It is not only Tories who are “fearful of independence”, as John Drummond seems to suppose (Tories are fearful of independence … let’s ask them to share their plans for it). it is all British Nationalists. Remember Better Together / Project Fear? This focus on the Tories rather than the British state is seriously ill-advised. We are not seeking a change OF British government. We are seeking a change FROM British government.
The comparison with South Africa is spurious. Where FW de Klerk and the National Party came to recognise that apartheid represented an economic threat, British Nationalists are either convinced that independence will be economically disastrous or they don’t care. They want to preserve the Union at any cost. They are driven by a ‘blood and soil’ nationalist ideology and only use economic scare stories to rationalise what is entirely an emotional devotion to a myth of Britishness.
Thus, British Nationalists – Tory or otherwise – see no need to plan for independence. They are absolutely determined to prevent it from happening. For many, even imagine independence is heresy.
The question we should be asking these British Nationalists is what they intend to do about the ~50% of the population that wants independence should their anti-democratic ambitions be realised. I suspect there’s vastly more chance of them having plans for that than for Scotland’s independence being restored.
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.
8 thoughts on “BritNat plans?”
If I may stretch your generosity again, Mr Bell, I’d like you and your commentators to read this:
MATT QVORTRUP, in the 2015 Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique, the official journal of the Centre de Recherches et d’Etudes en Civilisation Britannique, the national network of the discipline and has been instrumental in its structuring.
It purports to apply one or several of the social sciences to the study of Britain. This includes the empire and decolonization as well as modern and contemporary history. Two to four issues are published every year. Articles are peer reviewed and meet traditional research standards, but the journal is also used for the training of candidates for the competitive examinations leading to the teaching profession in France.
One of its paragraphs stands out in relation to the Scottish independence campaign: “Perhaps interestingly, the only UNSUCCESSFUL referendums on independence have been held in countries with established democratic traditions…it was very much the case that, as a contemporary scholar put it, “the rules governing the intercourse of states [did] neither DEMAND nor RECOGNIZE the application of the plebiscite [referendum] in the determination of sovereignty”. [I would add that most of these plebiscites were held after independence and not pre independence] – my words, not Matt Qvortrup’s.
He goes on to say:…“[given] that most referendums on independence have NOT been subject to a supermajority requirement, to demand a special majority in the SCOTTISH referendum would not be warranted…[while] there are examples of special majority requirements in countries with impeccable democratic records – such as Canada – these are rare. More often than not, such requirements have been introduced as an OBSTRUCTIONIST TACTIC, such as in Israel or the Soviet Union…
“…This type of obstructionism, albeit in a different setting, was also the motivation behind Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s insistence that a two-thirds majority should be required for secession in Latvia…”
He adds “Of course, this is not just a result of a concern for fairness and democratic legitimacy. Far from it. In politics, opportunism and ulterior motives are often presented in the guises of what we might call democratic appropriateness. Special majority requirements are no exception: a special majority quorum is often a mechanism of obstructionism. This was arguably the case in the late 1970s when the Callaghan government’s proposal for Scottish and Welsh devolution was obstructed by the Labour MP George Cunningham who introduced an amendment to the effect that devolution had to be supported by a majority that represented at least 40 percent of the eligible voters. This meant that devolution in Scotland was rejected although a MAJORITY of those voting, voted YES in the referendum in 1979.
[A majority of indigenous Scots also voted YES in 2014 (52.7% as against 47.3%) but, yet again, the result was negative. What do Scots have to do to gain independence?] – my words, not Matt Qvortrup’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very informative, Lorna.
What Scots have to do to get Independence, however, is to stand up to Westminster, and declare the Union is over.Our MPs shuld be withdrawn from Westminster.
That should’e happened in summer 2016.
So long as the present First Minister, and SNP leadership, insist they must follow Westminster rules, they are wasting their time, and ours.
As for other unionist parties in Scotland, the reason the tories are getting particular attention just now, is that they are the group in UK Government, and they are the ones who are telling us, it doesn’t matter how Scotland votes, they will not “allow” another Independence Referendum. As Secretary of State Jack has said, today.
Is the First Minister going to meekly accept this,? We would hope not.
But it is the case, Labour have been quite appalling, as is the Lib Dems.
Labour hatred of SNP is notorious.
This hatred among Labour politicians is their main motivation against Independence, rather than than what is good for Scotland.
Labour allowed their supporters and elected representatives on all levels, be they MP,,MSP, or councillor, to campaign either they way they wanted on the Brexit issue.
But for Scotland, it was a flat “No” to supporting Independence.
Even today, with only one MP in UK for all of Scotland, and 3rd place in Edinburgh Parliament behind the tories, Labour still insist, they will not accept Independence.
It was Labour, that were in the main, responsible for this country not voting for Independence.
With the help of Gordon Brown, and Daily Record, playing on vulnerable folks fears over pensions, EU currency, etc,, and claims to Polish in City of Aberdeen, they’d get deported, if it was an YES vote.
Then we had the actual Labour leader in Scotland publicly ask her supporters to vote tory, to unseat SNP, in 2017.
That is evidence enough of Labour hatred of SNP, and that having tory rule,form London, is preferred for Scotland. It tells us, Labour is as much anti Scottish, as the tories.
There is no point Labour politicians in Scotland giring off about tory Social Security policies, when they are happy to allow those policies to be left to London to impose upon us.
While it is the case,there are some deluded Labour folks who think they need Scottish votes and MPs to help UK Labour win power, many are simply against Independence over their petty hatred of a political group, they still feel has “stolen ” Labour’s rightful place in Scottish politics.
At any rate, Labour have shown themselves, even now, even with so many lost votes, implacably against Scotland, in favor of London.
The only alternative to Labour, is for it to be replaced entirely in this country, by a new pro Independence group.
For, if those in Labour just now, were to say they ‘d change their stand, they ,like the tories, cannot, ever be trusted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bit of de ja vu for you Peter, how many times have you said the British government/Tory’s would never agree to a section 30 order, it was never going to happen. I place the blame for this mess firmly at the door of the SNP for allowing the UK government to have a say in it, why did they pursue this section 30 order nonsense ? It’s our god given inalienable right to determine our own sovereignty. Not Westminster to deny it, the SNP insistence on a section 30 has got us to this point in time. So what now Nicola ? that plan B ?
What I have said is that no British government will put the Union in jeopardy. Which means they will only grant a Section 30 order if they are convinced that they will be able to scupper the process at a later stage.
Precisely, Mr Bell. It is almost impossible for a pre independence referendum in a traditional and long-established democracy (?) to be won by those who seek independence. The whole state system is geared up to prevent it, even when the means to hold it are made available. If we were to be granted a S30 Order, that would mean that the referendum would almost certainly be scuppered by some means. This is the path that the SNP has chosen. Either the FM is waiting to be told, NO, and will invoke a different route to independence, such as via resiling or dissolving the Treaty, or her advisers are telling her that there is no way that independence can be achieved but that the grunts on the ground must be kept pacified till all hope is gone and replaced with despair – in other words, the norm for Scotland these days, despite the SNP’s best efforts domestically. I am seriously in doubt about some of those close to the FM. One of the tactics of the British State is to place their own people within organizations for change – sleepers, in other words, who have been there a long time. I am not being paranoid. This was done in NI and it was done in the former colonies, as well as in the trade unions. I could be havering, but, somehow, I think not. Something is very wrong within the SNP. Very wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your right Peter.
It is and has always been the Engerlish state.
What do they do best when it comes to other countries ( destabilise).
This time they have control of the monies after brexit.
Hence the delay on their budget preventing movement on Scotland’s budget.
Then their media will kick in full on SNP baaad.
Pro union councils will cry out “Poverty”
People are fickle and read the Engerlish media soundbites.
The Engerlish state knows the voting system imposed on Scotland , will might , could be detrimental to the SNP
After the money is held back by them
We must hold fast and rise up in defiance .
Holding back monies, a form of sanctioning though not mentioned as such.
Destabilisation, the name of the game.
Onwards and upwards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Click to access 5801009.pdf
Something else that has been the subject of various warnings since at least 2014.