Only the Scottish Parliament can restore Scotland’s independence.
The Scottish Parliament can only restore Scotland’s independence if it has the necessary powers.
The Scottish Parliament can only acquire the necessary powers by taking them.
This is where we are.
#ScottishUDI
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 
But you still have to tell us what happens if the UK govt says No to that. What do you do then? You could declare yourself Lord Provost of Perth, but if the Council says “no you aren’t” …. you’re kind of buggered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My reading of Peter A Bell’s proposed process, which he has very explicitly and repeatedly laid out on this and other posts, does not involve asking a question (of a third party government) to which you have postulated an answer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No question is needed duncanio. Only action. The Scottish Parliament “takes the necessary powers” …. and the UK govt says No. What then? Its a simple question, to which Peter has no answer.
It has to be noted, that Peter’s insistence that the FM’s planned referendum can simply be ignored by Westminster is equally applicable to his own preferred process, which is NOT laid out here. It involves an election, a UDI, a confirmatory referendum and then …… apparently magic happens. Apparently the UK govt crumbles before the political genius of the process, finds itself bereft of legal powers and just says “okay then”. Then the international community, I must assume, converges on Peter’s house and chair him through the streets of Perth with the massed throngs cheering his name and throwing petals before him. The Father of the Nation. But in the real world …. no. His confirmatory referendum result would be in the same boat as Sturgeon’s. That is, requiring UK and International recognition, however grudgingly given from a UK perspective.
LikeLike
“No question is needed duncanio. Only action. The Scottish Parliament “takes the necessary powers” …. and the UK govt says No. What then? Its a simple question, to which Peter has no answer.”
Why do you ask “What then?” if “No question is needed”? Why did you say “But you still have to tell us what happens if the UK govt says No to that.” in your previous post if “No question is needed”?
The statement “takes the necessary powers” in Peter A Bell’ succinct process is not a question, it is, as you would say, “Only action”.
LikeLike
My point was, duncanio, that “Peter” does not have to ask the UK govt a “question” for the UK govt to say “no”. The UK govt merely has to “act” to nullify the “taking of necessary powers” thereby, essentially, saying “no”.
LikeLike
I don’t wish to presume what you mean by the UK government having to “act” so I can’t respond to your comment.
Probably best to leave it at that.
LikeLike
Feigning lack of intelligence is not your strongest suit duncanio. The UK govt merely has to state they do not acknowledge the legality of the unilateral “taking of powers” and, legally, Peter’s process is dead in the water. He would be left appealing to the international community for support, just as Sturgeon would. Though they would be more likely to support Sturgeon’s “reasonable”, legal approach than Peter’s “rash”, illegal one. Countries are wary of setting dangerous precedents like that.
LikeLike
It is better to explain what you mean, I understand now, no feigning on my part.
I guess if you are to abide by what is legal under ‘UK Law’ – although not being a legal expert I am not sure that exists, more likely Scots Law and English Law – then we will never regain full self-government. The British will never ‘allow it’ – we know the reasons why. This really means they will not endorse it.
So at some point we will just have to assert our right – the Claim of Right, if we believe that we are truly sovereign – and take our Independence.
The one caveat is that a true plebiscite will have to be held to validate the proposition. The people must support it.
LikeLike
The UK govt will never “willingly” give Scotland its independence. But with a positive result in a referendum, the pressure to acknowledge it will be intense. No UK govt has ever refused to enact the result of a consultative referendum and, if we play our cards right, a sympathetic international community will be more than happy to give us their support. It’s not a given, but short of armed insurrection (not going to happen), it’s the best option open to us.
LikeLike
For that process to be legitimate it must be ‘Made in Scotland’. There must be no British involvement in setting the terms and conditions or rules and regulations. The reasons for that should be obvious – they will always seek to undermine and gerrymander as they did in the following plebiscites:
Devolution ’79 – the 40% rule
Devolution ’97 – the second (tax varying powers) question
Brexit ’16 – only the UK wide result is valid
They cheated in the Independence referendum of 2014 when things started to go against them. All of a sudden their ‘rules’ could be abandoned e.g. the Vow broke Purdah rules
A fair and valid process can only be established when the question set, the answer options, the franchise employed, timetabling and inspectorate of vote count is defined without British influence or interference.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Correct! There must always be a referendum. All that is open to question is at what stage in the process the referendum is held. And, of course, who runs it. There can only be a free and fair exercise of our right of self-determination if the entire process is made and managed in Scotland with no involvement of the British state. This would accord with UN standards.
MBP suffers from a colonised mind. One symptom is the constant questioning of the legitimacy of anything Scotland might do while assuming anything the British do must be legitimate. Scotland is not a colony. Indeed, had we been a colony we would probably have shucked off the British shackles long ere now. Scotland is more akin to annexed territory. While Scotland is not a colony, however, a great many Scottish minds have been very effectively colonised by generations of British propaganda. These colonised minds are the greatest obstacle to the restoration of Scotland’s independence.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ahh, the “colonised mind” gambit. When failing to counter a valid point, seek other means to undermine your opponent. In this case, the use of an epithet wholly dreamed up by Peter. Well, two can play at that game.
Peter is suffering from the delusional mind. He believes he can render the UK state powerless with a simple Braveheart like cry of UDI. However, the rest of us live in the real world.
Depending on your definition of legitimate, whether it is the strict legal sense or the more broad moral sense, not everything the UK govt coukd do is “legitimate” and not everything the Scottish govt could do is illegitimate. What the FM is seeking to do is “legitimate” in every sense of the word. When it comes to UDI, legally that would be “illegitimate” and the UK could “legitimately” refuse to acknowledge it. That is simple fact. To succeed, it would need political and moral pressure from home and abroad. Just as the FM’s plan would likely need. That is all I am saying. But Peter cannot bring himself to admit it.
LikeLike
You seem to imagine there is some process which would obviate the possibility of the British government refusing to recognise the “legality” of any outcome it didn’t like. There is no such process.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A short but confusing statement Peter.
If it refers to my belief that, after a positive result in the FM’s proposed referendum, political and moral pressure may have to be brought to bear to make the UK govt enact the result, you have misunderstood. What I have described is not a defined “process”, it is just politics.
And, sorry to be insistent, you have still not told us what the plan of action would be if the UK govt refused to acknowledge your UDI. You appear to believe the UK state would be rendered powerless by it. It wouldn’t. Can you not simply admit you’d be left depending on the very thing the FM’s plan would be dependent on? That is, political and moral pressure being brought to bear from home and abroad.
LikeLike
I’ve dealt with your drivel about “political and moral pressure”. Probably more than once. I won’t let you waste any more of my time.
I’ve also dealt with your tediously repeated crap about the British government refusing to acknowledge UDI. It is only because your wee mind is so totally colonised that you imagine the British government’s acknowledgement is crucial. I know you don’t understand any of this. I am persuaded that you never will. So responding to you is the very definition of pointless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have not “dealt” with any of it Peter. That is the problem.
LikeLike
Idiot.
LikeLike
When Scotland takes its own powers back from London, there will be absolutely nothing London can do!
And as I have said before, when Scotland pulls its MPs out of Westminster, as part of that process, then again, there can be no Union.
It is over at that point, and again, London can’t do one single thing to stop it.
That is how it will be.
For the only option open to London, would be sending in the Army, or perhaps trying to create divisions in Scotland, like they did elsewhere, such as in Ireland.
I do not see London doing that. I don’t think London wants to be seen as in the same category as Putin of Russia!
And as for the International response, well, Scotland, being a country, just as say, Lithuania is a country, but was ruled by Moscow, then Scotland, being a country, will be sure to get more support internationally, than would London, if it tried to oppose our Independence, after Scotland opted for it.
London has burned so many bridges with both Europe and USA of late.
At any rate, regards present SNP approach to things, we might have to wait a bit for them to finally take the required action we need.
There is now many folks demanding we do something, both within, and without SNP, and those folks will not tolerate too many more letdowns.
And if just enough of them realize the First Minister’s plan is going to take them nowhere, they will have had more than enough of this charade.
We wait to see how long they are prepared to wait!
LikeLiked by 2 people
MBP: of course, the UK government will say no – no to anything and everything, so YOU tell us how to get round that because there is no way round it. Face down the British State or stay at home and twiddle your thumbs. Peter is quite correct that, in the end, we will be forced to declare our independence (with the Scottish constitutional tools as back-up – that’s me, not Peter). UDI was always going to be the way forward. If the Scottish parliament takes that decision (there is an independence majority) we have a fighting chance. As things stand, we have none. The SNP alone will never deliver it, but, if we have a plebiscitary election and all vote them in again, they will let us have another mandate to oblivion. No way will we get a S30 Order. No way can Holyrood hold an advisory referendum that will not be shot down in flames. Both these options are in Westminster’s gift. So, what do you suggest we do, MBP. As for your wee jibe at delusion about self-ID-ing as Lord Provost of Perth, you got in in a winner. Why is the SG not telling men with fetishes that they are not women, can never be women and will never be women? Why are they using the GRA reform to sink independence below the water-line? We need to think strategically and, above all, in a REALPOLITIK fashion, not succumb to SNP a**e saving which will leave us where we are now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Only the Scottish Parliament can restore Scotland’s independence.
The Scottish Parliament can only restore Scotland’s independence if it has the necessary powers.
The Scottish Parliament can only acquire the necessary powers by taking them.
This is where we are.
#ScottishUDI
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is what happens lornacal, for whatever process is followed.
What will happen is that, on winning a Yes vote, the Scottish govt would demand the UK govt enter into negotiations to enact the result. Political and moral pressure will then be brought to bear on the UK govt to honour the Scottish people’s decision to be an independent country from both home and, more importantly, the international community. Especially the UN, EU and Council of Europe. Which is why the Scottish govt needs to be seen to have been as reasonable and willing to involve the UK govt in the process as possible (whether or not they decide to take them up on the offer). The optics count.
That is also what Peter, in my opinion, will be relying on with his own favoured process. But he refuses to admit it. If he has another way of by-passing the need for UK Govt acquiescence without the need for international recognition then I want to see it. I’ve asked often enough but, as yet, no answer.
It is also worth pointing out that his claim a Supreme Court enabled “consultative” referendum “cannot” deliver independence is not borne out by the evidence. The 1975 EC referendum was “consultative” and resulted in our membership of the EC. The 1997 Scottish Devolution referendum was “consultative” and resulted in the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. As did the “consultative” Welsh Devolution referendum in respect of the Welsh Assembly. The 2016 Brexit referendum was “consultative” and resulted in our forced departure from the EU. In fact, every “consultative” referendum held in the UK, which has had a positive result for change, has resulted in that change being enacted. Theoretically, the UK govt could ignore the result, but it never has and, given what I said above, would face considerable pressure from home and abroad to enact the result if it did try to ignore it.
Also, I have been to the Wings site (I’ll shower later) as, despite Peter’s subjective assumption I don’t view the opinions of those I disagree with, I actually do. The “forensic analysis”, as Peter calls it, actually shows a referendum COULD be held in 10/23. The Rev concludes the Bill could not be given Royal Assent before 09/23 because …. reasons (apparently the Supreme Court, having already said it was legal, would have to decide if it was legal …. again). But that is a month before the referendum is due to be held and six months after the Bill would have been passed by the Scottish Parliament (the Rev’s own worst case scenario …. it could be more than that). Campaigning could begin …. now …. giving 16 months to debate the issues. The Rev seems to believe campaigning can only begin once the Queen says its okay, but I think we all know that is nonsense …. though not at odds with his seeming ambivalence (to put it mildly) towards independence these days. It was less than 13 months from Queen’s Speech to the date of the Brexit referendum. 16 months, according to the Rev (and he is, we’re told, forensic) seems ample time for indyref2.
There are as many apparent “holes” in the Rev’s and Peter’s “analysis” and preferred process’ as there are in the FM’s plan. That is because we are all in fluid, uncharted, political territory and nothing is set in stone or guaranteed.
LikeLike
An assertion:
“In fact, every “consultative” referendum held in the UK, which has had a positive result for change, has resulted in that change being enacted. Theoretically, the UK govt could ignore the result, but it never has”
A reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979#Result
Yes:
1,230,937 (51.6%)
1,153,532 (48.4%)
Apparently, “every” result that the Westminster Regime agreed to enact, they enacted!
(but nobody mention that inconvenient result where they overruled the votes of the Scottish People.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
The exception that proves the rule. “Yes” did win a majority in that referendum, however, the notorious 40% rule was enforced by the then Labour UK govt. “Yes” didn’t achieve 40% of all eligible voters (including dead ones) so didn’t achieve the positive result required of them. It was a black day for Democracy, and a day of shame for the Labour Party. My point still stands though. Whenever a consultative referendum has achieved the required positive result in the UK, the change has been enacted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My point still stands though. ”
Oh does it?
Call me a conservative old conventionalist, if you must, but normally in explaining ones arguments the assertion of the conclusion that your arguments support your viewpoint comes after the presentation of the reasons or justifications why that might be.
I do not see where you have clearly made any arguments as to why it still stands.
On the other hand, my confusion is somewhat lifted by your explicit acceptance
of the example of the history that the Westminster Regime has enacted agreements that they had agreed to enact, and refused to enact one that they had not agreed to.
Therefore your implicit acceptance that the situation that may occur as a result of the ‘plan’ or ‘process’ under discussion in the article above is likely to be similar to that example which you have accepted went before. – i.e. no positive action from Westminster – does contribute further to an impression of cognitive dissonance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“My point still stands though. Whenever a consultative referendum has achieved the required positive result in the UK, the change has been enacted”.
If you find that difficult to understand, I can’t help you.
LikeLike
How stupid must you be to suppose that because things have happened a particular way in the past that must always be the case? This is the Union we’re talking about, FFS! That is an existential battle. If ever anything was going to be an exception to any rule, it is this.
https://peterabell.scot/2020/12/13/an-existential-battle/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t. I’ve just pointed out your claim a “consultative” referendum “cannot” deliver independence is false.
LikeLike
Then explain how it can when it is “consultative and non-self-executing”. What is the next stage in the process which leads to the restoration of Scotland’s independence? Not what you hope will happen. Not what you suppose others might do. No wishful thinking. No magic. Just the formal next stage after a Yes vote.
LikeLike
As I have stated many times on this site over the last few days, the only “formal stage” that will follow a Yes vote is the demand from the Scottish govt to begin negotiations to enact the result. If/when the UK govt says no, “politics” take over and political and moral pressure will be brought to bear from home and abroad to force the UK govt to enact the result.
It is exactly the same as will have to happen when the UK govt refuses to recognise your much vaunted UDI, which it will. There is more chance of it doing that than not enacting the result of a “legal” referendum. If only because the international community will be more sympathetic to a “legally obtained” referendum result than a “dangerous” UDI.
LikeLike
We DON’T negotiate independence. We take independence then negotiate the posthi dependence settlement. If you’re relying on “political and moral pressure” you’re depending on something that may not exist, certainly can’t be guaranteed to be effective and in any case is totally outwith your control. You’d be as we making the power of prayer part of your ‘plan’.
What you simply cannot get your wee head around – because your mind is so thoroughly colonised – is that the process must cut the British state out completely. Scotland’s democratic institutions proceed with the business of holding a confirmatory referendum, drafting and ratifying a new constitution, setting up a National Convention, organising elections etc. defying the British to try and stop us. Make independence a fair accompli. A tried and tested political manoeuvre.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS: As you say, this is “existential” to the union. Why do you then suppose it would just roll over after Scotland makes a UDI
LikeLike
I have never said the British would “just roll over”. Only that asserting the primacy of the Scottish Parliament alters the dynamic. But this may be a bit too technical for you. If it wasn’t, you would already have grasped the point about the altered dynamic.
LikeLike
What is any more reliable about putting our trust in the power of the “altered dynamic” (the first time you’ve mentioned such a concept) than in political pressure. The “altered dynamic” cannot deliver independence on its own. It will still require the international community to recognise it and they are none to keen to casually endorse UDIs when many of them have situations similar to the one faced by the UK here. The “altered dynamic” you create could be the one where a sympathetic international community is “altered” to an, at best, indifferent one, if not hostile.
You’re “tried and tested political manouvre” I can only assume refers to the break-up of the former Soviet Union. Something that occurred amid the back-drop of economic catastrophe, political melt down and the collapse of a state. That is not the case here, just as it was not the case in Catalonia. The newly independent states also had the unequivocal support of the international community while Moscow was powerless to stop them. Their UDIs would have been worthless without both those elements being in place.
Western govt’s are not keen to endorse UDIs from territories currently within “member states” of their “club”. That is demonstrable fact. Again, just ask Catalonia. It is therefore more than possible they would react negatively to a Scottish UDI. Couple that with a UK state that is NOT collapsing and DOES have the power to put a stop to it (yet again, just ask Catalonia), and you’re UDI looks less like a “sitter” and more like a hopeful punt from 40 yards. Spectacular if it works out, but far more likely to end up in Row Z.
You should note here, even though it has been extant throughout this discourse, I am NOT saying a UDI couldn’t work …. only that it is not guaranteed to work. Especially if every other “legal” recourse has not been explored first. The FM’s plan does not even preclude it. If it becomes apparent that the UK govt will not accede to the wishes of the Scottish people as expressed through the ballot box, with the Scottish govt having demonstrably shown a willingness to be perfectly reasonable throughout the process, it may be the last resort. But it has to be a last resort.
No one thought the Scottish govt would seek a pre-emptive Supreme Court ruling or endorse a plebiscitery election. A Scottish govt UDI cannot be ruled out. And if it is under consideration in the inner sanctums of the Scottish govt as the “nuclear option”, I’m more than happy they’re keeping schtum about it. Only an idiot broadcasts their every plan to their opponents and only an idiot sets them up as a target to be shot at long before it is necessary. Especially if it is a UDI which really has to come out if the blue for maximum effect.
LikeLike
“What is any more reliable about putting our trust in the power of the “altered dynamic” (the first time you’ve mentioned such a concept)”
It’s the same idea as reframing – which I’ve been talking about for maybe ten years and certainly eight. Pretty sure I must have used the term ‘altered dynamic’ before as well. But I’m not raking through articles looking for it. Why the fuck would it matter even if it was the first time in my entire life that I’d used the phrase? Does that change its meaning?
That’s as far as I’ve got with your latest deposit and I’m weary of your foolishness already. I may come back to it. I may not.
LikeLike
“… The SNP will never face down the British State, not when you can con women and hand over all their rights to men… ”
Are they not men, Iain? Isn’t this what it’s all about? If we can’t say what is what, we are really lost. Yes, I take your point that women, girls, children of both sexes, lesbians and gay men will all be affected, but ‘trans’ men will not breach male boundaries for fear of reprisal or attack. It is only adult women whose sex is being eradicated. Men are still men and will still be men when this is all over. Women, however, will be cervix-havers, cis women, et al, not women It was not the young women who are having their breasts removed who started this stuff, but men who have a very powerful sexual fetish/es, and they were not satisfied with just being recognized as so-called ‘trans women’, they wanted access to everything. That is why it is not the same at all for men: because even ‘trans men’ (females) know they are women around men, precisely because they know that they are vulnerable to men in the same way that women are vulnerable to men ‘woman-facing’. I was trying to tell it as it is, not trying to offend anyone. If men feel offended, then they really don’t understand the issue at all; we are now at a juncture where men and pretend women who are men have to be tiptoed around in case we, women offend them when we are actually defending our rights against all comers, and if you happen to support independence, you also have to walk on eggshells around rUK Scots, Unionist Scots, etc. It is exhausting. These people, the Stonewall adherents are the very ones who have stymied independence since early 2015. We would welcome men’s help, but please, Iain, don’t get all huffy because we call ‘trans women’ men. That goes to the very heart of the issue.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Peter.
I’m 100% for declaring UDI, and in all honesty this is what it will come down to for independence will not willingly be given we will need to take it. Craig Murray and Alex Salmond have floated the idea of a grand assembly again I’m all for that, but I say at the end of the assembly we declare Scotland independent, I don’t care what Westminster thinks about that, they should have no say whatsoever on our future, having the majority of the international community onside would help, and we need a FM with spirit and courage to declare UDI, whilst reaching out to EU countries and further afield if necessary to let them know and gauge their reactions. They’ll always be some countries that won’t recognise you, I say so what.
Craig Murray said (even though he’s backing the latest carrot from Sturgeon) and I agree with him on this, that the conditions for a fair and unbiased indyref do not exist in Scotland, in other words going down this route leads nowhere fast.
UDI it is Peter, but is there a leader in the picture that can produce the goods, we know its not Sturgeon so who, and if no one stands out then what, time isn’t on our side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can only describe what needs to be done. I can’t say who will do it. It would certainly require a leader of a very high calibre indeed. Once the Scottish Government/Parliament confronts the British state there can be no sign of weakness. Only by being utterly determined will we convince the British that they cannot win. When they realise this, they will look for the best deal they can get. But the slightest waver or hesitation on the part of our political leaders and the British will persist.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Without guaranteed and overwhelming international support, a UDI would be catastrophic for Scotland. The economy and trade would collapse. People would be reduced to poverty in vast numbers. That could be averted if the UK govt refused to recognise it, dissolved the Scottish parliament and imprisoned its leaders, similar to the Catalan experience. Thus allowing the economy to continue unhindered. But who would want any of that if the goal of independence could be achieved more readily by other means?
LikeLike
I’m pretty confident many countries would recognise the elder of the two countries in this rancid union, Westminster has many enemies, and many countries would be pleased to see the break up of the UK, but putting that aside, a clever and courageous FM would put the feelers out to EU and other countries leaders to gauge opinions, sure some allies of England’s would not recognise an indy Scotland so what that’s to be expected.
As for Westminster rolling up its tanks in George Square once more, a couple of things would happen, one occupation only increases the populations desire to rid themselves of the occupying force, two many countries (not allies of England) would I suppose report the oppressive occupation of one of the oldest countries in Europe as a invasion of a sovereign peoples country, and I’ also expect the UN to speak out against it.
Catalonia has never been a sovereign country if I recall correctly, its people may have at one point been as Scotland was forced into an illegal union with Spain, I can’t say for sure, but Scotland is a country in its own right, and is as I’ve said the elder of the two countries in this God awful union.
I’d also like to add that prior to declaring UDI a shrew FM would’ve agreed deals with other nations on access to ay fishing ground and other assets on the pretext that those countries would recognise an indy Scotland after UDI.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I’m pretty confident …. ”
Oh well, that’s okay then. I was worried you might not have thought it all through but, if you’re “pretty confident” then the threat of national penury just fades away.
LikeLike
I find that comment almost laughable, lets see, as part of this union if you believe the GERS figures which I don’t 25 of the 26 figures are guesstimates as Professor Richard Murphy pointed out. Anyway assuming they are correct, they show Scotland with a £15 billion deficit, that alone shows that the union isn’t working for Scotland. Now add in Brexit which is self inflicted economic damage on a grand scale, this too is bad for Scotland as part of this union.
Then there’s the billions of pounds taken from Scotland to pay for the likes of Trident and nuclear subs, not to mention HS2, and many other projects that Scotland pays for but will never feel the benefit of.
Then there’s the stealing of 6,000 miles of Scottish waters, now when you look out at Carnoustie golf course you are looking at English waters, add in the McCrone report, the Westminster wars that Scotland didn’t want. The worst pension in Western Europe for pensioners, nuclear weapons and subs based in Scotland, and you soon realise that you need independence and all the levers of government that goes with it to run a country, and of course all the assets and that your country has to help make it a better one.
None of this can be done whilst trying to run a country with one hand tied behind your back, Scotland is rich in assets that other countries would like oil/gas, fish renewable energy etc, right now we are held back by a foreign country’s government only independence will rid us of this hinderance, and only UDI will achieve it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know full well how wealthy Scotland is. Given a smooth transition to independence, we have nothing to worry about there. A UDI however, changes all that. It puts us in a limbo that could potentially destroy the Scottish economy. Just the thought of it could put off a significant number of even current Yes voters, never mind those yet to be convinced.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
So when Westminster postpones democracy or breaks international law nothing much happens, is this it, are we to aspire to achieve Westminster’s consent via its laws, and in the process be stumped at every turn on independence by its laws and red tape. Against this backdrop we are desperately trying to prove that we are a fairer and democratic society and that we’ll do nothing without the 51% threshold and this can’t even be achieved because of the obstacles put down before us by Westminster. We’ll never win playing fair against an unfair system controlled by Westminster.
Tell me this is independence a good step for Scotland, will it benefit Scots, even Scots who don’t believe in it, and those that are unsure of it because they’ve been saturated in unionist media lies and will continue to be saturated in it via its bullhorn media which can shout down any indy voice by giving it minimal airtime.
Now tell me there’s a viable and fair route to Scottish independence under these circumstances, if you believe Scottish independence will benefit Scots and no other route is viable without unionist dominance then what’s wrong with using UDI.
We can’t win an indyref its not a level playing field, as for the international community, lets no be so negative about UDI, other countries have used it to achieve independence.
LikeLiked by 3 people