Damned if they don’t but if they do …….

Posted byiainlawson27Posted inUncategorizedTags:, , ,

A guest post from an old friend of mine. It is being published on the long standing tradition that I often publish articles that I do not entirely agree with. I do in parts but not in all. Alasdair Galloway is the author, he is a retired University Lecturer and lives in Dumbarton.

Damned if they don’t but if they do …….

I’ve long been frustrated by Peter Bell. At one time he was a prominent member of the Nicola Sturgeon Fan Club, but his subsequent disillusionment has taken him from Alpha to Omega. In other words, interesting and thoughtful as he regularly is, just as often I just can’t agree with him. Today’s piece is no different https://peterabell.scot/2023/07/28/an-external-event/

The piece is derivative of two sources. One is Robin McAlpine’s recent article “Another summer of broken promises” (https://robinmcalpine.org/another-summer-of-broken-promises/), while the other is the Stirling Directive (https://stirlingdirective.scot/) – a campaign backed by Salvo (https://salvo.scot/) “the campaigning arm of Liberation Scotland, which has accused the UK government of fraud and will be bringing a case for compensation before the International Court of Justice”. 

So, what is the case? Along with McAlpine, Bell is critical of Humza Yousaf’s commitment to seeking independence. A quote from McAlpine’s article illustrates

“If Yousef’s [sic] strategy was meaningful, if it was real, if he believed in it, we’d be in a year-long drive to do everything in our power to get ready for a big event next year. That isn’t happening. How any of you believe any of this is serious remains totally beyond me”.

Let’s pick this apart because there are two parts to this. One is the well-known and repeated ad nauseam argument that since 2014 SNP campaigning on independence has diminished to the point of inadequacy. Or perhaps a better way of putting it is that the level of campaigning is enough to convince a majority  of at least party members that the party full time officials are still serious about seeking independence and not just their careers. 

My own view is that given that independence is the core value of the SNP, that campaigning on this issue should be both strong and consistent. We aren’t going to win the debate if this doesn’t happen. There needs to be clear understanding that such a campaign isn’t only to fortify party members, but also independence supporters in other parties or none. There is a strong practical need to remember that even in their 2015 election mirabilis, the SNP share of the vote didn’t breach 50% (not quite!). The support of others beyond the SNP and its voters is not optional but necessary. 

In terms of campaigning, my view is that the SNP have come up short, but also in terms of reaching out to the other parts of the Yes movement. This a list of organizations who are members of the Scottish Independence Convention

  1. Christians for Independence
  2. Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies
  3. Common Weal
  4. English Scots for Yes
  5. Fife Plus for Independence
  6. Bridges for Indy (Fife), Crossgate Centre, Dunfermline Muslims for Indy, Tayport Yes, Yes Burntisland, Yes Clacks, Yes Cardenden, Yes Dunfermline and West Fife, Yes Glenrothes, Yes Kelty, Yes Kinross-shire, Yes Kirkcaldy, Yes Levenmouth, Yes North East Fife, Yes Rosyth, and the local Common Weal and Scottish Socialists groups.
  7. Hubs for Scottish Independence (HUSCI)
  8. Independence Central:
  9. Yes Grangemouth, 
  10. Butterflies Rising, 
  11. Women For Independence Linlithgow, 
  12. Yes Linlithgow, 
  13. Yes  Bo’ness, 
  14. Falkirk For Independence, 
  15. Yes Stirling.
  16. Independence Library Ltd. (Scottish Independence Library)
  17. Labour for Independence
  18. NHS for Yes
  19. Out for Independence
  20. Pensioners for Independence
  21. Radical Independence Campaign
  22. Scottish Independence Foundation
  23. Scottish CND
  24. Scottish Green Party
  25. Scottish National Party
  26. Scottish Socialist Party
  27. SNP Students
  28. SNP Youth
  29. SNP Trade Union Group
  30. Women for Independence
  31. Yes Edinburgh and Lothians
  32. Yes Highlands
  33. Yes North East

It might well be too much to expect the kind of collaboration witnessed in 2014, such as that would recreate, if there were strong collaboration between all these organizations would create something more like a social and political tsunami rather than, when they don’t, the small waves individually breaking on the shore. 

Why are the SNP not encouraging this, and indeed facilitating it? When in 2014 the head of Yes Scotland, Blair Jenkins, was asked if had control over the local Yes groups that had sprung up, he said he was pleased to say he didn’t and that they were doing just fine. That led to Buchanan Street in Glasgow on the Saturday before the final vote. If you don’t remember it, look here https://twitter.com/WeAreNational/status/510760221263007744and for comparison how the BBC reported it https://wingsoverscotland.com/and-then-my-heart-went-boom/.

So, no pass marks there, and also moving on to the second part of McAlpine’s quote, let’s consider Salvo and the Stirling Directive at the same time for they are at least contiguous. 

In its first two paragraphs of the Stirling document, there are two key sentences.

  1. “it is obvious that the dream [of independence] will die if we do not make it happen. And only the people can do that.”
  2. “It’s time for something that does not depend on judgements from the UK Supreme Court, for something that doesn’t mean demanding, asking, begging the British state for permission.”

The first of these is unarguably true, for if people see no realistic prospect of achieving something (not just independence), they will get fed up and wander off. This is one reason why I’m so critical of the SNP as it is just this danger that in due course they will be at risk of. Yet the second begs a great many questions of its own. 

Let me say that I stand in awe of the intellectual achievement of Salvo and in particular Sara Salyers. Her argument is basically that the Scottish electorate don’t need to ask permission of anyone, including the House of Commons or the Supreme Court. Instead we need to :

  • affirm the sovereignty of Scotland’s people (not the Crown which is the English tradition)
  • uphold the constitutional settlement of the “Union”
  • secure political recognition of the lawful, Scottish constitution
  • pursue our inalienable right of self-determination as guaranteed under international law.

Intellectually, this is a very strong argument, but we could still pick it apart, posing ‘difficult’ questions, such as do Scots have a right of self determination? That is a ‘People’s’ right. Are Scots in this sense a ‘people’? That issue is contested. 

What is the current status of the Treaty and Acts of Union? Does it still ‘sound’ as Professor David Walker argued in 2007? Or is it a historical document of no contemporary relevance as Professors Crawford and Boyle argued in their 2013 legal advice to the Westminster government. Two examples of critical questions to which there is no consensus.

But the kicker is this, the above notwithstanding. Even if the Stirling Directive is correct, what do we do? How do we act? Salvo are quite clear that their intention is “bringing a case for compensation before the International Court of Justice”. Fine, but for one thing, the assumption has to be that if Westminster loses this case they will negotiate independence. But will they, for their record at this Court is, let’s be kind, “patchy”. 

The Chagos Islands were historically administered from Mauritius, and when in 1964 it became independent from the UK, the assumption was that the Islands would go with it. However it was made clear to the Mauritians that there would be no independence with the Islands, only without them. Why? Because the Americans didn’t just want to build an air base there, but wanted the Islands cleared, which after Mauritian independence was carried out by the British Government. 

Since then, Mauritius and the Islanders themselves have brought any number of actions and won against the UK in almost any international court you care to name, and indeed at the UN. To no effect whatsoever. In one action the UK couldn’t even be bothered to turn up and defend itself. Would Scotland fare better? Maybe I’m old and cynical but I don’t think so.  

If we consider the second point in the McAlpine quote, its all very well to argue that the Scottish Government have failed to take independence forward. It’s all very well to argue that its all promises never, or properly, implemented, keeping enough of the punters happy to stay onside for now at least. 

As above, I don’t entirely disagree with this, yet if you are going to disagree with a strategy is there not an obligation to offer a superior  alternative that you at least consider better. Its all very well to complain of the half-hearted SNP strategy, but what is your alternative. Bell and McAlpine are particularly wanting in this regard, though the same could not be said of Salvo which starts from a particular solution. While they might well win at the International Court, will it be a purely legal victory that cannot be implemented. 

It might be argued that success at the International Court would lead to pressure from other countries. Even if it did would the UK care all that much, particularly as there are other countries facing similar situations (eg Spain) who would be most unwilling to join in. Other countries are very unwilling to be seen to interfere in the affairs of other countries. For instance, Spain was heavily criticised for the conduct of their Civil Guard in Catalonia, but at the end of the day, other than a few condemnatory statements, nothing happened. 

Therefore, if there is little or no reasonable likelihood of success, how can you redeem the promises that you have made. What to do when we know that the International Court of Justice is of little practical value, and that in the present UK political context there is little chance that a Westminster government will concede another referendum in the manner of David Cameron ten years ago?

Analysis of this situation demands that we recognise two necessary conditions

  1. Sufficient effective campaigning that independence is supported by a clear majority.
  2. From this support that there is a route, or strategy to a second referendum?

It has been my argument that condition 1 remains unsatisfied in every regard, whether frequency, force or of reach in that there is insufficient coordination of the Yes movement as a whole. However, the distinction between this and 2 is that it is foreseeable how such a strategy could be developed and made to work. However, 2 is as yet to be discovered within the political mists. 

It seems to me that it is necessary for any strategy to be successful that Westminster by its end is engaging with the process. There has to be a final settlement or we risk for instance having access blocked to international organizations we would expect to be members of. No engagement or settlement would ereate many years of uncertainty and wrangling, which can only be a distraction as we set up a new country. 

At the moment, the road block is that Westminster, for whatever reason, do not want us to leave. Perhaps there is a clue here. If they don’t want us to leave, how can we turn this round so that they want us to leave?

Irish Nationalists just over a hundred years were successful in disrupting the work of the Commons. But in the much more complex and inter-dependent society we have now, the opportunities for disruption are that much greater. 

However a short-coming of this strategy is that it will involve offending against the law, albeit in ways that are peaceful. However, such action can be twisted by the Unionist side to paint the Independence movement as a bunch of violent brigands (remember Jim Murphy’s shirt and the egg). Thus it seems clear that such a strategy can only be implemented when

  1. Condition 1 has been satisfied to a point where there can be no doubt that independence is the dominant view among people in Scotland
  2. Westminster’s intransigence has clearly been demonstrated – again! – buttressing the case that civil protest has been justified.

Therefore it seems to me that the route to independence runs through increasing support for independence to a level where there can be no dubiety, and then if Westminster continues its intransigence, a peaceful campaign of non-violent opposition to being part of the UK. 

MY COMMENTS

There is a danger with this type of article that the reader determines that there is little that can be done. They say “I am but one person what can I do?” There are probably well over 1.5 million people saying that to themselves in Scotland at the moment. We need them to stop talking to themselves and get out there and they will find many others looking for that lead. A lot of them exist within Salvo, Alasdair is guilty of omitting the key Salvo message that we need a huge National Liberation Movement to move the dial. That means we must campaign effectively to drive support upwards and create the groundswell. I would expect that if Salvo won a ruling then the effect of that would be very different and of a seismic impact on the UK. I WOULD FULLY EXPECT UDI to happen if Westminster continued any blockage tactics and I would be confident of substantial international support in those circumstances. Salvo have plans to build that in advance.

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

59 thoughts on “Damned if they don’t but if they do …….”

  1. If we want Independence soon we have to buy the votes of those who will only vote yes if they are not adversely affected by the process.

    Provided that the SG uses its current powers to raise our public funds then Dissolution of the Union can happen in practice.

    Like

    1. The problem here is that the current SG have no so much robbed Peter to pay Paul as robbed Peter and **** the lot down the drain.

      Any path that requires the credibility of politicians, in Holyrood or Westminster, is a dead duck in my view. Equally any path that requires integrity or courage form the aforesaid politicians is going nowhere. The legal actions will undoubtedly be ignored by Westminster and suppressed by our MSM. They will however give us something concrete to work with both here and abroad. They will be a focal point and dissolve the “unionist” arguments that:
      a) Scots are not a people (other than meeting all definitions of being a people)
      b) Scotland is not a country (other than a legal treaty, our own law, church and education)
      c) Democracy is one man one vote (so long as the other not-a-country has 10x more votes)

      Look at any documentary/film pre 1970 and see that the UK and Britain are never mentioned – only England. The discovery of oil rattled cages … time for the people to shake those cages with active dissent, fueled by the legal certainty of the international court, but as said before that dissent must be organised or we picked off one by one.

      Liked by 13 people

    2. Graeme, I hope it was a slip of the pen when you wrote “…we need to buy the votes of those…”

      Any political party in Scotland buying votes doesn’t get my support

      Liked by 8 people

    3. Buying votes with Green Backs perchance is as sure as nae chance.

      Now I know this is an allegory to both the Green Party and the US dollar but both are currently going down the pan big time. Come to think of it the pound in your pocket ain’t doing much better. It certainly doesn’t buy much these days.

      Not sure therefore how you can buy votes with wooden dollars or wooden pounds. Greenwood one even!

      Message therefore to the grand poo bah Humza. Can you start the printing presses to fill all our pockets with confetti money. Renewable, recycled, big zero neutral ones in fact. That’ll do the trick.

      But levity aside. And the earlier comments were made in jest. Independence will be taken when there is the realization that it doesn’t need to be like this, that an independent Scotland could do much better in so many ways.

      2014 was driven with hope and aspiration and the people responded. Since then it has been all downhill. Living standards are dropping, the great United Kingdom is failing. Scotland has resources, many more, much more resources than our southern neighbour who would have us believe# They also claim that they subsidise us. The UK or Great Britain has a long history of subsidising it’s colonies – not!

      But aside of our dependent subservience we we actually have the right to choose our path not have it chosen for us, dictated, to us,

      So what beads, what glass beads, by which our independence is to be purchased.

      Liked by 4 people

  2. Dearie me. Here, there and everywhere there is endless argument about how, or if, Scotland is entitled to look for independence. Every possible area is examined minutely, history, tradition, genealogy, heraldry, and the legal. Oh yes, the legal. The legal stuff goes on and on, round and round, like a caucus race with no end and no winners. Some places in the world have obtained independence in a fairly short period of time. From the land being controlled by the British South African Company to becoming an independent Zimbabwe took less than 100 years and a lot less blethers.
    In 1886, Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham helped establish the Scottish Home Rule Association (SHRA), and while in the House of Commons, he made several attempts to persuade fellow MPs of the desirability of a Scottish parliament*.
    I think it is fair to say that since then, in the intervening 137 years, nothing much has been accomplished. Plenty of talk and much displacement activity, but no nearer to independence than we were then. One might even say that we are further away, after all, with our own Scottish parliament in Edinburgh why would we need independence?
    We sent our politicians to the fishmonger to buy kippers and they came back with red herrings.

    *Wikipedia

    Liked by 9 people

  3. Here Graeme goes off into cloud cuckoo land once again with his BUYING votes nonsense.
    No amount of money will alter the population balance. The English in, for example, Skye have already gained a bigger bang for their buck. They have bought up the housing and constantly draw resources out of our NHS and other Scottish services because they are oft times old and wealthy!!!
    The SG has no interest in Scotland’s freedom or we would be free already by resigning from the act of union. It still could, based on the constant breaching of said act, BUT they refuse to act so we are stuck.

    Furthermore we have our STUPID or IGNORANT politicians saying Scotland’s DEFICIT is shrinking faster than that of the UK as if that was a good thing. In fact it is a BAD thing because it means there is LESS money in the Economy. How can that be good for the Nation?
    Answers on a postcard please,

    Liked by 9 people

      1. Explain the difference please.
        The SNP are with the toxic Greens the government.
        I was told this joke recently:/
        A Vegan and a Vegetarian jump off a cliff to see who lands first!
        Who wins?
        SOCIETY

        Liked by 6 people

  4. Regaining the independence of Scotland is our version of the Gordian Knot.

    There are two versions of how Alexander tackled the problem.

    1) The most commonly cited is that he cut it through with his sword.

    2) The second was that he pulled the linchpin from the pole to which the yoke was fastened, exposing the two ends of the cord and allowing him to untie the knot without having to cut through it.

    The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot initiative uses version 2) – the lynchpin was and remains the Treaty of Union, that is what we need to remove. Scotland’s independence came to an end with the Treaty – thus when the Treaty comes to and end Scotland’s independence is regained.

    I send Iain updates as the Declaration initiative progesses in the Stages I am using – but leave it entirely to his discretion and judgement as to whether they appear on his blog, My primary purpose in doing that is to let him decide if they should be shared to those in Salvo/Liberation. I am more than happy to leave that to him.

    Many of the issues raised by Alasdair Galloway have been addressed in the posts I have made, and can be found via this link:

    https://www.facebook.com/people/X2/100070340354557/

    The Gordian Knot problem is most often used as a metaphor for a seemingly intractable problem which is solved by exercising an unexpectedly direct, novel, rule-bending, decisive and simple approach that removes the perceived constraints.

    I believe when the final stages of the Declaration initiative are made known it will match those criteria.

    Saor Alba!

    Liked by 9 people

  5. A few observations.

    Alistair Galloway says that

    “Its all very well to complain of the half-hearted SNP strategy, but what is your alternative. Bell and McAlpine are particularly wanting in this regard”

    Well, Peter Bell can defend himself but he has laid out a plausible route to achieving the restoration of Scotland’s full self government on multiple occasions, his thinking evolving due to changing circumstances. His latest iteration can be found in https://peterabell.scot/2023/06/24/what-is-scottishudi/ – I commend this to Mr Galloway.

    With respect to efforts to “negotiate Independence” – you don’t. You declare it. After a scrupulously democratic event in which it is unarguable that this is the will of the people. In reality you declare the end of the Union, or at least Scotland’s participation in it. You may negotiate the terms of the settlement – the split of the jointly held liabilities and assets – but Independence itself is non-negotiable once the people have spoken. That will be UDI or UDEoU (Unilateral Declaration of the End of Union), backed by the Scottish people.

    I don’t quite agree that “since 2014 SNP campaigning on independence has diminished to the point of inadequacy”. There hasn’t been any. Effectively. There has been campaigning for self-id and trans rights and appearance of the party leader – both Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon – at Pride rallies but they have both been conspicuously absent at the various Independence marches and rallies, organised by AUOB. Yes, there has been a campaign to Stop Brexit with the most recent former First Minister swanning around in London trying to overturn the English vote to leave the EU. That worked out well. What about the Scottish Constitutional Convention promised on 31st January 2020 by the then First Minister? No follow-up there either. Then there was the handing over of out sovereignty to a UK court to determine whether we had the right to vote to break up the state that this court relied on for its very existence. The de-facto referendum, the special conference, the Dundee convention all amount to … nothing. How’s the ‘Summer of Independence’ working out?

    The final comment is really just a summary of the latest woolly and hopeful uttering from Humza Yousaf that “the route to independence runs through increasing support for independence to a level where there can be no dubiety”. I wonder what that would be? Something that the British Government would agree to? No matter how high the hurdles are that we jump or which obstacles we negotiate there will always be a fresh set of thresholds to reach.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Re Mr Bell, his first two steps can be contended. Is Scotland distinct, or just different in the same way the north west is different from the south east? Repudiating S30 is fine, but you can bet your life it will be declared unlawful. Oh yes, we can go back to the Treaty of Union but whether or not that is still relevant remains contentious among lawyers. Put short he might be right, but certainty is unjustified.
      Declaring independence sounds great, but it has to be made work, and – presuming England will not at least initially, play along with this, that makes the reaction of the international community critical. Will they recognise our independence? Or will they sit on their hands? My view, as above is pessemistic, though that is by no means certain. Countries though are often unwilling to get involved in the affairs of another country, in case at some future point that country gets involved in its internal affairs. What did the international community do about the conduct of Spain during and after the Catalan vote? The UK has quite a long record of ignoring decisions by international courts (i dont just mean the international court). I so wish you were right, and that England will respond democratically and consistent with international norms. How likely does this sound to you?
      To finish on a point of agreement- yes I agree with the need to campaign. This is utterly critical,

      Liked by 3 people

      1. The themes that you raise are in essence the same as the published article’s author (Mr Galloway) and have been addressed both in my original post and by others below the line. Although I could go through each of your claims one by one I would merely be repeating what has been said previously.

        Suffice to say that if you adhere to the abnormality of British thinking you are already beaten. Our territory may have been illegally with the subsequent plunder, pillage and piracy of our assets and resources taken from us but our minds have not been annexed by the British State.

        You, and all of us, must learn to think outside of the way that has been conditioned by the British state, the one that imagines that doing things the British way, according to British ‘domestic law’ and requires British approval is the single and only path to reinstating our independent statehood and self-government.

        That is a self-imposed cage, a prison that confines our attitude and condemns us to inevitable defeat in obtaining our noble aim and Scotland’s Cause.

        In other words you have to stop viewing the constitutional issue from that of the British and start thinking about the matter like the Scot that you are.

        There are plenty of articles to assist with this both in Iain Lawson’s blog, Salvo, Liberation Scotland and the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group regarding Scotland’s Constitution, the Claim of Right, the concept of Popular Sovereignty, the Stirling Directive as well as realistic and practical routes to restoring our rightful nation-state status.

        I commend these to you.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. so you mean duncanio I suffer from the colonised mindset? I think like a Brit? Forgive me, but for most people, given our experience of life (in my case just over three score years and ten), given that our experience of life is through the prism of the UK , that is pretty much inevitable.

        However, I would go further than this. At least some of the inspiration of the critique of the colonialist mindset (and Mr Bell is by no means the only one to have proseltysed these ideas) is based on the work of Franz Fanon, and his groundbreaking work, “the Wretched of the Earth”. which provides a psychoanalysis of the dehumanizing effects of colonization upon the individual and the nation,

        While received with admiration, Fanon’s work has not been received uncritically. For instance, it has been argued that his commitment to “a national consciousness” is a “deeply troubling” demand for cultural homogeneity and the collapse of difference – that is in the introduction to the 2004 edition btw – which can lead to a narrow minded nationalism, though his defenders argue that he was attempting to address the imposed Cold War binaries of east v west, and socialism v capitalism.

        The biggest problem however, is that Fanon is writing about Africa in the 50s, when imperial colonies (French, Belgian as well as British) were beginning to seek independence, and were being repressed with great and often systematic violence. Indeed the first part of the book is titled “On Violence”, where Fanon writes that he considers that the process of decolonization is a violent process “without exception”. Does this speak to you of Scotland? It offers few insights for me.

        That said the function of a colony is its exploitation by the imperial power – for its natural resources. And yes, I can see that in Scotland -,not just our energy resources (to date, mainly oil and gas in the recent past) , people (one of our most important exports has been our most able and talented young people) and of course wealth (eg the relentless change in ownership from Scotland to London, though now often abroad). However, this is true of many other parts of the UK as well – North of England, Wales for instance. The consequence has been that London and the south east have moved away in terms of economic performance and wealth from the other regions of the UK to sucha degree that often, in almost any index of economic well-being, only they will be above the UK average they are so far ahead.

        |f you find it helpful to consider this economic dominance of UK wealth “colonization” then I suppose that is a matter for you. It certainly offers a platform for the UK elite to tell us how crap we all (ie most parts of the UK outside the south east) are, and to seek to impose their ways, their perceptions (BBC!) on the rest of us. However, I can get there without colonization merely by considering the policies of successive uk governments as a foolish and dysfunctional way of running an economy, and observing the inevitable biases as their elite demands preferment for their perceptions over all others. Moreover, I dont have to invoke the often dreadful actions of colonial powers as they were thrown out of their colonies – I’d recommend the actions of the Belgians as they lost their colonies in and around the Congo.

        A particular irony is this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21934564 which is an article written by Stephanie Flanders when she was still BBC Economics Editor. It’s called Should Britain Let Go of London?, and in the course of this, observing how far behind many UK regions were she writes “the film set me thinking about all the ways that policy gets distorted by so much of Britain’s economic, political and cultural all being concentrated in one place.”. Mark Blyth’s take on this is that in return for this policy distortion, the other regions get financial transfers from the wealth of the south east (“London’s top ten boroughs alone are worth more, in real estate terms, than all the property of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, added together.”), or as he puts it “pocket money” for being good and allowing this to continue.

        Of course we have to expose and criticise this, but what does colonization offer, other than an opportunity to attack others – who also support independence, rather in the way people who champion equality are condemned for not considering a trans woman a woman. We have enough enemies in the UK. While debate is to encouraged, treating others as enemies merely for holding different views is not a good look.

        Like

      3. “Forgive me, but for most people, given our experience of life (in my case just over three score years and ten), given that our experience of life is through the prism of the UK , that is pretty much inevitable.”

        I very much agree … and include myself (just under three score years and two) in that. I am attempting to throw off these shackles and see things as they are from Scotland’s point of view. If we state that the people are sovereign then let’s act like we are. That would preclude considering the bogus British/Unionist arguments that, for example, because Spain dealt with Catalonia as it did with no protest reaction coming from the ‘international community’ or that the British might not respond democratically – let them respond UNdemocratically following YES result in a properly fair and transparent referendum. A faint heart never won a fair maiden.

        “While debate is to encouraged, treating others as enemies merely for holding different views is not a good look.”

        I am not sure if you think I view yourself as an enemy but, if so, that is not the case. I do, however, believe that you are looking at things the way the British would wish. That their engagement and even agreement is required. That is not the case, if we truly believe in popular sovereignty. Agreement with the British would mean compromising our sovereignty. And that is no sovereignty at all.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Humza Useless is still telling us that Independence is a dead end without the UKG. Then its simple, bypass the UKG.

    We are never going to get anywhere fast until we start defying the SNP’s route to Independence and the SNP start defying the UKG’s involvement.

    I honestly believe 100% that if the SNP said they where going to remove their MPs sitting in Westminster if the UKG didn’t grant a section 30 order and that once they were removed they were going to hold a referendum, with a simple question, Do You Want To Remain Part Of The UK? This would stop any Unionist not wanting to take part in any vote, I believe these steps would make the UKG grant a section 30 simply because they don’t want the world to see that Scotland is a prisoner.
    Scotland could have been Independent years ago and we could have kept our EU citizenship if the SNP had been working towards what they where preaching, instead we have been lied to at every single opportunity from every single leader of the SNP.

    I also agree with Craig Murray its time to give up on the idea of Scotland United when the SNP is only interested in United Kingdom.

    How I see it, the SNP is more interested in looking after England’s interest and protecting England from Brexit then they are protecting Scotland from England.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. The UKG have denied the democratic mandate held by the SNP MPs for what is allegedly their top priority – and yet these house Jocks remain, bowing and curtsying their way around their masters house. Time to put this on a bill board – the SNP do not deserve a single MP returned to Westminster. Time for true independence parties to be sent – we need to get that message out there as time is very short and the SNP are doing more harm than good.

      Liked by 6 people

    2. “the SNP is more interested in looking after England’s interest”

      Aye 100%Yes, that is precisely the function of a ‘colonial administration’, which is what Holyrood and the ‘Scottish Government’ is; ‘Meenisters o the Croun’ micht be a wee clue!

      In any event the SNP elite has clearly opted for ‘neutrality’, i.e. status quo, ‘continuity’ even. Somebody should tell Alasdair, and Graeme, or anybody else still holding an SNP membership card in their wallet.

      Its all part of the obscure postcolonial theory/decolonization template, which Salvo and others have revealed:

      Click to access THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf

      Liked by 8 people

      1. “In any event the SNP elite has clearly opted for ‘neutrality’, i.e. status quo, ‘continuity’ even. ”

        And you can be sure that they will deliver now that they have appointed Murray Foote – ex-Daily Record editor, author ov ‘The Vow/Lie’ and ex-SNP Media Head (who resigned after communicating porkies regarding party membership as recently as March of this year) – as their new Chief Executive.

        The party has now appointed the Continuity Candidate as leader, the FM has retained a Continuity Cabinet and now they have the Continuity Chief Executive since all the resignations in Q1 2023.

        The deception is complete.

        As they say, you couldn’t make it up.

        Liked by 7 people

    3. I recall someone in the EU saying ‘we are supportive but Scotland has to do SOMETHING …’ curse Sturgeon to the end of time. May her bones find their final rest in England, which she has served so well.

      Liked by 6 people

    4. Do you really think the Westminster Government cares whether the rest of the world can see that Scotland is a prisoner or not. But even if they did and they granted a section 30, it would be surrounded with conditions to make it entirely unwinnable.

      Liked by 7 people

    5. I dont think getting a section 30 is a good aim, as it would mean a referedum under westminster rules – ie with the question, timing and franchise all of their choosing. this would mean the same resulytas 2014 when a majority of incomers (mainly English0 plus military students etc who were only temporary residents voted NO and swung he vote.
      In my view we need to declare Independence when we have a sufficient and credible number of people wanting it (Salvo, Mike Fenwick and others are working on this) and then have a ratifying referendum under our own rules (supported by the UN) if needed,

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I always wondered about what the status of military personnel based in Scotland were regarding voting rights. Is the referendum route fataly compromised? It would need to have some credible neutral outside agency to ensure fair play. GCHQ need not apply.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: Ramblings of a now 60+ Female

  8. I have some difficulty understanding why Alasdair Galloway is so “frustrated” with me given that he gives over approximately half his essay to agreeing with me. He may not be quite so forcefully critical as myself of the SNP Scottish Government’s failure to progress Scotland’s cause since 2014, but at least he doesn’t attempt to totally deny the objective and observable fact of that failure. Nor does he seem to imagine Humza Yousaf is doing any better on this account than his predecessor. Again, I would put it a lot more strongly, but there is no serious disagreement here that I can discern.
    de facto leader of the independence movement, she
    While on the subject of Nicola Sturgeon; Alasdair Galloway is quite correct to say that I was “member of the Nicola Sturgeon Fan Club”. Although I don’t think I’ve ever been “prominent”. Is it so surprising that I was openly admiring of Ms Sturgeon? Thousands were! She seemed exceptional in many ways. As it turned out, she was exceptional. Just not in the way we supposed.

    Is it so surprising that I have changed my opinion? Thousands have! The surprise is that so many still maintain their admiration for her despite the objective and observable fact that, as the de facto leader of the independence movement, she was an abysmal failure. This remains true however effective she may have been in other regards. For me, this failure outweighs all else. Because, for me, the constitutional issue is paramount. My opinion of Nicola Sturgeon changed as the growing evidence of her ineptitude demanded. Politicians’ stars wax and wane. They come. They go. My commitment to Scotland’s cause remains constant.

    Likewise, my perspective on the SNP. A party I first joined in 1962 and for which I campaigned actively for a large part of the time since – with the customary interludes for such trivialities as family and career. The party changed drastically under Sturgeon’s leadership. That change has been well enough documented elsewhere that I needn’t rehash the whole sad saga here. Suffice it to say that none of what changed in the SNP over the years of Sturgeon’s tenure was change for the better. So, in 2020, I resigned from the party. I did so with a heavy heart and much self-interrogation about my motives and the wisdom of this course of action. The moments of regret, however, grew ever less frequent as time went on and the leadership and management of the party descended into unfunny farce.

    In short, as circumstances have changed, so have my views. Again, this should be unsurprising.

    On the constitutional issue, I like to think my views have not so much changed as developed. It would seem like a dramatic “Alpha to Omega” shift if one had regard for only those two points. The reality, however, is that it is possible to trace a continuous thread through the more gradual process of change which actually occurred. That thread being my unwavering commitment to the cause of ending the Union and restoring Scotland’s independence. The development of my thinking on the constitutional issue can by mapped to changes in the political environment surrounding the constitutional issue. Added to this, there was my better education in a range of related matters. I lived. I learned.

    Arguably the most important factor in the development of my thinking, however, was the decolonisation of my mind. And it is here that we may find some explanation for Alasdair Galloway’s frustration with me. Because he evidently has yet to achieve any meaningful measure of decolonisation of his mind. No more evidence for this is needed than that he continues to put Westminster at the centre of the process by which Scotland’s independence might be restored. The decolonised mind acknowledges only the people of Scotland at the centre of that process.

    Alasdair Galloway gives the British state a prominent role in the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination. The decolonised mind rejects absolutely the idea of the British state having any rightful role at all. Alasdair Galloway’s thinking is stuck in the rut of the Sturgeon doctrine which stipulated that the process of restoring independence must be “legal and constitutional” according to the laws made by Westminster and the constitution as decreed by the British state. The decolonised mind realises that this is a stipulation which can never be satisfied. An alternative approach must therefore be found. Devising a different approach requires adopting a different mindset. It requires that the mind be decolonised in order to make space for this altered mindset.

    Another possible explanation for Alasdair Galloway’s frustration is his belief that criticism of an approach can only be valid if a better approach is proffered at the same time. Together with his conviction that I have proffered no such alternative. A conviction founded solely on the fact that he hasn’t seen the alternative I proffer. How that is possible remains a mystery. I have hardly been reticent in putting the case for what I have termed #ScottishUDI. Nor have I made any secret of my support for the #StirlingDirective – which I see as complementing #ScottishUDI while falling short of (or shying away from?) the conclusion that #ScottishUDI is the only way independence will be restored.

    It is inevitable that Alasdair Galloway will be unable to ‘get his head around’ either #ScottishUDI or the #StirlingDirective because he has yet to decolonise his mind sufficiently to fully recognise the import of popular sovereignty.

    I shall assume that Alasdair Galloway would agree wholeheartedly with the statement, “The people of Scotland are sovereign!”, and stand to be corrected if he does not. If he does, however, then comments such as the following demonstrate that he just doesn’t grasp what the statement implies.

    “It seems to me that it is necessary for any strategy to be successful that Westminster by its end is engaging with the process.”

    “At the moment, the road block is that Westminster, for whatever reason, do not want us to leave.”

    If the people of Scotland are sovereign, requiring Westminster “engaging” is oxymoronic. being sovereign means being the ultimate authority. The ultimate authority cannot be dependent on some other authority. Nor can that other authority be a “road block”. Unless we allow it to be. Which would mean denying the sovereignty of Scotland’s people. Which is what the colonised mind does because more than three centuries of conditioning obliges that mind to concede the sovereignty of Westminster even while asserting the sovereignty of Scotland’s people. Classic Orwellian doublethink!

    I apologise for taking up so much space here. But I felt Alasdair Galloway’s article warranted a lengthy response. I could have said much more. But I’ll finish here, but for this link to an article explaining #ScottishUDI. The one Alisdair supposes doesn’t exist – https://wordpress.com/post/peterabell.scot/13864

    Liked by 16 people

    1. “The decolonised mind acknowledges only the people of Scotland at the centre of that process.”

      Spot on, Peter. It is primarily a colonial mindset – the outcome of cultural assimilation – holding back a colonized people. Denial (of oppression) and admiration for the oppressor is part of the ‘condition’.

      As Albert Memmi put it: Independence is a matter ‘only for the colonized’.

      DETERMINANTS OF INDEPENDENCE COLONIALISM

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Thanks, Alf, and thanks to Peter for pushing the idea of the ‘de-colonised mind’. That is an important concept.
        While here, I’d like to mention a short film/documentary I saw recently on a flight returning from Canada after visiting family there. It is called ‘Twice colonised’ and is by, about and presented by Aadju Peter, a woman born in an Inuit Community in Greenland over 70 years ago, who was sent for secondary education to Denmark, where the experience, boarded with danish families, was designed to make her as danish as possible, to the extent that onher return, she could no longer communicate easily in the Inuit language.
        She then moved to Canada’s Northern terrioties where she experienced the second phase of colonialisation, particularly the Canadian ban on the traditional practive of seal culling by the Inuit community which had devastating effects on the young men of the area, prevented from a traditional way of providing for their families. Aadju’s son committed suicide as did many others or turned to alcohol and drugs as a way of relieving their despair. She has joined forces with other communities such as the Sami, whose traditional way of life is also threated in Finland and Sweded and has appealed to both the EU Court of Justice and the UN with some encouraging support.
        her film won a prize at the cnnes film festival and can be found online by entering ‘Twice Colonised’ so i recommend anyone interested in the topic to watch it as it shows what one woman, fired by a sense of injustice and, unlike us Scots, from a people without a recognised territory can do to promote her cause.

        Liked by 5 people

    3. “stipulated that the process of restoring independence must be “legal and constitutional” according to the laws made by Westminster and the constitution as decreed by the British state”

      If there is any law that must be consulted it should be international law, not the law of the state we wish to leave, as the UK government itself has argued in other cases.

      Liked by 8 people

    4. And thank you for taking the time to do so!
      You write, “Because he [ie AG] evidently has yet to achieve any meaningful measure of decolonisation of his mind. No more evidence for this is needed than that he continues to put Westminster at the centre of the process by which Scotland’s independence might be restored. The decolonised mind acknowledges only the people of Scotland at the centre of that process” You are probably right, but does this have to do with decolonisation, or a reflection of the structure of the international power structure, allied to an international community which will be supine and refuse to get involved.
      I have read your UDI article, and would say much the same. I can buy the theoretical/ legal argument, but how do you enforce this? My worry is that it’s all a bit “Grand old duke of York” (though not the present one), as the Scottish electorate get marched up the hill to the sound of self-fetermination, the Treaty of union and all the rest of it, only to be marched back down again when we cannot make it work.
      Peter, whether sovereign or not (and if put to it, I’d agree with you), one-sidedly declaring independence wont work. How does the UK debt get shared out? The assets? Or do we just start again? Questions like that illustrate the limitation of your approach – theoretically strong, but little on operationalising the whole thing

      Liked by 1 person

    5. “Decolonization of the mind”. That’s the cure. It says it all in a simple sentence. UDI to those of us of a certain age is problematical, but apt. It still triggers memories of White Supremacist Rhodesia. Perhaps it needs rehabilitating.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Scotland’s UDI, not the Rhodesian version.

        That is to say, Independence is declared after a scrupulously fair and transparent plebiscite that does not permit British State involvement in, or oversight of, the process.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. “That is a ‘People’s’ right. Are Scots in this sense a ‘people’? That issue is contested.”

    By whom, though?

    Professor Robert McCorquodale has recently given a legal opinion

    “OPINION ON MATTERS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING
    THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND”

    “Professor McCorquodale also goes on to confirm that “the people of Scotland are distinct within the UK and have a right to self-determination.” (Paragraph 30) and “the right to self-determination applies to the people of Scotland” (Paragraph 6). He states: “As the people of Scotland are a people for the purposes of the right to self-determination, they can exercise it. The choice of the means to exercise is for the people to decide and not for the State.” (Paragraph 32). He explains that the UK as a signatory to multilateral international human rights treaties has “expressly accepted that the right to self-determination is a human right” (Paragraph 12) and “not just as an international legal principle – which is binding under international law on all States.” (Paragraph 14). He also asserts that that “secession is not unlawful under international law” (Paragraph 6).”

    https://assets.nationbuilder.com/albaparty/pages/659/attachments/original/1687279203/OPINION_ON_MATTERS_RELATING_TO_INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_ISSUES_CONCERNING_THE_RIGHT_TO_SELF-DETERMINATION_FOR_THE_PEOPLE_OF_SCOTLAND.pdf?1687279203

    Now the good Professor is very eminent and specialises in international law. He has been an advocate before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and is an expert member of United Nations working groups, do not nobody! Plus the UK government itself in the case regarding Kosovo independence heard at ICJ stated that the permission of the “parent” state is not required as long as there is a democratic mandate.

    I’ve said before I do not want to close down any avenue that is non violent (at least not violence started by Scotland – we can reserve the right to defend ourselves) and is a reflection of the will of the Scottish people. But repeatedly asking nicely for a section 30 order doesn’t cut it. They won’t allow Scotland to leave until they have drained every last resource from us, and given renewables are indeed renewable that will be never!!!

    Liked by 10 people

      1. Unfortunately, they know EXACTLY what they’re doing. Look at the latest debacle on the ferries, and their ridiculous capping of the Scotwind auction which cost billions. £700 million was the sum of the auctions, which will be recouped within 2 months of the sites going live. Compare and contrast with New York State, they raised 4.3 billion US$ for a quarter of the power that will be generated from Berwick Bank – that will all be connected directly to the National Grid in England and we will have had a one-off payment for 10 year leases.

        Liked by 8 people

  12. Iain: Peter Bell has come a long way from his days of cheerleading for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP but not without mocking those who disagreed with him along the way. The work of yourself, Alf Beard and Sara Salyers of Salvo have had a profound influence and many have followed the same path.

    Now we have those who advocate we can only have independence if opinion polls show consistent levels of support over 60% for an unspecified number of years which would then miraculously and automatically result in Scotland being free from this ‘voluntary and equal’ Union. Oh my giddy aunt…

    Can I suggest you put down your crochet needles Iain and instead of knitting more articles actually do something. How about using the sovereignty of the Scots under their Claim of Right to restart the old Scottish Parliament of 1707 that was closed down without the consent of the Scottish people? Salvo is now well recognised and respected and such a move, with a start date early next year, for the new Parliament, (a virtual one at first), would attract support from all those wanting independence and who have nowhere else to go. What is the point of voting to send MP’s to Westminster? None!

    Independence is independence – everything else is everything else.

    Liked by 9 people

  13. Excellent from Peter and Duncanio. Westminster are not involved in any negotiations regarding our independence. They will merely be told what we are doing.

    Liked by 9 people

  14. A favourable ruling for Sal-Lib at the UN, all legal implications apart, will be the biggest international, propaganda-coup in the history of the independence movement. Let Westminster deal with the resultant opprobrium of its predictable intransigence in the court-of-Scottish and international public-opinion. Forget about trying to convince the coloniser: our job is to point-up the actualities of colonisation. (e.g. our persistently high opiate and alcohol related fatalities), and to enthuse the people of Scotland for the goal of decolonisation. A positive UN ruling will be crucial in achieving that end. Ultimately, history shows that decolonization is achieved by the colonised themselves, by their will and determination, alone.

    Liked by 10 people

  15. In 2014 every group interested in Independence was focused on the right for Scots to have the powers to shape Scotland.
    Unfortunately the SNP and Greens decided that it should be shaped FOR us.
    The issue is quite simple really. The campaign should be about Scots shaping their own future.
    It is not for Political Parties or their inner cliques to railroad us with pet projects.
    Do the Greens and SNP represent us anymore? I suspect not…..it is vote harvesting by dangling the Indy carrot but without any real democracy i.e consultation, listening etc

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Spot on Clootie. This conflating of independence with the pet projects of the SNP/Greens is one of the big obstacles to getting YES over the line. We don’t have to break this connection – we have to shatter it.

      Liked by 7 people

  16. This is an edited extract from one of my posts via the link I posted. It addresses “Territorial Integrity”.

    I hope it may allow a deeper understanding of the Declaration initiative and the work already undertaken over the past nearly 3 years.

    It is just one example of the correspondence now lodged within the UN and now additionally 17 UN Members – all related to the phrase “Fail to prepare, and prepare to fail”.

    One of the UN Resolutions – passed by the UN General Assembly (NB- without dissent) reads:

    𝐀𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 the national unity and 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

    In 1999, the then UK Goverment took 6,255 statute square miles (5,540 nautical square miles) of Scottish waters into English jurisdiction, where it has remained ever since.

    Take it just one small step further – How much revenue has been earned by the UK Treasury and lost to Scotland from that event over the past 24 years? You won’t find it in GERS – and that is just one small example of many.

    As each batch of individually signed Declarations, from all over Scotland, has been lodged within the UN, and now with individual UN Members issues like that have been raised.

    I am sure you will form your own opinion on matters such as this, but when it comes to just that one example re “Territorial Integrity” we already know what the UN resolved – without dissent – it’s long pst time we told them that we know – and raised that and many other issues with them

    I could have used another eaxmple, which with independence will inevitably involve Scotland. and the The International Law of the Sea”.

    Currently it is the UK, Ireland, Iceland, and Denmark who are engaged in a long running dispute over one bit of granite called “Rockall”.

    But again it has its importance not in the rock itself but in the surrounding sea area and the resources to be found there.

    The UN and those 17 UN Members already know it forms part of the agenda being developed within the Declaration initiative, and is supported by all those who have signed their Declaration. (Including may I say – individuals from within Salvo.)

    Liked by 10 people

    1. That takes me back. Rockall. I thought that had been resolved in favour of Ireland. It’s like “The Moustrap”. This one will run and run. I remember some navy chaps or marines sticking a butchers apron on a gull colony. That was in the early 1970’s was it not?

      Liked by 1 person

  17. O/t Murray Foote of the Vow has been appointed the new SNP Chief Executive…

    I don’t really trust myself to say more…

    Liked by 8 people

  19. 1. Are the Treaty and Acts of Union “historical documents of no relevance?”. Surely the fact that Tony Blair needed to get a document from Donald Dewar to move the international border between Scotland and England from a line at right-angles due east from the coast just by Berwick to one running acutely north-east is sufficient proof that Scotland still exists as an identifiable country distinct from England i.e. the basis for the Treaty and Acts does remain. Plus the different legal systems and bodies of law that apply in the two countries.

    2. “A peaceful campaign of non-violent opposition to being part of the UK” What does this suggestion entail? I can’t see that UK/Westminster government would take any notice of any protests given the current amount of legislation that has been passed that is of a totally unreasonable and undemocratic kind. They behave totally beyond the old standards of acceptable behaviour and seem to be beyond the reach of justice.

    Liked by 8 people

  20. For the last couple of years the SNP has looked a lot like a cult rather than a rational political party I was just not aware it was one of those suicide cults. The appointment of Murray the vow foot in mouth to replace the former first ministers husband as CEO is akin to a cult dumping poison into the soft drink of choice and going to meet their maker with whimper rather than a bang. I wonder how long before Jim Murphy ends up on the payroll. Alba and ISP better start saving for a lot of deposits or there will nobody for us to vote for as the SNP is now in the recycle bin with the red , blue and yellow Tories and the creepy Greens. Over to you Salvo.

    Liked by 9 people

  22. Salvo are quite clear that their intention is “bringing a case for compensation before the International Court of Justice”.
    I believe this to be a red herring that could consume a lot of our resources to no purpose, and possibly kill Indy.
    Salvo cannot bring any case before the ICJ, only UN member states can (The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court’s jurisdiction is twofold: it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations, specialized agencies or one related organization authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction). – source ICJ website).
    The most relevant (to Scotland) recent case is on the UDI of Kosovo. On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on Kosovo’s declaration of independence of February 17, 2008, observing that the declaration was not in violation of international law.
    This judgement refers only to Kosovo. Although the court declared in favour of Kosovo, the submissions by nations against the UDI make interesting reading, especially Russia’s.

    The best that can be hoped for is to persuade a friendly (and one not in receipt of UK aid) UN member state ask the court for an advisory opinion, and we’ve all seen what the UKG thinks of those.

    While we’re on the subject of the UN, when they refer to Territorial Integrity they mean the Territorial Integrity of member states. The following example is from the Russian Federations submission to the ICJ in the Kosovo case –
    “Many authors discussing self-determination point out either that the postcolonial system does not recognize a right to secession at all, or that, at least, a
    presumption or a strong preference exists in favour of territorial integrity”
    A judgment from that favoured this position without evidence from a referendum would leave the indy movement would be dead in it’s tracks with no legal way to go.

    Like

    1. UN agencies may refer a case to ICJ. A national liberation movement may also have standing.

      Territorial integrity relates to national sovereignty. Scottish sovereignty is enshrined in the Claim of Right as a condition of the Treaty of Union which constituted the UK state. The ToU relates to a union alliance between two sovereign nations. Courts cannot simply ignore the constitutional basis of the UK state. It is not the UK state that is sovereign; sovereignty ultimately rests with each of its two signatory parties.

      Liked by 9 people

    2. It only took a few lines from Professor Alf Baird to expose the fault in your argument Liam. I cannot recall you posting on here before but you arrive delivering the “certainty” that Salvo are wrong. Yet you have no idea of the tactics Salvo are following. You are as bad as the Unionists who seek to dismiss our case on the basis of Quebec or Catalonia. I publish today an article from a retired solicitor that you may find of value.

      Liked by 6 people

    3. I used the example of a Gordian Knot in my earlier post – the alternative was a “can of worms”. Of all the reaserch I conducted prior to the initiative, this is one of my favourite UN Resolutions – with the “worms” highlighted and/or capitalised.

      All 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐒 have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

      Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐘 is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

      All 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒 shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒, and 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐑 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.

      What to do? For me it was simple – let’s simply ask a direct question:

      𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏𝟓𝟏𝟒 (𝐗𝐕) 𝐨𝐟 𝟏𝟒 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟎, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞?

      That question is now lodged at the UN and with (currently) 17 UN Members – is one of many similar questions also similarly lodged, and with more to follow.

      If you use the link I provided earlier to X2 – you will see this:

      Estanblish the facts – then ask the questions!

      Liked by 5 people

Comments are closed.