The ‘Great British Box’

Writing in The National today Joanna Cherry urges us all to be more open-minded about possible routes to a new referendum and independence (Joanna Cherry: History shows a referendum is not the only route to independence). To use my own favoured form of words she implores us to think outside the British box. Although she refers to it as looking at the constitutional issue “through the prism of devolution”, there is really no difference. Devolution is part of that British box which tends to constrain thinking about the constitutional issue and much else in Scotland. Devolution is, if you like, one side of that box. It is not a constitutional reform for the purpose of improving Scotland’s governance and our democracy. It is just another part of a British legal and constitutional framework which has evolved for the purpose of preserving the Union and Scotland’s subordinate status within it. Section 30 of the Scotland Act may be regarded as a restatement of that purpose.

It’s good advice. So I’m curious to know why Joanna Cherry herself declines to follow it. A puzzling thing indeed. But it cannot be denied that she eschews her own excellent advice to stop thinking of the constitutional relationship between Scotland and England only as this has come to be defined by the ruling elites of England-as-Britain and their collaborators in Scotland. The following passage from her column makes this all too painfully plain.

I am wholly in agreement with the view that we must find a legal and constitutional way to demonstrate that public opinion in Scotland has changed since the 2014 referendum in order for our independence to be internationally recognised and therefore meaningful.

I also agree that the easiest and best way to do that would be to replicate the Edinburgh Agreement entered into by Alex Salmond and David Cameron in 2012 by obtaining a Section 30 order so that the Scottish Parliament may hold a second independence referendum which will demonstrate irrefutably that the result of the first one has been reversed. But what if Boris Johnson continues to refuse to co-operate?

The notion that the Edinburgh Agreement can be replicated is both naive and nonsensical. Nonsensical because it assumes that public opinion on the matter of restoring Scotland’s independence is the only thing that has changed since 2014. Naive because it supposes that the current British regime would agree to the same terms. It would be easier, and less tedious, to list the things that haven’t changed in the last decade. In the period leading up to the first referendum the world was a very different place. Scotland’s political landscape was most decidedly not as it is now. The Edinburgh Agreement was a product of its time. That time has past. The Agreement cannot be replicated – or even approximated – because the prevailing conditions cannot be replicated – or even approximated.

If we got to the stage where a new Edinburgh Agreement was being negotiated then it would only be because the British political elite were assured of being able scupper those negotiations. Having first extracted from the Scottish Government a solemn undertaking not to proceed with a referendum in the absence of Edinburgh Agreement II, it would be all too easy for the British side to make demands to which the Scottish Government could not possibly agree. Insistence on a qualified majority would do it. Especially if combined with demands for a limited franchise excluding those aged 16 and 17. No Agreement. No referendum. No independence. And the Scottish Government get all the blame for being so ‘intransigent’.

Replicating the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement is not easy or preferable or even possible. And neither is finding a “legal and constitutional way” for Scotland’s people to exercise our right of self determination. Not if you are confined to the legal and constitutional framework devised by the British. Which is what you’re doing if you’re following the Section 30 process. There is no route to a free and fair referendum that the British state won’t declare illegal and unconstitutional. The British political elite will not allow a free and fair referendum which might end the Union. The Union is far to important to them. They call it ‘precious’ for a reason.

Does Joanna Cherry not realise that even giving credence – never mind preference – to the Section 30 process is a defining example of looking at the constitutional issue through the “prism of devolution”? The very thing she says we must not do! If you’re even asking the question, “But what if Boris Johnson continues to refuse to co-operate?”, then your thinking is still stuck in that ‘Great British Box’.

If Scotland’s independence is to be restored before the British make the restoration of Scotland’s independence effectively impossible, then we must think entirely outside that stupefying and debilitating box of Britishness. If the journey to Scotland’s independence is to be completed then we must be prepared to travel outside the legal and constitutional framework which will hinder and obstruct and entangle us no matter what path we take through its maze.

If we want recognition by the international community then it is their respect we need and not Westminster’s approval. We will only win that respect by acting in a way that deserves it. We will not win respect – or retain much in the way of self-respect – if we allow ourselves to be imprisoned by chains made not of steel but of our own belief in their existence. We will only gain the respect of the international community if we demonstrate a willingness to assert for ourselves the attributes of a normal independent nation.

The debate about Plan B is like an argument over what are the best brakes for a car that doesn’t even run and only deserves to be scrapped. If we are to formulate a new plan that is fit for our purpose then we must first forge a fresh mindset. A mindset which doesn’t fret about whether Boris Johnson might continue to refuse to co-operate, because it doesn’t entertain the idea of his cooperation being relevant.

We must stop thinking of independence as a nice thing that we might have if a benign British state would just give it to us. But not so nice as to worth any kind of confrontation. We must start to think of independence as an essential thing that Scotland must take from a malign British state intent on maintaining and tightening its grip on our nation. And be prepared to deal with any confrontation in order to do so.

To restore Scotland’s independence we must first be able to imagine Scotland as an independent nation. Forget all the ‘visions’ and policy agendas. Strip those away and find the essence of that restored independence and what it means at the most fundamental level. You will be imagining a nation which would not tolerate the Union or the encumbrances and iniquities it imposes on us.

Joanna Cherry seems to have grasped the need for a fresh mindset. But the mindset itself still eludes her.

8 thoughts on “The ‘Great British Box’

  1. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, but the cat will be skinned. There is only one way to self determination, and that is by determining it. An agreement to rescind a Union where one party are clearly law breakers, means there will be no honour or respect given to the self determination process. All Scotland needs to do, is prove to the International community that Scotland has determined it’s destiny within its International rights of doing so.


  2. Does anyone think that Joanna Cherry’s nod to Section30 is anything more than a means of keeping doors open to the loyal adherents of the S30 faith ? Along with (nearly) all MPs and MSPs she knows that the S30 process is dead in the water but like the rest of us rationalists needs to avoid totally alienating the devotees of the old faith, so that they find it as easy as possible to find enlightenment.


    1. Aye. We have to assume that she doesn’t mean what she says; she means whatever we want her to have said. This reminds me of the whole schtick about how we shouldn’t tel No voters they were wrong in case they get upset. How the fuck are people supposed to know they’re wrong if nobody tells them?

      I prefer to treat people like adults. Especially given that we don’t have time to wait until the hyper-cautious think everybody is grown-up enough to be told that they’re backing a non-runner in the biggest race they’ll ever see.

      I’ll take Joanna Cherry at her word until I have reason to do otherwise.


    2. bushgeoff
      If as you suggest nearly all MPs and MSPs know that the Section 30 process is dead in the water, why then are they being permitted to peddle this S30 nonsense without emphatic challenge from within their own ranks, that Westminster must grant permission?

      To my mind this is tantamount to collusion with the very State they purport to abhor and if seeking a S30 order is part of the grand strategy then this is treachery of the highest degree and must be called out forthwith.

      The time has long elapsed for coded messaging from within the serried ranks of our elected SNP politicians to be of any consequence, we are heading towards an abyss aided and abetted by rationalism, so called devotees of the old faith and their self promoting politicians.


      Liked by 1 person

      1. S30 is just a stick to beat the UK govt with. If granted, great, we get an unchallengable route to independence. If not granted, so what, there are other routes as Ms Cherry says.

        Each refusal to grant an S30 in the face of majority support for a referendum and independence is just more grist to the mill (and you can never have enough grist). I don’t agree with Peter’s assertion that the UK govt would only grant one if they got to control everything and thereby thwart Indy. If they ever granted one, it could only be from a position of weakness since, as Peter tells us, there is no logical, reason to grant it if they are in a strong position. If they acceded to it due to political/democratic/international/whatever pressure then Scotland would be dictating the terms, with the threat of another route by-passing WM being followed if they did not get their way.

        Which ever route is chosen, unless the Malcontents blow it for us, a majority SNP govt at Holyrood with a majority of the votes, coupled to the Brexit disaster and an EU and USA not “best pleased” with a corrupt UK govt, will put us in the strongest position since 1707 to achieve independence.

        PS I wonder if her views on S30 will harm the Malcontents soft focus love affair with her. Is she still their great hope in toppling history’s greatest monster, Sturgeon?


        1. Noted the first line before I realised who it was. It’s obvious you know less than fuck all about the Section 30 process and understand even less. More #WheeshtForIndy ignorance.

          Liked by 1 person

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 )

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.