Section 30 is a lie!

Another senior SNP figure tries to silence those pointing out that so long as it remains committed to the Section 30 process the party is not offering voters a route to independence. And it is downright dishonest to claim otherwise. That’s right! That’s what I’m saying! Alyn Smith and his ilk are lying to us. And the lies have to be called out.

The truth is that the Section 30 process CANNOT be the democratic route to independence that it pretends to be. That is not its purpose. That is quite contrary to its purpose. Section 30 was slipped into the Scotland Act 1998 to satisfy those in the British establishment who were only prepared to tolerate devolution on the strict condition that the Union was safeguarded. To imagine that there might be a route to independence within a legal and constitutional framework designed for the preservation of the Union is nothing short of idiocy. Almost as idiotic as the claim that “we’ve never been closer to independence”. A line that has been discreetly dropped from Alyn Smith’s rhetoric.

That was a lie of another sort. It was a lie so transparent as to be almost comical. As, in its way, is the only marginally more subtle effort to pin the blame for the party’s failures in relation to the constitutional issue on the public heath emergency. The truth is that the fight to restore Scotland’s independence long since ran onto the rocks of Nicola Sturgeon’s inexplicable devotion to the British state’s “gold standard” in maintaining its grip on our nation at whatever cost to the Scottish people.

I issue this challenge to Alyn Smith or anyone else who continues to insist that we must abide by the Section 30 process. Explain, in step-by-step detail how the Section 30 process can possibly take us from where we are now to a referendum and the restoration of Scotland’s independence, or admit that you have been lying to the party membership and the people of Scotland.

Enough of the lies!

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

14 thoughts on “Section 30 is a lie!

  1. Section 30(2) orders are really only required if there are likely to be a successful legal challenge – from either side. I’m not a constiitutional expert though so may well be wrong.


  2. That section 30 route seems to have no prospect of going anywhere. Permission to hold a referendum would only be granted if there was a near certainty that it would return a stay -in- the- Union outcome . Boris may be silly but he’s no daft , why would he cede UK territory ? Are we to wait until he loses his marbles entirely ? He may be a chancer but he’s not so gung ho as to risk the territorial integrity of his realm on a wild throw of the dice .Those folk that claim that refusing a section 30 is unsustainable are into magical thinking .What kind of inner tensions /contradictions do they imagine will sever the knot ?

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Aye! It’s a bloody cul De sac.
    I questioned Alyn Smith while he was in the European parliament after I had signed against the TTIPS Yankee trade deals with the catch all ISDS clause.
    Luckily the trade deal was knocked back.
    Although Alyn was all for it.
    I never received a reply.
    He’s a bit aloof, perhaps it’s his legal background, or some such.
    However, he doesn’t give out any alternatives which worries me.
    EU was a nice position to get.
    Plays to the gallery.
    As all lawyers do.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. My German partner talks about how Joschkar Fischer was a jean’s clad revolutionary and within a year of government was a Hugo Boss suited establishment figure.

    The SNP wont lead us to independence. They are now imbedded. We must now look at the parallels of how nations seceded from the UK without the UKs approval.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. At last there appears for the moment to be some relief from the Pandemic. Therefore I think now would be a good time for NS to take some time out and level with the Yes Movement as to where she and her Party stand in respect of Independence covering Timeline s30 etc etc. Isn’t it the least they deserve?

    Liked by 2 people

  6. A couple of articles from searching scottishconstitutionalforums,org – there are more, search for “section 30” some are the date 30th!

    Aileen McHarg 2017

    and Christine Bell 2012, more about the Edinburgh Agreement

    Salmond referenced Bell in Holyrood, and Aileen McHarg is a general constitutional expert. Both I think started in 2012 as neutral, and came over to the dark side (YES) during the rerendum campaign. No wonder!

    What I think is that Cameron had some sense, some cop on, so the idea of a constitutional mess dragging on was unlikely to happen. May didn’t care about the niceties, it took the UKSC to put her in her place, and BoJo is even worse, he is not of this planet, this solar plane, this piece of the universe we call “reality”. Of course, he could surprise us all.


  7. Aye Peter, Alyn Smith is as you say a liar and has previous recorded form in this arena. Carpetbagger would be another term which comes to mind in respect of his parachuting skills, adeptly employed to secure the parliamentary candidature on behalf of the SNP in the Stirling constituency at the most recent UK general election.

    It is not a coincidence that he is also a Bute House luvvie who by his own admission takes tea with Nicola Sturgeon on occasion in the company of others.

    The pro-independence political activists within SNP branches as opposed to the solely subscription payers must soon act to neutralise the forces promoting the mindset of Alyn Smith and his not insignificant ilk within the elected representatives to Holyrood and Westminster.

    I say this having some thirty years ago witnessed the same machinations within the British Labour party in Scotland where good people were put to the sword in order to accommodate the ‘right thinking’ people. If the movement within the SNP towards independence is to progress with any certitude then those matters must be dealt with at grassroots level, sooner rather than later.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As a general rule, being the subject of one of Mike Small’s pompously self-righteous and woefully ill-informed bleatings should be taken as an encouraging sign that you’re on the right track. Frankly, I’m just surprised to find he may have read something he didn’t write himself.


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 )

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.