GOING PUBLIC AND WHY? SARA SALYERS RESIGNS FROM ALBA.

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:, , ,

Going Public and Why

Sara Salyers

Social media can be an extraordinarily powerful and empowering tool. It can also be utterly toxic, fostering rumour, division and hostilities and spreading them, like the spores of a fungus, far and wide. I write after yet another round of the unedifying spectacle of ‘twitter-hissing’, exchanges proving that, in the minds of a number of pro-independence individuals, Salvo is as much the enemy as another political party – or the Union itself! I will write separately about the causes and remedy for this position which is ill judged, damaging to Scottish self-determination and utterly wasteful of the opportunity for a united and co-operative movement of different ‘flanks’. 

First, however, I want to forestall any suggestion that this latest round of hostilities, or indeed any previous ‘spats’, had anything to do with my resignation from the Alba Party. It did not and so that there is no question about that, I am publishing my resignation letter. (Very minor edits have removed only personal or sensitive information.)

Dear ——-

Aside from the disastrous adoption of the English principle that elected representatives become the custodians of the sovereignty of the People, to which I will return shortly, I wholeheartedly endorse and support every one of Alba’s policies. They are clear sighted, principled and urgently needed and I shall continue to support them and to publicise them. I cannot continue as a party member, however, for two reasons.

Firstly, I am the Director of an organisation, Salvo, which is in non-party affiliated and which now has many SNP members as well as Alba, ISP and non-party affiliated. While our members are welcome to belong to any party at all, it is unsustainable for me to be anything but party neutral.

Secondly, the sovereignty issue presents a fundamental barrier to my continued membership.

Scottish popular sovereignty derives from the Scottish Crown which, as an institution, comprehends the whole nation, any monarch only representing it. No Scottish Parliament could ever have taken ‘custody’ of that sovereignty from the monarch, as the English Parliament did in 1689, because no monarch ever held it to transfer! And, as it turns out, the Crown, ‘the sovereign’, of Scotland has remained in place to this day. The legal power to remove or alter the institution of the Crown – and the locus of absolute political and legal authority – therefore, remains with the People.

This means no Parliament ever could assume sovereignty, final authority, lawfully. (Though, of course, our Scottish representatives and government could always act without the knowledge or consent of the People in the way the Anglo British state has done for 317 years …) It is why popular sovereignty cannot be handed to the ‘custody’ of elected representatives, who give it back only at the ballot box! Instead, it is the power to govern that is given into the custody of elected representatives, a power devolved from the Crown, the whole people. And no elected Scottish representative should ever pretend to the custody of the Crown itself, the nation, rather than custody of the power and trust granted by that Sovereign.

And, because sovereignty remains with the people at all times, in principle that devolved power may be withdrawn, not by an election permitting a new flavour of political party to replace the old, but by an act of sanction and dismissal by a representative, non-parliamentary body. On what grounds? On a whim? No! Clear limits for what a government may and may not do, on pain of the forfeiture of power, are already established in the Claim of Right and only require some thorough updating to provide a ’contract’ for the conditional devolution of power from the Sovereign People to the elected representatives and government. Something that would see the end of the Westminster kleptocracy in Scotland tomorrow were it already in place, as it should be.

On the other hand, were sovereignty transferrable to elected representatives/Parliament, whether from a monarch, as in England, or, as the Alba wording would have it, the people of Scotland, as soon as it is transferred to ‘the custody’ of those elected, what you get is Parliamentary sovereignty. Given what this has enabled historically and is enabling today both in Westminster and Holyrood, that’s something we should all be absolutely determined to avoid.

Popular sovereignty in Scotland must be real and not a pretence. It must mean practical mechanisms for expressing the authority of the people over their elected governments and representatives at all times and not the sham of our present, representative ‘democracy’. It means a Scottish and not a duplicate English political system dressed up in flowery language like ‘custodians of the sovereignty’.

I have written at length here about the reality of popular sovereignty, versus lip service to the principle, because the opportunity has slipped past to explain to the Alba NEC why the wording of the policy motion of September ‘22, and the position it reflects, is wrong. It is a direct contradiction, in fact, of the constitutional provisions of the Claim of Right – which Alba says it supports. (You cannot, by the way, support the 1989 Claim of Right without endorsing what that is based on. The clue is in the name.) This letter is likely to be my only opportunity to set the record straight.

Even more problematic is that Salvo, Liberation and now the Stirling Directive are challenging as unlawful the position that Scottish popular sovereignty is transferrable. This makes it impossible to remain a member of a party whose position I will be campaigning to prove unlawful both in the ICJ and the ECHR.

I will continue to support Alba’s exceptional vision and policies where I can and will continue to hope it becomes obvious to those designing Alba policy that there will be no real change for Scotland without an indigenous, Scottish political establishment and real popular sovereignty.

Yours for Scotland

Sara Salyers

MY COMMENT

This is the right thing to do. We are intent on Salvo/ Liberation remaining strictly non party political. We have already discovered that we can access many more organisations and bodies in Scotland through being non Party aligned than we could if we were tied to any political party. This is already proving very helpful with some of our plans and future developments. Of course Salvo/ Liberation supporters are free to be members of any Party or none and our membership already includes people in all those categories. The leadership however is a different matter as they have to engage and discuss issues with many organisations and any perceived links or bias, real or imagined, could prove problematic

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some websites seek to censor what their readers have access to read. This is particularly true of sites whose existence is primarily to support the views of one particular party and they seek to block articles which do not slavishly support that particular doctrine. My readers have worked out that the best way to defeat that attack on the freedom of speech and thought is to share my articles widely, thus defeating any attempt at censorship. My thanks for this.

SALVO AND LIBERATION

Are playing a crucial role in taking Independence forward. This site limits donations to Yours for Scotland to a maximum of £3. We do not need more as all we seek to do is to cover the costs incurred in running the blog therefore once this is secured each year all further donations are forwarded to Salvo and Liberation. My thanks for all who choose to support us in this way. It is appreciated.

SALVO MERCHANDISE

https://www.ebay.co.uk/str/salvoscot

69 thoughts on “GOING PUBLIC AND WHY? SARA SALYERS RESIGNS FROM ALBA.”

  2. Iain, could you please amend the title of this piece to say “…resigns from Alba”? My heart dropped when I saw the heading, fearing Sara had resigned from Salvo!

    Liked by 19 people

    1. Made you look though 😃

      I have been at a few meetings and never even knew Sara was an Alba member, so she was able to do both, but I understand her reasons and I think it will close down a lot of the rhetoric.

      Liked by 14 people

      1. I’d be looking anyway! Let us hope that the resignation has the effect of stopping some of the criticism, as you suggest.

        Liked by 12 people

      2. I’ve got this! It makes absolute sense. Salvo is so important to all of us understanding our history, and how we progress towards independence, that it should be non political. I, for one, am delighted that Sarah has risen above politics. You have my full support Sarah.

        Liked by 14 people

    4. Sarah you echo my thoughts 100% I was devastated when I read the email intro, as just like you I thought it related to SALVO , my relief was palpable when I read the full post , I thought just when we had GENUINE people willing to put their head above the parapet to educate and inform Scots to the TRUTH it was all coming crashing down again , I fully support Sara resigning her membership of ALBA, I am desperate for independence but have never been a member of ANY political party as I cannot stand my opinions being stifled by party dogma , and quite honestly it has resulted in the STATE of the independence movement currently, we have WASTED 9 long years by party god worshiping of corrupt politicos and their own AGENDAS
      I have written numerous comments that I totally disagree with AS comments that a convention should be restricted to the hoi poloi and chosen ones, I believe that sovereignty is OWNED by the people and ANY convention should be the preserve of a cross section of INDIGENOUS Scots , and his insistence that the failed 2014 franchise must be used in any forthcoming referendum is IMO doomed to fail
      I admire Alex Salmond and I am extremely grateful that he returned to the fight for independence but he is only one person and has only one vote , I do not do hero worship and the current situation should illustrate the stupidity and consequences for Scotland and Scots in allowing politicians to speak for us all

      Liked by 24 people

      2. i joined ALBA early on as it seemed like a fresh approach to the Independence debate but I have increasingly become frustrated at the failure to push for a more aggressive approach to Westminster. While the ALBA MPs show an example to the SNP members there, by challenging its policies, I would like to see them point out that under the Sovereignty of the People of Scotland, we have the right to vote to leave the Union as soon as we have the numbers, No permission from any other body required and we can appeal to the UCJ or UN if we are ignored.
        Incidentally, i am also unimpressed with Wings pouring cold water over the Stirling Directive idea as we all need some hope in these dark times and it is up to us to campaign on this basis and get peo[ple behind the intiative.
        It would be a relatively small change of direction for ALBA to support it, so i will bide my time and stay with them for now, though i appreciate Sara’s position being so prominent in Salvo.

        Liked by 9 people

      3. Has Wings poured cold water? I have noticed the absence of an article on Wings in support of Liberation.scot and the Stirling Directive but I haven’t seen anything explicitly against.

        Liked by 8 people

      4. I haven’t seen Wings do anything about the Stirling Directive on his webpage. He might have done on his twitter. He blocked me for asking a reasonable question about his relationship with Alba. He seems remarkably cagy on that subject. I tried on the web as well where he denied it. There’s the Wee Alba book as well. Making that party political was a mistake.

        Liked by 1 person

    6. I concur, almost had reach for the defibulator paddles.
      Best worded letter of resignation I’ve read. Sara is going to be an even greater asset to Salvo going forward.

      Liked by 9 people

    7. I thought the same Sarah! “Sarah renounces political affiliation as incompatible with sovereignty” would make it clear she’s not given up on Salvo. Many folk dont read beyond a headline, not necessarily because they cant be ersed, but because there is screeds out there demanding our attention.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Taking an impartial stance with regards to political membership will only enhance and make the Salvo message more appealing to many more people. Alba members should remain onside with this and support both orginisations.

    Liked by 18 people

  4. Thank you for this Sara.
    My understanding is that Westminster last upheld the Claim of Right in 2018. I remember Ian Blackford mouthing off about it. Often people refer to an earlier date.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. You are correct. I went looking for that very debate just the other day. Here are the Hansard details:
      Volume 644, Wednesday 4th July, 2018. the debate began at 5.46pm.

      Liked by 10 people

      2. Indeed. However, those MPs probably did not understand that the Treaty falls if the CoR is not upheld. They are, essentially, one thing. They probably thought that few Scots actually know about the CoR and the Treaty, but, thanks to Sara and Salvo and the other constitutional groups, we all know – or should – that, a) they are interlinked; and, b) that they are both still extant. Pompous neeps like George Foulkes have not done their homework, but they are running just a bit scared, as David Cameron was in the run-up to 2014, and no bad thing at all. Let’s scare them a lot more, more often.

        Liked by 14 people

      3. I watched that debate and of course the #ClaimOfRight was upheld but it was just a debate, which committed the UK government to nothing. Also there have been updates to the #ClaimOfRight and I’m not sure it was the 1689 version that was upheld.

        Liked by 3 people

  5. Politicians putting themselves above the people? That is our lifetimes experience.

    Alec Salmond said himself that he took some power away from the SNP members and gave it to the parliamentary SNP group. He did that without considering the peoples rights. He wanted to make the SNP policy more co-ordinated around what the elite group felt would be effective in obtaining political power. He then immediately went on to say that he didn’t factor in a person of Ill will taking over from him and abusing that power, taking all to themselves.

    I watched the debate at conference last year and was pissed off with the vote on the claim of right/sovereignty. I was angry at one of the speakers in particular who was intolerant of the entire idea. it is clear that their is a minority of those involved with Independence supporting parties who put the people’s rights first (and none at all in the English parties operating in Scotland). Why is that? is it simply a case that the types character who get involved in party politics tend to want a wee bit more say than everyone else? We need a political party that puts the return of genuine, authentic Scottish sovereignty as its fundamental goal. That doesn’t mean, as Sarah correctly states English style parliamentary sovereignty dressed up as something else so Scots politicians rather than English ones can rule the roost.

    Alec Salmond of all people should know better.

    Liked by 13 people

    1. I don’t think Sara was attacking Alex or anyone else just making clear the Alba position on popular sovereignty varies greatly from Salvo’s objective. She hopes that will change.

      Liked by 17 people

    2. Alec Salmond has matured politically even since 2014, GM, and now holds views he would not have embraced easily then. He still needs to go a wee bit further, though and I rather think he knows that, too.

      Liked by 13 people

  6. Pingback: Ramblings of a now 60+ Female

  9. “YOURS FOR SCOTLAND – (New post) GOING PUBLIC AND WHY? SARA SALYERS RESIGNS.” I wonder how many reading that in their inboxes thought “WHAAAAT!”

    However, as always from Sara, a perfectly considered and logical decision because the issue of our Popular Sovereignty is so fundamental to the international route to the restoration of our self-determination that any perceived contradictions would no doubt be exploited by those who oppose Scotland and its people taking their rightful place in the world as an independent State within the UN family of nations.

    Liked by 12 people

  10. At long last. Someone with integrity, principles and a moral compass. Doing the right thing form then right reasons. The principle. Of the Scottish people being sovereign and all that it means is extr. E

    Sent from Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg ________________________________

    Liked by 7 people

  11. Sara Salyer’s decision to resign from Alba is perfectly at-one with the guiding philosophy and principles of Sal-Lib, and should trouble no one. I can’t help but think, though, that Alba ought to be paying an awful lot more attention to what she is saying!

    Liked by 17 people

    1. AlBA might acquire a lot more voters/supporters if it were to embrace the principle of popular Scottish Sovreignty so that its Independence policy differs sharply from the nuSNP and the original SNP

      Liked by 12 people

      2. I have noticed independence supporting politicians mentioning the #ClaimOfRight and sovereignty more than they did a year ago. Some politicians know which side their bread is buttered on.

        Liked by 6 people

      3. I have to agree with you Ben and I must admit I am rather aggrieved that independence parties have NOT done more to vociferously and publicly utilise SALVO’s work in promoting the COR and the TOU , both agreements that have been breached considerably and repeatedly by WM and their unionist establishment , the FACT that it has taken Sara and the others from SALVO and Liberation.Scot to publicly and vociferously expose the continued abuse of our sovereignty shows ALL independence seeking politicians to be extremely short sighted or uneducated

        If the people of Scotland had been properly educated and informed about the power within the COR and the TOU and what it actually means to be a sovereign Scot I totally believe we would be independent NOW, it is through the betrayal of unionist politicians and plastic Scotsmen over centuries and decades that the true meaning of the COR and Scots sovereignty has been hidden and undermined , and we have Sara and the others within SALVO and Liberation.Scot working tirelessly to overcome centuries of lies and misinformation that our POLITICIANS deliberately HID from us

        Liked by 6 people

  12. Sovereignty lies with the people however how we extricate ourselves legally with minimum disruption to our population requires our undivided focus until the next GE.

    We have but 15 months to be independent otherwise the road to that goal will be infinite and unending. As some of our leaders say” we have to take the folk with us” but offer nothing dynamic to hasten the “ with us”.

    As hard as it may be the only way to deliver independence in this timescale is for the SNP conference to decide that a majority of votes in favour of dissolution means dissolution the day after the GE. To get that resolution accepted requires all who are serious about achieving our dream is to join the SNP now and use their votes to carry that resolution in October. if it fails they can resign but if it passes then the SNP leadership will be required to throw everything including the kitchen sink at it.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. “To get that resolution accepted requires all who are serious about achieving our dream is to join the SNP now and use their votes to carry that resolution in October. if it fails they can resign but if it passes then the SNP leadership will be required to throw everything including the kitchen sink at it.” And repeat.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Probably a sensible move, Sara. Yes, I, too, believe that we should have a Convention of the People, not to interfere in day-to-day politics, but to rein in politicians who think they can make all the decisions against the people’s wants and needs without even consultation. The GRRB is the perfect example: over 80% of the Scottish population is opposed, yet all the mainstream parties support its introduction, and shriek, “but it was decided in Holyrood after ‘consultation'”. Ay, wis it?

    There is no doubt that a Convention of the People might step in to chastise politicians when they overstep the mark, but that is long overdue, in any case, and any disagreements could be fixed with consultation and negotiation and compromise. In theory, at any rate, politicians would be forced to take cognizance of what the people are thinking and feeling on a given policy. A system of local referendums along Swiss lines would accomplish much the same thing, although they could not dismiss a government that the people detests. Even a Convention of the People could not dismiss a government arbitrarily, but would have to have a very good and valid reason for wishing to do so, and that would have to be written into the constitution of an independent Scotland.

    We should return to the local democracy we had in the past, in Scotland, instead of centralising everything. The burgh and shire system worked extremely well until governments started to interfere in local politics and started their professional managerial style, which is now endemic and stultifying, and leads to social experimentation that is quite unpalatable to many: the almost defunct social housing built by councils to satisfy local needs instead of an open-door policy that has led directly to local people being placed on housing lists for years – although, I have to say that some local MSPs and MPs do work hard for their constituents. In the past, a housing list was compiled for locals and one for people coming from elsewhere, and the allocations were much fairer. Also, local land deals and site acquisitions were necessarily better dealt with at the local level for all manner of development that was kept under control.

    Some policies, of course, are better dealt with on a national basis, such as school, college and university exams, bursaries and grants, if these ever make a comeback, whilst allowing local tweaking to fit local needs. Politics have become a professional, managerial career uncoupled from the populace except at election time and the populace knows it as its contempt for the professional both in, and surrounding, politics, proves, so dire have political parties become in power and even in opposition.

    Liked by 19 people

    2. “a housing list was compiled for locals and one for people coming from elsewhere,”

      That mght be possible as long as Scotland remains outside of the EU.
      In the EU with free movement of labour any EU worker and family living in Scotland would have the same rights on a local housing list as the Scottish worker and family.
      I first saw this actually happen in Bologna (Italy) over 20 years ago. Social housing allocations were announced on a local news programme, the debate was fierce but the law was the law!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Yes, indeed, Ben, you are quite correct. However, I may be very wrong here, but I cannot see Scotland rejoining the EU any time soon. In fact, it would be madness with what is happening now in the EU. That does not mean that we cannot have affiliated status which will not affect our internal decision-making in the ways that actually being a member of the EU did.

        It is just my opinion, but I really do not believe that an independent Scotland should be looking to ally itself to any power axis now, including NATO. I see little point in leaving the UK – with which we will always have some things in common – and tying ourselves into another union immediately. We really do need to think long and hard before committing ourselves to that from which it would be hard to extricate ourselves. Geopolitics and geography, of course, will play their part.

        I was a Remainer, and I have to admit that there is much about the EU that I miss, but that ship has sailed and I believe we could do a lot worse than turn back the clock and salvage some of the better ideas and ways of doing things that were uniquely Scottish in application.

        Again, I see no profit in aping the UK or anyone else just to appear ‘progressive’, while sloughing off our Scottishness, honed over centuries. Sometimes, albeit modern life can have its advantages, some things were just better, and worked better, in the past. Throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater has always been shortsighted and stupid. The SNP has been particularly good at that, unfortunately.

        Liked by 3 people

    3. I have a vague recollection that when the Labour Party strangle hold on power ended, throughout that last period there had only been Six council houses built in the whole of Scotland.
      If the structures are wrong Parliaments will always fail to deliver. No matter how well intentioned some members may be, the dice is loaded.
      Salvo has to be like Ceasar’s wife, beyond and above corruption. That level of integrity is rare. Sara has it in spades.

      Liked by 6 people

  14. Now you are talking Sara. As the Director of Salvo you must be seen to be above Party politics.

    I hear that many Labour supporters wish for Scotland to be free so it makes perfect sense not to be tied to any Scottish political Party. At present, political parties, including Alba, are compromised by their acceptance of, and participation in, or seeking to participate in, a ‘devolved’, Mickey Mouse, Holyrood.

    Scots are sovereign – how many times and in how many ways must this be said? At present, Salvo is the only engine I can see that could possibly pull us free. It certainly will not be any political Party. – that ship has sailed.

    So, no pressure, Sara! You cannot be expected to do this on your own. Scots who want freedom from England’s domination must rally round Salvo and BE SOVEREIGN. As the old Brexit slogan ran: Take Back Control!’

    By all means appeal to the UN and the ICJ and the ECHR to prove that Scots are sovereign and we should be ‘allowed’ to decide to live in a normal independent democratic nation. Do we really think the world would side with England and refuse to trade with Scotland if Scots just decided enough was well and truly enough and declared the ‘fair and equal’ Union over?

    And how about reconvening the real Scottish parliament that was ‘prologued’, suspended, in 1707? This would be democratic as the SNP have had mandate after mandate standing on independence.

    We have nothing to lose the way things are going: The ‘UK’ is in a terminal tailspin. This seeming present impasse is either going to get confrontational, or it is going to wither and die with a whimper of protest. We cannot go on like this for much longer given demographic changes and political chicanery.

    So, brava, Sara. More power to your elbow…

    Liked by 14 people

  15. A big thank you to Sara and all who are working towards our freedom. I can see how being tied into any particular group might interfere with opportunities. Good luck.

    Liked by 7 people

  16. Your comments about the WM government only holding a devolved power of the Scottish people is interesting.
    They WM, are using powers devolved from us Scots, but they in turn have devolved some power to the Scottish people? How can two negatives exist in this set up?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Most people don’t get this at all. The UK parliament is a devolved parliament and power devolved is power retained.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. I certainly understand why Sara has done this, I am with Salvo and Liberation, but still have a membership of Alba. As we both have the same intent, I do not see why Alba would just say that joining both of these entities and suggesting to their membership that they could freely join both Salvo.scot and Liberation.scot. Who are not political entities.
    This would go a way to increase the overall sign ups which they would need to pursue our Legal, Claim of Right through ICJ which is a legal way to regain our sovereignty. Would that not be sensible as we all want the same thing.

    Liked by 6 people

  19. I have had my head in my hands sometimes watching some of the comments on Twitter. I joined alba from close to the beginning. Like many others, I saw it as a fresh start, but as time goes by you start to notice the all too familiar ‘our’s is the right road’ insular behaviour as demonstrated on social media. It puts me right off getting more involved and putting forward policy ideas I think are sensible.

    The kickback is strange, because pro-indy parties and a popular organisation like salvo should be complimentary, in the same way as labour (many moons ago) and the trades union movement.

    I’ve always felt that a new progressive party would do well (whether pro-indy or not) putting political reform and checks and balances as #1 priority in their manifesto to stop the corporate takeover of the political spectrum which has happened all across WM and HR.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. no iain, no links, it was quite a long post talking about the failures of the SNP, and also saying Yousef’s latest Independence ideas, which I called utter madness, and more.
        As for the post missing, maybe some bad actors are protecting them as what he is saying may be in their interest.???

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I never considered anything of that sort iain, er why would you?
        I was considering that others may be involved, twas all. Enjoy your summer break.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Yep, three days ago for me. Wrote a decent length post only for it to not appear at all.

      Still, onward and upward.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. The current voting franchise is a tool of the British state to keep you enslaved to their unwanted coercive Union. This is why under the UN Decolonisation process a vote on the constitution matters is only for the indigenous population (the Scots). The English settlers prevented our independence in the 2014 referendum vote along with others from Europe who effectively vetoed our democracy. We all know English people who would vote for independence its nieve to thing the vast majoritys allegiance is not to there mother country. After a successful yes vote all the settlers and other can be offered citizenship in our country (So what could possibly be wrong with that.) Remember how the British state denied European citizenship the right to vote in the EU referendum. Remember the day after the 2014 Referendum English votes for English laws passed by the Torys. Quite frankly I am sick of being branded a racist by Unionists and those how are nieve, Sara is right regarding the voting franchise, it’s there for a reason to deny your democracy. Salmond is our greatest politician but on this he is wrong and must not be allowed to take us down this route again playing into the Colonial masters hands .

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Quite right, Alastair,

    any franchise that doesn’t prioritise the votes of the sovereign Scots, however that may be defined for voters, is perpetrating a serious abuse upon the true owners of Scotland. Those sovereigns are the only ones who possess the right to make such major final decisions regarding Scotland. Others may be granted that right, but how that can happen formally has not yet been given any serious consideration. And it certainly can’t be a matter for Westminster to determine, either. It’s the UKP’s abuse of an alleged but unwarranted authority that has got us into the very mess we’re trying to get out of.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.