Why all the fuss? All George Osborne has done is encourage Boris Johnson to abide by Section 30 of the Scotland Act (1998). The part of the Act which affirms the power over Scotland afforded to England-as-Britain by the Union. The part of the Act which states that this power is absolute. The part of the Act which states explicitly that power devolved is power retained.
THE PART OF THE SCOTLAND ACT WHICH NICOLA STURGEON HAS HAILED AS THE ‘GOLD STANDARD’ OF DEMOCRACY!
So, why all the fuss? What is Mike Russell so incensed about? Why the indignant outrage from Tommy Sheppard? If they agree with the party leader’s assessment of Section 30, aren’t they being extremely hypocritical in condemning Boris Johnson for using this part of the Act in precisely the way it was intended to be used? That is to say, to protect and preserve their ‘precious’ Union.
Section 30 merely confirms Scotland’s status as annexed territory entirely at the disposal of the British political elite. The status imposed on Scotland by the Union. Mike Russel’s talk of “old-style Soviet Stalin era” is perfectly apt. Tommy Sheppard’s reference to “tin-pot dictator[ship” is just as appropriate. But why does Mr Sheppard pose the question of whether the British want to “maintain a Union by consent or by coercion” when they have already made it very plain that consent is not a consideration and coercion is always an option? That answer is nowhere made more plain than in Section 30 of the Scotland Act.
WHICH NICOLA STURGEON MAINTAINS IS THE ‘GOLD STANDARD’!
Mr Russell is correct about the British government denying the people of Scotland our “basic democratic rights”. But it is Section 30 of the Scotland Act which legitimises this denial with authority derived from the Union. He is correct when he observes that this denial of our right of self-determination is “illegal under international law”. But Section 30 makes it legal under British law.
NICOLA STURGEON SAYS THAT SECTION 30 IS THE ONLY PROCESS WHICH IS “LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL”!
I don’t care what George Osborne thinks. What he states is, however, the simple truth. British Prime Ministers can just veto our right of self-determination in the same way they vetoed our Remain vote and the same way they can ALWAYS veto the democratic will of Scotland’s people. The Union gives them this power. This power is expressed in Section 30 of the Scotland Act.
NICOLA STURGEON SAYS SECTION 30 OF THE SCOTLAND ACT IS THE ‘GOLD STANDARD’!
I do care what our elected representatives think. Elected representatives such as Mike Russell and Tommy Sheppard. If they agree with Nicola Sturgeon’s assessment of Section 30 then they are agreeing with George Osborne. Because Osborne is merely stating a fact which Sturgeon also acknowledges.
I care about that. I worry about that. And so should you.
Peter A Bell 
Now, this we completely agree on, Peter! Well said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Westminster establishment uses precedent when it suits and ignores when it doesn’t.
For example, the withholding of its consent for a) the withdrawal from the EU and b) the vote (twice) to hold a Scottish Independence referendum by Holyrood MSPs in the current Parliament. The Sewel Convention is just that – a convention, a recommendation, an advice slip – and was thus ignored, as this was convenient and lawful.
Meanwhile Section 30 requests can be refused, legally, under the Scotland Act (1998) as things stand. (The Keatings case MAY establish differently, we’ll see). So the anti-Democrats can easily justify ignoring the begging letters.
If the Scottish National Party do not act upon the will of the people of Scotland to self-determine regardless of Westminster or other attempts to obstruct then they risk going the same way as the Irish Party of Parnell/Redmond 100 plus years ago.
And who know where that might lead.
LikeLike
The truth of the matter is Sturgeon doesn’t want Independence. Aside,…Go on Sturgeon if you disagree prove me wrong !.
She is more interested in driving the woke agenda forward,and, as in the case of the SG Salmond inquiry the state apparatus is clearly protecting her by banning the production and sight of information and documents required by the inquiry. First they came for our politicians, next they came for our bloggers etc etc
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peter your analysis sadly is correct, ‘our’ collaboration of that understanding undermines our cause. It is our apparent governmental acquiesce that drives misunderstanding internationally. The governments narrative must change, bringing a coherent system response.
I don’t agree with Steve de moray’s contention, I suspect that keeping the EU / USA on board is a key aim of Holyrood. Relying on the growth of expressed public feeling to undermine WM’s zero tolerance of S.30 agreement will be a long game.
Without an educative political narrative aimed overseas we are doing WM’s propaganda for them.
LikeLike