It ain’t necessarily so!

Is a Section 30 order required to make a new independence referendum “legal”? Is it “key to gaining EU membership as an independent country”? This article in The National states both these things as facts. But the reality is that the situation is far from being so clear-cut.

Of course, it is only possible to be aware that things may be a bit more complicated than is generally assumed if simplistic assumptions are declined and everything is questioned. And if the appropriate questions are asked.

Instead of mindlessly parroting the line peddled by politicians and media that a Section 30 order is required to make a referendum “legal”, try asking how the impeccably free, fair and democratic exercise of a right guaranteed by the Charter of the United Nations could possibly be ‘illegal’? What would make it ‘illegal’? How might a clause in an Act of the British parliament outweigh the body of international laws and conventions which establish the right of people to choose how they are governed, and by whom?

Don’t just thoughtlessly agree when it is asserted that the lack of a Section 30 order would be an obstacle to EU membership for Scotland having restored our independence by means of an impeccably free, fair and democratic exercise of our inalienable right of self-determination. Ask why this should be an obstacle at all. Ask why the EU would accept the veto of Scotland’s application by a third country (non-member state) on the grounds that Scotland had not sought that state’s permission to exercise a right which cannot legally be subject to external interference?

When you see or hear it stated as fact that a Section 30 order is required to make a new independence referendum “legal”; or that it is “key to gaining EU membership as an independent country”, remember that song from the Gershwins’ opera Porgy and BessIt ain’t necessarily so!



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

6 thoughts on “It ain’t necessarily so!

  1. Any ‘rule’ is only true if the majority respect it.
    If the Yes vote was 98%, and was No 2% on an 88% turnout, would that be invalid if no S30 order was in play?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Which is precisely why the opposition are now trying to rig the next referendum with a 50% rule and a winning margin of 60%. They know that Scotland will have it’s referendum without a section 30, and it will be completely legitimate and democratic.

    It will be recognised by the UN and by the EU. So they now need to try and stop us winning the referendum by moving the goalposts.

    It’s actually very desperate stuff. They are panicking!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. The English Government of the UK agrees with you, Peter. “The legal opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, as submitted to the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case” makes your point.

    “… international law has not treated the legality of the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor State‟s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.

    5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in which the secession is occurring.

    5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond the scope of already conferred power.”

    Scotland is in a better position than Kosovo because we are united with England by a Treaty of Union. As a signatory of that Treaty, Scotland has the right to withdraw. I can’t understand why Nicola Sturgeon, the mandarins of the SNP and The National all promote the lie that permission of the English Government of the UK is necessary for a referendum to be legal. Is it pandering to the Tory elite, or pandering to the Queen?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.