SNP mandate for second independence referendum is ‘indisputable’ says Blackford
So, what has changed, Mr Blackford? The mandate to which you refer was indisputable prior to the most recent election. It has been indisputable for a few years now. Has that mandate taken on some new form or grade of indisputability as a result of the SNP landslide?
If the mandate is indisputable, how are British Nationalists able to dispute it? Might I suggest that it is because, while you say the mandate is indisputable, you don’t act as if it is indisputable? If it is an indisputable mandate, why have you not acted on it?
And, while you dispute Boris Johnson’s ‘right’ to dispute this indisputable mandate in one breath, in the next you acknowledge his ‘right’ to dispute it by committing to the Section 30 process. If the mandate is indisputable, why does it need Boris Johnson’s graceless approval to put it beyond dispute?
You insist that the mandate is indisputable. But, at the same time, you say it won’t be indisputable until Boris Johnson stops disputing it. Am I repeating myself? Perhaps that is because I’m trying to find a form of words which might elicit a response.
It’s a simple enough and sensible enough question, Mr Blackford. How can the mandate be indisputable AND in need of the British Prime Minister’s acknowledgement in order that it can be beyond dispute? Hmm, Mr Blackford?
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.
Peter A Bell 
I feel you’re splitting hairs and fail to distinguish impassioned political rhetoric from cold dispassionate objective logic. In any case what in your wisdom could or should Mr. Blackford have said at this juncture to advance Scotland’s case for independence?
LikeLike
I’m not his speechwriter. And it’s not splitting hairs at all. If you understood the situation you’d realise that I’m referring to something very basic here. Either the mandate is indisputable or it isn’t. If somebody claims that it is both indisputable and rightfully disputed, then I want to know why they’re talking such pish. Apparently, you don’t care. That’s fine, I suppose. But you don’t get to insist that I should be as unthinking as yourself. I couldn’t even if I wanted to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I take your point, and indeed on an abstract logical philosophical level you are correct … by definition. But for better or worse politics rarely functions on such an exulted airy plane, but down in the dirt and mire and muddle of human emotional conflict. Is intention to my (simple?) mind was just to draw attention the two conflicting points of view : To the SNP and wider ScotNat movement, the mandate is beyond argument; but from Westminster and a UK-centric outlook it can and is being disputed. Do you think then that a political position can only be valid if and when all parties start from the same premises? If that were the case the dispute would never have arisen …
LikeLike
It’s repetitive rhetoric and much political speech is the same. It’s done to impress, cajole, bully. get on the official record – but also to be reported by the media.It has to be done in an unideal world.
As to what’s actually going to happen it’s quite satisfying not to know – while being able if pushed in absolute secrecy, to be able to list N options that could all result in an Indy Ref (legal and accepted internationally). And the strange thing is that the devolved powers one way or another, might just arrive and we;d all wonder “How did that happen?”. Well, it might just have taken one phone call after the ground had been prepared “If we don’t get that then we’ll announce our NEXT STEPS”.
How much is reality how much an illusion? How much is bluff and how much is a Royal Flush in Spades, Ace High? We not know for another 100 years by which time I’ll just be a fond memory 🙂
LikeLike
“may not know”, sorry.
LikeLike
“list N options”? Go ahead! Never mind secrecy. I’m betting there are no options you, or Nicola Sturgeon can cite that our opponents haven’t already thought of. So, give us a sampling from your list.
“legal and accepted internationally”? Legal according to whose laws? Why is your default assumption that Scotland’s independence won’t be recognised by the international community? Why do you unquestioningly accept that the international community needs an OK from the British political elite before recognising Scotland?
Colonised mind!
LikeLike
“Why is your default assumption that Scotland’s independence won’t be recognised by the international community? Why do you unquestioningly accept that the international community needs an OK from the British political elite before recognising Scotland?”
Are you talking to yourself? It’s a nasty habit, but it helps to pass the time at sea.
“Colonised Mind”
Bit of a sad sig file you’ve got there! Still, better than your previous “Hive mind!” I guess.
LikeLike
Does that infantile “So’s yer maw!” nonsense impress the other kiddies in the playground?
LikeLike
At my age comments like yours make me smile. I left that sort of thing behind me long ago.
LikeLike
Quite evidently, you didn’t. Grow up. Or fuck off.
LikeLike
The point here is not about rhetoric and debate.
The point here is that the SNP leadership SAY we have an indisputable mandate while at the same time GIVE the means to dispute the mandate to the British State.
It is the difference between rhetoric and actions. And there is a word for politicians who say one thing and do another.
Yes, the Scottish Government should publish their democratic case. The problem is that if they wait for someone else to respect it, they blow a big hole in their own case. They need to get on with implementing whatever action they think is required to restore our Independence without delay.
LikeLiked by 1 person