Simple question. What’s to stop them? What’s to stop the British government denying Scotland’s right of self-determination indefinitely?
How many times do the people of Scotland have to vote for the SNP to give the Scottish Parliament a mandate to have an independence referendum?
Rather than ask what the number is he’d have done better to ask if there is a number. If one mandate can be dismissed then so can two. And four. And eight. And any number you care to think of. It is no more problematic for the British government to dismiss mandate number 1,765 than mandate number three. Or four. Or whatever it is that we’re at now. If anything, it gets easier for them. They’ll quickly get into a routine.
There is no cost to them. It costs the British government nothing to ignore a mandate for a new referendum. The cost is zero. It doesn’t matter what zero is multiplied by, it is still zero.
Ian Blackford asks,
Is he [Borish Johnson] really prepared to ignore a party that has got 80% of the seats from Scotland in this place and has won 45% of the vote?
Yes, he is. We know he is. Because he’s said he is very often and with as much clarity as he is capable of. And why not? Why shouldn’t he ignore 100% of the seats on 100% of the vote? The set of rules and procedures which Nicola Sturgeon has called the “gold standard” allows any British Prime Minister to ignore any vote in Scotland. Look at our 62% remain vote. 62% is more than 45% and two successive British Prime Ministers have ignored it with effortless ease and at absolutely no cost.
Any British Prime Minister can ignore any vote in Scotland with effortless ease and at absolutely no cost because that set of rules and procedures which Nicola Sturgeon calls the “gold standard” is built on the foundation of a political union contrived and imposed for the purpose of ensuring that the British Prime Minister and the parliament of England-as-Britain will be able to ignore all votes in Scotland in perpetuity.
A question for Ian Blackford. How is that situation going to change if the SNP isn’t prepared, and the Yes movement isn’t allowed, to even mention the possibility of ending the Union?
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 
Peter I think Joanna Cherry has let the cat out of the bag. The SNP are going to wait around for their masters to authorise the section 30. Nothing else is going to happen. Because Joanna like the rest of them believe Domestic law is the only route to independence. The harder option of appealing to the UN and having a confirmatory referendum is not something the SNP want to pursue.
I think this really is up to us now Peter. The SG have signed away our mandate.
The only option is the people demand recognition from the UN , and demand that our government carries out our mandate. You were right from the start Peter. The Section 30 failed before it started. This might explain why so many in the SNP treated you like a rabble rouser and almost an enemy.
LikeLike
Mr Bell, Big Jock, I have said from day one that there is no other choice but to resile the Treaty of Union. Just as I said from day one that Brexit would be impossible to overturn. I also said on the night of the referendum that we had lost because of what I encountered on the doorstep and that we should avoid a second one. There are people out there who will never be turned, who will never vote for independence because they either believe implicitly and/or explicitly in the Union in a way that is consistent with the more extreme faiths, or because they themselves benefit (or believe they do) from the Union. That number includes dyed-in-the-wool Tory, Labour and Lib Dem supporters, the older population, and the majority of rUK voters in Scotland.
Everything, in the domestic sphere, is pointless, as these constitutional lawyers say. It infuriates me that SNP and wider Yes movement figures – many of them influential – keep on with this deception – and it is a deception. I’m not saying this to be a smart alec or to show how clever I am; way past that kind of egotistical oneupmanship these days; and it’s amazing how a cancer diagnosis and treatment – concentrates the mind. I am eternally grateful to the dedication and professional competence of NHS Scotland staff who are second to none. I also have a very high regard for a number of SNP politicians whom I know personally. I am not out to make an enemy of anyone, but neither will I be silent. Just pointing out that we need to stop looking at what we cannot do and start to think about what we can do – if we have the cojones to do it. I’m not sure the SNP has the cojones. I’m not sure the wider YES movement has the cojones. I believe – and it’s just my opinion – that a whole, new movement has to start up with the intention to end the Union itself.
The rest will fall into place, and the SNP and the wider independence movement will reap the benefits in the longer term. That is not the point. The point is that, whatever negativity is thrown at resiling the Treaty – and it is a risk, granted – it is the one area that the UK government or the British constitutional courts cannot control, and it is the one area in which the UK government knows that it is on shifting sands. All that delaying and setting ourselves up for another fall will achieve is, potentially, internecine conflict, and that should be the last thing anyone wants, because the independence thrust cannot be contained now, and, in their more rational moments, all the players must know that: the SNP, the wider independence movement, the British parties, the UK government, et al. In the end, independence negotiations must be done through the Treaty.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A similar diagnosis has focused my mind these last seven years. Perhaps we should organise others so diagnosed and set up a movement of the kind you mention. Hashtag cancer patients dissolving the Union. Apart from sharpening the mind, having nothing to lose and not giving a proverbial what others think has helped me too. But the effects of fatigue, pain, medication and bleak prognoses rather get in the way of commitment. To some extent these discussions are already a start. But we have to get the message to a wider audience and into the pages of The National, which irritatingly seems only to wish to punt the facile so called “democratic” route. That there are other ways of achieving independence than via the so called “legal” must be shouted from the rooftops. And shouting is all I can really do these days. If we can shout together maybe the message will penetrate.
LikeLike
Lorna. Some people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to independence. Once we are independent they will wonder what all the fuss was about. I truly believe that. I believe in Eire itself there were unionists who never wanted Ireland to go independent. However when they saw for themselves what the Black and Tans did. They quickly realised who the real enemy was.
Michael Collins realised quite quickly that his country had to be taken back, not given back. We need to break domestic law before the real battle for Scotland can start. I am not suggesting we need to resort to military action. But we do need to do something like Norway. They set up embassies in other European countries. The Swedes who ruled over them kicked off about it. This ultimately led to Norwegian independence.
Maybe it’s not co-incidence that Nicola was in Oslo last week! ( I surely hope so)
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is not a jot of encouragement in the McHarg article. There is no Plan B. So much for the sovereign right of the Scottish people and the *right* to choose the form of government best suited to them.
Fine words. Zero content.
LikeLike
The SNP is colluding with the English Government of the UK to keep Scotland in the UK. That may not be intentional. It may due to naivety. There may be some hidden reason. I knew when the SNP started opposing Brexit that they had adopted a British vision in place of a Scottish vision, while at the same time trying to impose Scotland’s vote on Brexit on England.
The SNP is no longer a party of independence. Someone else must take the lead. Who will do it?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have been saying for long enough, we need a new political grouping for Independence.
We have had to rely on SNP, and that has been understandable up ’till this point, but if SNP cannot adapt to the present circumstances, and will not challenge London, i.e confront London, then, we need others who will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It feels like the SNP have played YES into a corner…only to say “stick with us, we are the only option”.
Why didn’t INDY get the same energy, creativity and gumption that JC put in to those successful Brexit challenges.
Notice all of those were done well in advance – acting well before the event. Now it looks increasingly like SNP will only take INDY actions after Westminster has already shut the gate.
SNP has failed to get on the front foot by using all the rights embedded in the “claim of right” and make Westminster react. History has shown how Westminster treats those who act against it and Scotland will pay a heavy price.
LikeLike
There are precisely no rights “embedded” in the Claim of Right.
LikeLike
I cant argue with any of the comments . SNP MP’s talking of looking forward to working with “great teams” in Westminster for “years to come “. And now yet another speech by our FM on The English Brexit. Eggs need broken to make an omelete !
Was on the march on Saturday as i have done for many now. Chants about “getting rid of Boris “.
The malaise needs halted and direct political and social action taken. Too many egos and benefactors in The Indy Industry.
The only positive news for me was the digital covenant now going live.
LikeLike
The digital covenant site gave access to the documentary which BBC Alba made on the growth of the independence movement since World War II. I found it informative when I watched it some years ago but seeing it in the context of the digital covenant, it made uncomfortable viewing. John MacCormick’s Home Rule Covenant gathered 2 million signatures in 1949 and was sidelined and ignored by Westminster. Some of the quotations in the documentary could have come from today’s Westminster politicians and civil servants. It seems to me that a covenant is just repeating history. Given the way the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament (the elected representatives of the Scottish people) are sidelined and ignored by the UK Government and the way Scottish MPs are treated in the House of Commons, the outcome will be the same. Would it not be more to the point to formalise the YES movement?
LikeLiked by 1 person