Actions, intentions and ambitions

As I write, it has just been confirmed that Boris Johnson, inexplicably British Prime Minister, has spoken to the Queen to request that Parliament is suspended until October 14. We do not yet know if or how the head of state has responded. But does it matter? Isn’t it enough that the approach was made? Does this action alone not clearly enough signal the totalitarian ambitions and ant-democratic intentions of the British political elite?

Is an attempted coup less offensive to democratic principles than a failed coup? Is a failed coup any less reprehensible than a successful coup? Once politicians declare their ambition to use the power that democracy gives them to thwart the democracy that gives them power, how much more do we need to know? Once those politicians have demonstrated their intention to flout the fundamental precepts of democracy in pursuit of some narrow ideology, should we ponder whether they are actually capable of doing so?

When those politicians initiate the early actions which presage the abrogation of democratic processes and the dismantling of democratic institutions, is that not the appropriate time to put an end to their ambitions?

There is always an excuse. There is always a plausible reason for ‘side-stepping’ democracy. The circumstances require it. Or they can be made to require it. Or they can be made to look as if they require it. The public can always be persuaded that what is being done is in their best interests. Or they can be convinced that it’ll all turn out all right in the end.

When we take our democratic rights and protections for granted it is easy to imagine they cannot be seriously threatened. It is easy to believe that democracy is a fixture in our politics; in our society; in our lives. We are always happy to be told that we don’t actually have to do anything ourselves to ensure those democratic rights and protections. We are not generally stupid. But apathy and indolence can make as just as vulnerable.

The reality is very different – as we are now discovering. Our democracy is fragile. All the democratic protections we enjoy are worthless unless we are prepared to invoke them. All the democratic rights we assume to be inalienably ours are as nothing if we are not prepared to shoulder responsibility for defending them.

The people of Scotland are sovereign. But, even in Scotland our ability to fully and effectively exercise our sovereignty is limited – constrained by the Union. We cannot hope to alter the course of events in England. Our elected representatives can cry outrage until they are hoarse. It will have no meaningful effect. The Union is purposefully designed to guarantee that Scotland’s voice is always inconsequential within the British state. Many of our elected representatives are ideologically committed to ensuring that Scotland’s voice remains inconsequential. Do not expect the British parties in Scotland to stand up for the sovereignty of Scotland’s people. Expect them only to submit to an anti-democratic coup in England rather than compromise their precious Union.

The people of Scotland are sovereign. This means that all legitimate democratic power derives from the people. The corollary of which is that all democratic responsibility ultimately resides with the people. If we do not

The people of Scotland are sovereign. If our ambition is a better Scotland and our intention is to prevent the British political elite trampling that ambition underfoot, then it’s time we started acting like the sovereign people of Scotland.

There is an opportunity for you to assert and affirm your sovereignty on Saturday 31 August by joining the Forward as One March & Rally in Dunfermline. Assemble at Viewfield Terrace from 10:30. Depart 12:00 sharp. Rally Pittencrieff Park (The Glen) 13:00.

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.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

8 thoughts on “Actions, intentions and ambitions

  1. When the Scotland was deemed by the Supreme Court to be open to re-interpretation according to the principles of English constitutional law, that was when it became evident to those with eyes to see that the UK government has almost unlimited powers at its disposal. When devolved powers could be sacrificed, or, rather, stolen, to satisfy the government’s agenda, we should have been aware then that there is, essentially, little to be done in practical, pragmatic and realistic terms, within the UK sphere to change the situation we are in. That it is intolerable to us is neither here nor there. That it destroys our long-held constitutional principles matters not a jot. We can stamp our feet. We can call for our Claim of Right. We can demand another indyref. None of it matters if we are not willing to stand our ground and fight for our future, for our existence. I do not care what plans the SNP is hiding from us, supposedly, so that the UKG does not learn of them, we need to signal our refusal to co-operate any more and take action now. Whatever happens now, NO Deal/Deal, we are Brexiting with rUK unless we get out before Hallowe’en. Even if we do Brexit, and I don’t see how we can avoid it if the SG does not move soon in a different direction, we cannot wait another two years voiceless, until the Brexit negotiations are completed, to hear our fate. We can negotiate an associated membership of the EU, if we must, at a later date, and avoid a hard border with England, too, but we cannot save Ireland/NI/England/Wales. I wish we could, but the die is cast. If Johnson is brass-necked enough to use English constitutional powers to save his government and himself, there is little that he will not use against us, and make no mistake, we will be defenceless unless we stop running and stand our ground now and use the Treaty or we could be risking a proxy “civil war”, not just in England, but in Scotland, too.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. A very powerful piece Peter…..brings the PM’s actions into the fore….despicable in extremis.

    ‘Once politicians declare their ambition to use the power that democracy gives them to thwart the democracy that gives them power, how much more do we need to know? Once those politicians have demonstrated their intention to flout the fundamental precepts of democracy in pursuit of some narrow ideology, should we ponder whether they are actually capable of doing so?’

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, indeed, GGP, Mr Bell’s piece is powerful. The fundamental problem facing the SG is that Johnson is not misusing the constitution; he is actually making the arcane principles of what is the almost wholly English constitution work for his faction in parliament. The Queen could do none other than give it her sanction – precisely because it is not outwith the constitution, albeit the constitution is unwritten. That does not mean it does not exist. The action brought in the Court of Session must fail, I think, although it will be an opportunity for the Scottish court to apply Scots Law and it might just be independent enough to offer a ruling that does not meet with ‘British’ constitutional approval. I certainly hope so. We shall see.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I am not 100% certain on this – it’s difficult to keep up – but I think they’ve got around the fact that the prorogue is not unconstitutional by asking for a judgement on the length of time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.