or codified Liberation Movements. We are currently forming ranks as a Liberation Movement, but is that correct? Shouldn’t we perhaps be self ID’ing as a Nation?
Scottish Independence is not about Constitutional status, but the invasive unconstitutional protocols which have commandeered Scotland’s process of government, but ONLY the process.
Sara Salyers says a very interesting thing about the Treaty of Union being an Political and Economic Union, but conspicuous by it’s absence, it has never been described as a Territorial Union. I feel inclined to add in another controversial assertion, that yes, we may have a Political and Economic Union, but not a Territorial Union, … but nor actually do we have a “constitutional” Union.
Look for evidence of Territorial Union and there’s nothing to see.
Look for evidence of Constitutional Union and there are only presumptions, intractable contradictions and irreconcilable paradoxes. What physically qualifies the Treaty of Union as a Constitutional Union?
LikeLiked by 7 people
I agree Breeks with your reply to me. I only wanted to highlight that had WM been fair and not shown any self interest then the Continuity bill would have worked. However we know what did happen. You are correctly just saying our government are wimps.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Brexit can still be used as a prime example of the breaches of the CoR and the ToU.
The sad thing now is we will have to wait a lot longer, and our people suffer, than was necessary. Sturgeon, her MPs and party instead of choosing the ‘Scottish Backstop’ as the ground on which to fight for Independence opted instead to campaign to change and deny the democratically elected will of the people of England (and Wales).
Since then they’ve requested a surrogate ‘army’ in the shape of the Lord Advocate, Scotland to fight for our right to self-determine on a foreign field (the UK Supreme Court) with a predictable outcome. Now its Charter 35 intervention and the GRRB. You don’t have to be Nostrodamus to forecast the future on that one either.
It’s on Nicola’s SNP – they must own this disaster.
LikeLiked by 7 people
It might be an idea for everyone to summarise this in their own words and write and ask their MP and MSP. Of course maybe they considered it wouldn’t have an additional detrimental effect on the trans community so it wasn’t worth putting off time on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You hit the nail on the head when you spoke of the Diaspora.
How have the Irish managed to keep the solid link over Centuries. America has a Congress and Senate with a powerful Irish voice.
However it is not just America. The Italians in Scotland retain strong connections to their homeland as do the Asian communities to theirs.
After Centuries Gaelic speakers still use their language in Nova Scotia and the “shuffle dance” lost to Scotland had to be brought back.
The Irish achieved it, the Indian, Hindi and Pakistani communities retain it. The Italians and Gaelic speakers delivered it.
So why did so many Scots lose that link?
The Gaelic example is perhaps the key as to why links became broken. A unique language was part of their culture and protected then from the “Cringe” requiring the loss of “Scots”.
Was it that Scots were good immigrants that gave loyalty to their new land like the famous Piper at the Alamo?
Was it a failure of Scotland to to be a unique beacon to remind them of their roots?
Census data from around the World on “Irish Roots”
United States: 34.7 million reported Irish ancestry, according to the 2000 US Census statistic.
6 million reported Scotch-Irish ancestry.
Canada: 3.48 million in the 2006 census (13% of the population).
Australia: 1.8 million reported Irish ancestry (2006 census) (9.1% of the population)
Argentina: About 350,000-500,000 Irish descendants are reported.
Take America take SIX times as many people arrive there from Ireland than Scotland?
Does the Scottish Government think attending a parade in the States once a year is building links to our diaspora.
Returning to the Breeks article…would Scotland have had the same support from America as Ireland had?
Do we have powerful support abroad? Sinn Fein raised over £1,000.000 in the States last year….how much did the SNP raise there ( How much did they raise in England from Scots never mind America).
Why not start by telling OUR diaspora that they will be able to have a Scottish Passport as the Irish do.
Why not fund Gaelic Culture in Nova Scotia instead of the TransCult madness. (half a million at least)
Only a few scribbles triggered by another thought provoking article by Breeks.
LikeLiked by 5 people
‘Why did so many Scots lose that link?’
‘Was it a failure of Scotland to be a unique beacon ….?’
Perhaps we need less of our National Bard’s – ‘Brothers be the world o’er’ and more of the Wee Malkies’ ‘Chap yir door an’ choke yir drains’. (Stephen Mulrine)
Urban revolt has always had a more immediate traction than international egalitarianism.
LikeLike
There follows a sequence of quotes from the seminal bilingual book ‘SEANCHAIDH NA COILLE/ MEMORY-KEEPER OF THE FOREST: ANTHOLOGY OF SCOTTISH GAELIC LITERATURE OF CANADA’, Edited by Michael Newton, Cape Breton University Press, Sydney, Nova Scotia, 2015 —
“[R]ecent research has revealed that Scottish Gaelic was the third-most spoken European language at the time of (Canadian) Confederation.”
“[…] Unlike immigrant groups from beyond the British Isles, Scottish Gaels (like the Irish and Welsh) had a long-standing history of conflict with the anglophone world and had been represented as the ‘primitive Other’ in the venerated canon of anglophone literature and historiography. The dominance of Anglocentric perspectives in Canada as well as in the national institutions of their own homeland presented an extra dimension of difficulty for Gaels to maintain their language and culture.”
“[…] The common pattern in North America when immigrants enter into highly interconnected, urban settings is that the ancestral language is lost within three generations. This does not explain why or how the shift from Gaelic to English happened in the more substantial and cohesive rural settlements, such as in the Maritimes, however. Dòmhnall MacGill-Eain Sinclair, writing in 1950, described deliberate attempts to eradicate Gaelic in Nova Scotia through coercion: ‘… in Scotland it has suffered greatly by restrictive laws. In the Highlands, children whose mother tongue it was, were forbidden to speak it in school, and if caught speaking it, were punished. This strange idea came over to Nova Scotia. Dr. Chisholm of Bridgeville, Pictou County, told me that in his early days children who spoke Gaelic were accompanied home from school by others who were to report to the teacher if they heard Gaelic spoken. If caught they were punished, just as in Scotland. Thus in about one generation Gaelic was killed in Pictou County.’”
“[…] These animosities were carried forward into Canada just as much as any common sense of ‘Scottishness’, especially when Highland immigrants did not conform to the ethnolinguistic norms and expectations of anglophones. In a survey of Gaelic traditions in Prince Edward Island conducted in 1987, for example, John Shaw remarked, ‘A small portion of Prince Edward Island Scots had come from the Scottish Lowlands and according to reports they demonstrated naked hostility to Gaelic—more so than any other ethnic group.”’
Read my full review of the book here:
CANADIAN GAELDOM: FADED FOOTPRINT REDEFINED
by Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh
https://gobha-uisge.blogspot.com/2017/02/canadian-gaeldom-faded-footprint.html
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Clootie. who asked, “would Scotland have had the same support from America as Ireland had?”
The answer is…Absolutely NOT, Scotland houses their nuclear weapons, hence why OBAMA & Clinton were against Scotland Independence and voiced their opinions..Scotland will always have to fight England & the USA for our Independence, Bcos of bloody TRIDENT..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Iain , who are the growing organisations pushing Claim of Right front and centre ? I need to know in case I may have inadvertently joined one and thereby put my membership of Alba in jeopardy .
LikeLike
Brian I know only of Salvo and the SSRG group. I am a recent convert to become an Alba voter, not a member. I was wondering if Alba’s recent action to check Scots and International law may be them thinking about using the CoR. Fingers crossed.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That is tongue in cheek I think..and hope!
LikeLike
That’s where I keep my tongue , it’s default position is firmly in my cheek
LikeLiked by 2 people
None of the organisations promoting other ways to achieve independence, Salvo, Liberation.scot and SSRG, are political parties, so no danger to your Alba membership.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you again, Breeks – you’ve NAILED IT! We know what needs to be done – LETS GET IT DONE!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NuSNP HQ (and by extension the Scottish Executive) are devoid of strategists. They’re populated by managers, of the Scotmid assistant branch manager calibre. This is not accident this is design.
When Craig Murray proposed an end to Short money my initial reaction was; “Why shouldn’t the opposition get State funds to assist formulating research and policy? It’s only fair.”
On reflection, Craig was absolutely correct. For the current financial year the SNP receives £1,178,000 of Short money from the British state. It’s small army of researchers generate the square root of hee-haw.
If the determination is there, valuable research and policy work will come to fruition. Salvo and SSRG prove this point.
In the absence of will, all the State funds in the world will generate naught.
Short money is the bait for the trap.
“Murrell enterprises” snatched the bait in full consciousness of the consequences.
LikeLiked by 7 people
“We must have a plan AND we must ensure we have quality and determined politicians at the front.” We’ve got the plan, but the ‘determined politicians at the front’ have yet to materialise. Which, to a large extent, explains why the independence movement has been going round in circles for the past few years. Political progress without political leadership is impossible. I, for one, see Scotland’s plight as a consequence of historical colonisation and, therefore, I’m bound to argue for a new party populated by men and women who are willing to fight for decolonisation; something that clearly parallels the notion of ‘determined politicians at the front.’
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
Great piece by Breeks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right now, Breeks is the Erling Haaland of the Independence movement – he scores every time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
William I think I have allowed you enough space to spread your negativity. As you support Brexit and have previously announced your view that Westminster is sovereign I think you would be better argued elsewhere especially as you seem to prefer ridicule to solid argument. I am afraid I have blocked you from this site. Something I very rarely do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another powerful article. Bravo!
The sight of Sturgeon scurrying around trying to reverse the leave vote of our English neighbours was infuriating. She revealed then that she was an anti-democrat, and bizarrely, more concerned with England’s leave than Scotland’s remain. She also set a hugely dangerous precedent had Scotland voted #Yes in any of her promised (falsely as it turned out) indyrefs.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I was utterly “gobsmacked” at Sturgeon’s behaviour over Brexit.
AFAI recall, the Scottish Govt produced a paper, telling the UK what to do about Brexit.
The Westminster PM at the time (May?) didn’t even bother reading it!
I fully agree with Breeks – a golden opportunity for at least creating havoc with Westminster’s Brexit was missed
But now . . .
We are where we are
The Independence Movement is floundering
FM Sturgeon’s main policy (the GRR) is being shown up for the incoherent mess it is; her other policies (apart from the baby box) look like failures
The SNP, supposedly the political vehicle for Independence, is haemorrhaging members, supporters and funding
Alba and the ISP appear weak and are denied media exposure
What next, Scotland?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How fortunate for Westminster and disastrous for us, that Scotland had a constitutionally illiterate thunderdunce like Nicola Sturgeon “defending” Scotland’s interests”
Excellent and a very eye opening article, however Sturgeon is no dunce, she in my opinion knew exactly what he was doing when she betrayed the people of Scotland, and she continues to do so.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I often agree with Breeks in his articles and comments but not on this one.
On 01 Jan 1973, the UK entered the EEC/Common Market as a Member State by a decision of the UK Parliament, although no political parties had campaigned on that policy in the then recent 1970 General Election. This decision was confirmed in 1975 by the “Wilson Referendum”. I remember campaigning for a “Leave Common” message with the SNP, as it wasn’t in Scotland’s interests for the UK to stay in the EEC. There was no talk then of Scotland staying separately in the EEC. We wanted OUT.
Moving forward to the Brexit Referendum in 2016, when the whole political establishment in Scotland – with a few exceptions – was in favour of remaining in the re-named EU. All political parties active in the Scottish Parliament campaigned, in terms of the question, for the UK to REMAIN in the EU. It was a straightforward binary question. No suggestion of Scotland remaining in the EU, with the rest of the UK leaving. After all, it was the UK that was the member state of the EU, and not the constituent parts of the UK.
I was surprised at the UK result, with 52% of lectors voting to LEAVE the EU. I was even more surprised at the result in Scotland with 62% voting to remain but a significant 38% opting to LEAVE! Where did they – almost 2 out of 5 Scots electors – come from, as no political party active in Scotland supported leaving? (Later research revealed that around 35% of actual SNP voters decided to leave the EU. ) It was, in my opinion, a mini-revolt of the masses against the political elite. Where has that opinion gone?
Much is made of the 62% in Scotland who voted in 2016 in favour of remaining in the UK. I would humbly point out that that was the percentage in favour of the UK REMAINING in the EU and NOT Scotland on its own, without the rest of the UK, England in particular, leaving. By far our biggest link economically, socially, trade-wise and geographically is with England and not with any other European country. Had a referendum been based on Scotland remaining SOLELY in the EU, I suspect the results would have been substantially different – but we shall never know.
On reflection, we would NEVER have achieved Independence while the UK remained in the EU. Member fragmentation is not popular – only “Ever Closer Union”! Outside, we have a chance and I commend this strategy. After all, the EU has nor covered itself with glory, given its record on CV-19, migration across the Mediterranean and supporting Ukraine in Putin’s imperial war against an independent nation.
Please let’s not fight the Brexit campaign all over again. We’re out. The world is a bigger place – beyond the UK but let’s get rid of the Sturgeon/Murrell cult first.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Much is made of the 62% in Scotland who voted in 2016 in favour of remaining in the UK.”
Editor.
“There were 2,679,513 votes cast (not including rejected ballots) in Scotland. There were 1,661,191 for Remain, exactly 62% of the votes cast.
This was compared with a 51.9% vote in favour of Leave across the UK.
There were just over a million votes for Leave in Scotland (1,018,332), almost 650,000 votes behind Remain.
Every Scottish local authority area voted in favour of Remain.”
As for the Welsh voting to leave, it looks like they didn’t.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research
LikeLiked by 4 people
The Supreme leader has clearly negotiated a deal with our colonial masters . Now you understand the persecution of Patriots. No campaigning, no serious attempt to challenge our colonial masters rule. No step forward to independence but several steps backwards, the ocastrated mismanagement of Scotland. Say the right things then do the opposite. Yes the colonial administration is all about sound bite and theatre. The imposter must go along with her sham party.
LikeLiked by 2 people
CORRECTION TO MY POST AT 6pm!!
Dear Republicofscotland and others,
It should have been:
“Much is made of the 62% in Scotland who voted in 2016 in favour of remaining in the EU.”
Great APOLOGIES to Iain and other readers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Editor.
No need for apologies we all suffer from typos now and then, keep the comments coming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Every part of the UK got what it voted for in 2016 – except Scotland. A customs border at Gretna would have been rejected by the UK government, initially at least, but to not even push for it once it was clear we were getting hard Brexit shows a lack of clear tactical thinking on behalf of the Scottish government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve been suggesting moving the NIP border east and down a bit ever since the issue became a reality. This could even have been ‘sold’ as bolstering the union whilst protecting the GFA.
Meanwhile, now indy marches appear to have fallen out of fashion, in a spirit of ‘mohammed must go to the mountain’, I’ve got my “Self-Identified Sovereign Scot, Westminster Rule is Not Required” placard for every upcoming anti-section 35 rally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A thoroughly good summary by Breeks which one again reinforces how Sturgeon and the SNP through away the opportunity to both reject Brexit and further Scotland’s right to independence.
And again, isn’t something how the international big guns got right behind the Protocol for NI which effectively keeps NI in Europe.
Scotland however just got dragged out of Europe. Sold short by an SNP, who despite their democratic mandates utterly aligned with the Westminster Establishment.
Yes, a very good reflection Breeks of where we are.
.
LikeLiked by 1 person