Anybody who imagines the outcome of Brexit will ever be clear is living in a world of woefully naive fantasy. That outcome is as clear now as at ever will be. It is certainly clear enough for the purposes of Scotland’s cause. It became clear enough for the cause of restoring Scotland’s rightful constitutional status the moment our 62% Remain vote was contemptuously dismissed by the British political elite. And further clarified when our democratically elected representatives were excluded from was laughably called the Brexit negotiations.
The outcome of Brexit is that the UK’s relationship with the EU, and the rest of the world, will be in chaotic flux for decades. And we will know no more of the true situation at any given time than the British state wants us to know. There will be no clarity. And if you are ever given to understand that there is clarity, beware! You are being lied to!
Those of us who do grown-up politics long ago realised that what matters about Brexit – as with so many things – is, not the reality, but the perception. And who controls the tools by which perception is manipulated? The British state!
Regardless of what happens, Brexit will be portrayed as a success. Even as the Civil Contingencies Act is invoked and the devolved administrations are ‘suspended’ and people are rioting in the streets, we will be told that extraordinary measures are necessary to defend the success of Brexit against the efforts of a few ‘malcontents’ to undermine it.
Untold millions of pounds will be thrown at particular problems, not in the hope of solving them, but to make them appear less like problems. The beneficiaries of this state beneficence will not, of course, be the people most affected by thing like shortages of medicines, but the corporations hired to impose strict rationing and weed out those who are deemed to be causing the shortages by demanding medicines that they don’t really need – according to that stern-looking lady in what looks like a supermarket checkout operator’s tabard.
But let’s suppose for a moment that there was the possibility of a Brexit outcome that is clear. Let’s imagine the idea of clarity about the Brexit outcome is more than just an infantile notion and a desperate rationalisation of inaction. What is the outcome that obviates the need to dissolve the Union? What Brexit outcome changes the independence cause in any way?
Why wait for clarity that you’re never going to get about an outcome that is of no significance?
If, as some claim, Nicola Sturgeon is waiting until the Brexit outcome is clear, then she is a fool. And I am absolutely certain that Nicola Sturgeon is no fool. She is certainly not stupid enough to make a new referendum entire contingent on something that she is trying to prevent. Whatever the explanation is for the lack of action to resolve the constitutional situation, waiting for Brexit surely can’t be any part of it. It remains a mystery.
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.
7 thoughts on “Waiting for Brexit?”
Peter one thing is for sure there will be a no deal brexit in October that is certain, because the big money and American big corporations and dark money are paying for a no deal brexit, and a lot of top Tory’s will make a lot of money pushing this agenda. You should read Brexit a coup d’etat. This Westminster government unfortunately need Scotland’s resources to cushion the blow, that is vital to their plans. And one thing is for sure they will stop at nothing to get it, first things first, they will abolish Holyrood that’s a certainty. remove with the help of legislation any chance of any democracy in Scotland, they cant have those pesky Scots messing up their plans to make millions from Brexit at the expense of every ordinary working person in the UK. We cannot underestimate the evil tricks and the brutality these evil people will force on Scotland to see through their plans. Tanks on George square you aint seen nothing yet, try some false flags and other under hands tactics being employed, its going to get very rough indeed.
I’ve long held the belief that the uk knows they’ve lost the Scottish public. So how do they keep hold of our assets. I believe this entire approach to Scotland/brexit is laying the groundwork for the Scottish troubles. I hope I’m wrong but nothing will stop these people from getting what they want. We know holyroods days are numbered. Q What’s the snp response. A silence…
Whether there was ever a Brexit or not, the aim was always to fully incorporate the UK into the One Nation Tory agenda. Brexit has, if anything, helped the project along. That is why I get so angry with people who keep on saying: ‘just wait, all will become clear and people will come to us in their droves… No, they f-ing won’t. Had they been going to do this, they would be with us now. Just read the letters page in The Scotsman. Sure, many Unionists are not as fundamentalist as those, but they are not stupid people, so they are a fair gauge of what the opposition actually think. It seems quite incredible to those of us who are either nationalists or independists that the penny has not dropped. Could it actually be that the penny has dropped long since, but that they really don’t mind? I think that is, indeed, the answer.
What do we do? We must find another route to independence – and very soon. I think, too, that the SNP leadership has been stopped in its tracks by events in Catalunya, and the total lack of European outrage, albeit the UN has tried to intervene. The Catalans, in common with every other Spanish state did sign a no-break-up agreement with Madrid, but we have not signed any similar agreement with Westminster. We are a co-signatory to the Treaty of Union and have every right, as a partner, to resile the Treaty if its terms are being broken. They have been broken systematically since 1707, and we should have taken, as soon as Brexit was announced, our case to the International Court of Justice, the ICJ – a) on the grounds of bad faith and even ultra vires on the part of Westminster; b) on the grounds that our basic human rights are being violated; and c) on the grounds of self-determination. At least we would have been signalling to the world that we are being treated undemocratically and illegitimately.
The 2014 referendum was almost certainly interfered with, although proving it is extremely difficult. All we have is circumstantial evidence, but that might be enough to show that it is also impossible for us to hold a fair referendum without interference from the British State. The best circumstantial evidence we have is that one, John McTernan knew the contents (even if they were not tampered with) of the second envelopes in the postal vote, down to the exact percentage, FOUR FULL DAYS BEFORE the close of polling and the count. Ruth Davidson was also in receipt of this information long before the count. Why will the SNP leadership not use every means at its disposal to end the Union, the source of our problems? That is the question that must be answered at Conference. If it is not, and if another meatless bone is tossed to members to keep them gnawing and distracted until it is too late, I predict that the movement will split and a challenge to the SNP will follow. Please Nicola Sturgeon, Michael Russell, et al, you must make it clear that you are moving forward and not treading water, that you are prepared to fight for independence on behalf of those who elected you to do so.
Let’s just knock this stuff about the postal votes on the head right away. And yet again. What McTernan and Davidson were talking about is called sampling. It is perfectly legal and all parties do it. What is illegal is to talk about it.
Having said that, there can be absolutely no doubt that the entire referendum process must be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. And be seen to be so. It may not be possible to prevent the British state interfering in the campaign,in terms of propaganda – despite the fact that this too is illegal – but we can certainly ensure that there is as little opportunity as possible for direct interference in the vote.
It is also important, however, that we do not undermine confidence in the voting system with lurid conspiracy theories about ‘rigging’. It is all but impossible to interfere in the voting and counting process in such a way as to meaningfully influence the result. That is the reality that we should be emphasising. And the best way to overcome small efforts at ‘fixing’ the process is to ensure a massive turnout. There will always be minor fiddles and infractions. There will always be human error. But these diminish in impact as the turnout increases. As do extremist votes.
BTW – Thank you!
I would never try to imply that there was vote rigging, Mr Bell, but sampling of the type that takes place at the count, where it is possible to get a fair idea of the way the wind is blowing, does not happen at the postal vote count (which is held before the final count when both the polling station and postal votes are counted together). I checked with the Electoral Commission’s own website and there is no separate postal vote tally kept where you can take a sample and off-set it against known postal voters (after the referendum/election) for names and votes matching, as is possible with polling station voting. Also, the second envelope should never be opened before the count: that would be like looking over someone’s shoulder as they vote in the booth. Only the first envelopes may be opened at sampling. No party people should be present at the first, informal count (mooted to have been furth of Scotland, but I have not been able to glean any information on that).
Electoral experts have stated that the British postal voting system is not fit for purpose and open to corruption. Investigative television programmes have reached the same conclusion. Anything that is put on computer before the formal count can be hacked, and, if it is the state that is doing the hacking, no trace need be left. I am not saying that is what happened, but it could happen because the system for postal voting is so open to interference, and, yes, it is illegal to give away results from samplings before they are made known publicly, so both Mr McTernan and Ruth Davidson were seriously out of order and should have been outed officially. That they were not is just another example of the pusillanimous way in which the aftermath of the referendum was dealt. Had it been the other way around, we would have been accused of all sorts.
Conspiracy theories don’t die easily.
“Devolved administrations are “suspended”. That’s the issue which has me puzzled. How can a suspended administration call and organise a referendum? Simple answer is it cannot.
I cannot believe that the plan is to wait until powers are removed before action is taken.