An unremarked contradiction

I really do wish The National and others would stop referring to it as an “independence referendum”. The referendum proposed by Nicola Sturgeon is not an independence referendum. Not in the sense of being a referendum on restoring Scotland’s independence. Not in the sense of being a referendum which might lead to the restoration of Scotland’s independence. It simply won’t do that. We know this because the First Minister herself told us that it is not an “independence referendum” in any meaningful sense.

The referendum on which the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) is being asked to rule is a test of the Scottish public’s opinion. It is not a test of the Scottish people’s will. Listen to Tommy Sheppard MP who is the SNP’s constitution spokesperson at Westminster and therefore someone whose perspective should be attended to. He says only that the Scottish Government “should be allowed to let people express a view”. That is all. If the proposed referendum goes ahead we will be allowed to “express a view” on the question of whether Scotland should be an independent country.

Can anybody remember the last time the British government paid any heed to the views of Scotland’s people?

Contrast Tommy Sheppard’s cautious words with the statement from an SNP spokesperson.

The people of Scotland have the inalienable right to determine our own future by choosing the form of government best suited to our needs.

UK Government LOSES first major indyref battle in Supreme Court showdown

I wonder if that spokesperson or any of those for whom they speak has ever taken the trouble to check the dictionary definition of the word “inalienable”. It means ‘unable to be removed’. This necessarily implies that the “right to determine our own future by choosing the form of government best suited to our needs” is something we already possess. We must possess it because nobody could take it away from us. If we do not have this right of self-determination then it can only be that we never had it in the first place. The only way for the British government to argue that we don’t have the right to a real independence referendum is to argue that Scotland is not a nation and that the people of Scotland are not sovereign.

But the British government has already conceded that we do have the right of self-determination. That’s what the Edinburgh Agreement was. It was a legal document in which the British government conceded our right of self-determination. Some will argue that the Edinburgh Agreement was time-limited. But that cannot make any difference because the right of self-determination is inalienable. It is ‘unable to be removed’. It cannot be given. It can only be acknowledged. And once it has been acknowledged its applicability cannot be summarily removed with the expiry of some agreement.

Presumably, given the words of an authorised SNP spokesperson, it is the SNP’s position that the people of Scotland have the inalienable right to choose the form of government that best serves our needs, priorities and aspirations. This begs the question of why, if we have an inalienable right to decide the constitutional status of our nation, the Scottish Government is seeking the UKSC’s judgement as to whether we even have the right to “express a view” on the matter. The SNP spokesperson says the party’s position is that we have an inalienable right of self-determination. The SNP Scottish Government’s action says we may not. In referring the question of whether the Scottish Government may legally test the opinion of the Scottish people, the Scottish Government is conceding that it therefore may not have the legal right to test the will of Scotland’s people. But is we had the right of self-determination as confirmed by the Edinburgh Agreement, how is it possible that we might not have that right now. The only way we could not have the right of self-determination is if somebody removed it from us. But it’s an inalienable right. It cannot be removed.

If the UKSC rules against the Scottish Government it is effectively saying that either the court itself somehow has the authority to remove an inalienable right or it is confirming that the British government can legally remove an inalienable right. A right which, by definition, cannot be removed. By taking the matter to the UKSC the SNP Scottish Government has conceded the court’s authority to rule and therefore contradicted the SNP’s own position that the right is inalienable.

The right of self-determination necessarily includes the right to exercise that right, or it would be meaningless. If we have the right of self-determination and therefore the right to exercise that right then why is the Scottish Government seeking confirmation that it has the lesser authority to seek the public’s view? As with a Section 30 order merely by asking, you concede that the matter is open to question. If it is open to question then it cannot be inalienable. But you said it was inalienable. So why are you asking the question?

Perhaps more to the point, why aren’t more people asking that question? Why isn’t everybody asking it?

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 PayPal

43 thoughts on “An unremarked contradiction

      1. I have done. On numerous threads on this site. Ad infinitum. It’s just the same story again and again and again.


        1. And, MBP? Anything that is not being understood, that it being ignored out of sheer perversity needs to be said again and agin until the bone heads get it. Peter is 100% right. The referendum that will be denied is nothing more or less than a test of public opinion, and, therefore, all but useless because we know that, in Unionism, all hell will break loose to stymie even that. People who don’t learn, are made to learn – as our Irish cousins taught the British Empire a hundred years ago. Something will give, MBP, and, when it does, keep your noddle down because it will not be pretty. We are not the Irish, and will more measured in our responses, but we will not give in. The Irish were pushed to the very end of their tether; if we are, we will retaliate somehow, but probably not in the same way.

          Liked by 6 people

        2. Clearly neither off you have read a thing I’ve written, time and time again, on this Groundhog Day of a site.


          1. Actually, many of us will have read carefully what you say.
            And it is mostly always the same thing. Mainly that we can’t do anything without London’s “permission”, else the “International Community” won’t recognize us.
            And you seem to think the First Minister’s current approach is the proper one.

            Look, we have had all this waffle from SNP Leadership these past 8 years, with all this pandering to London rule, and for what?
            Tell us just one little thing Scotland has gotten out of it?
            It has got us out of Europe!

            Instead of using the Brexit debacle to further Independence, the SNP hierarchy wasted all the opportunities given it on a plate.
            All SNP appears to be doing is girning off about everything, without doing anything about it.
            We are reminded of Labour during the Thatcher /Major years, and Labour especially in Scotland, girned off plenty, And there was plenty to complain about.
            Labour made much noise on an almost daily basis, but there was nothing they could do. Not if they insisted Scotland had to stay under London rule.
            And so we lost our system of Local Government, when the Regions and Districts were replaced by an insane creation of Michael Forsyth.
            It is regrettable the Scottish Parliament has done damn all to replace this tory mish mash.

            So it is with SNP today. They say plenty, but do nothing of any use, regards Londonr rule. They insist London must always be obeyed, and its rules tops everything and anything else, regardless, because that is just the way it has to be.
            But its not the way it needs to be at all.
            And if we had Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss telling Scotland it was to get nothing, would that be ok?
            She is almost as bad as Johnson.
            Or how about Prime Minister Penelope Mordaunt, insisting she will never ever “allow” Scottish Independence?
            And then there’s “Rishi” while being the least worst of them, we are told, will simply bypass the Scottish Parliament, and rule Scotland in our best interests because obviously, we can’t do that ourselves!?!

            Which of any that do you reckon will get us Independence, if SNP keep doing nothing but accepting this outrageous state of affairs?
            For that is what is happening.
            As has been said by Peter Bell, and others, there will come a time when we must confront London.
            We will have no choice, and that time is long overdue!

            Liked by 3 people

            1. “Mainly that we can’t do anything without London’s “permission”, else the “International Community” won’t recognize us”.

              You may have read it, but you clearly only saw what you wanted to see in it. I have never even implied anything of the sort. But there you go.


              1. Maybe I did misread it then. But that is the way it comes across.
                Tho, I did read your post when you say you are open to other ways to Independence.
                But most times, you do come across in a kind of negative “we can’t do anything without London” type posts.
                So, what else are we to take from that?
                Anyhow, hopefully, we can all come together in the aim of Independence.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. No. I have insisted the UK govt needs to be demonstrably shown to be intransigent; the “legal” route needs to be demonstrably shown to be non-existant; a UDI needs to be demonstrably shown to be the only possible route to independence.

                  Not demonstrably shown to the echo-chambers of the already convinced, nor just the international community (though that is VITALLY important) but to the people of Scotland. Again, not the people of Scotland already convinced of a UDI, but the millions who have not engaged in the Indy debate to anywhere near the extent of the echo-chambers. They, more than anyone else, need to be convinced. Without them, a UDI is doomed. Your eschewing of all other possible (in the eyes of the general public) routes to independence and jumping straight to a UDI, without any evidence to show a majority if the Scottish people would support it, is “very brave” as Sir Humphrey would say. And very possibly suicidal for Scottish independence.


                  1. Done! Done! And done!

                    But the colonised mind will not accept this. The very effectively colonised mind will never accept it. There will never be enough demonstration of the British state’s intransigence. It will never be obvious enough that there is no route to independence through the legal and constitutional framework that armours the Union. There will never be sufficient justification for #ScottishUDI. There will always be just one more thing. It will always be the next straw – never the last one.

                    The colonised mind will put off the moment of decisive action indefinitely and always feel perfectly justified and/or intellectually and morally superior while doing so.

                    You have a lot in common with Pete Wishart. This is not a compliment.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. As some one once said on this site, it’s like talking to a dry-stane dyke.

                      You have no evidence the people of Scotland (not the inhabitants of the echo-chambers) have accepted there is no “legal” route to independence. You have no evidence they are ready to back a UDI in sufficient numbers to make it viable. Without that evidence, you are just gambling with the pack stacked against you.

                      You appear to want one last shot at glory. One last grand campaign and to hang with the consequences. It appears the people either have to back your plan or go f*ck themselves (pretty much what Rev Stu said to “the people” when they didn’t back his call to vote Alba).


                  2. Well, what we have now is equally suicidal for Scottish independence. Sturgeon’s route is designed to go nowhere. Asking for a S30 Order will go nowhere. I don’t believe any kind of referendum that is held prior to independence has a snowball’s chance in hell of going anywhere. We are precisely in the position that Sinn Fein found itself in pre 1916: few except the diehards supported them. They took action that put the British Empire on the spot.

                    Declaring UDI wold do the same and prove that England as the UK is utterly and irredeemably intransigent. Yes, it’s a risk, but so is life itself. If you expect this ‘trans’ ridden SNP to take any risk that might derail the GRA reform, you are truly deluded. Since 2014/15, the SNP has not been interested in any way in independence. Because you can’t or won’t see it does not make the rest of us an echo chamber. Sinn Fein eventually broke the deadlock, as will we, but not with the SNP. What do you think sleekit Sturgeon and her ‘trans’ allies will do in the event of a GE? They will try to co-opt the independence vote to their own interests for another term.

                    We will not get independence, just another mandate, but we will be forced to accept men in frocks on pain of legal sanction. You won’t, being a man, but my life as a female will be turned upside down, my rights taken away. Well, MBP, you collaborate if you want, but I will go down fighting on both counts – independence and the whole ‘trans’ s***e. Th Earth is not flat, the holocaust happened and men can never, ever, be women. Scots will be free with or without the SNP – preferably without.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. “I don’t believe any kind of referendum that is held prior to independence has a snowball’s chance in hell of going anywhere”.

                      I’m doubtful too, but that’s the point. It has to be demonstrated to the “people” (you know, the inhabitants of Scotland furth of the echo-chambers that tend to be forgotten/taken for granted by said echo-chambers) that it is. Evidence is worth a ton of brow beating and rhetoric.


  1. Section 30 Referendum

    Or “please can we hold an Independence plebiscite, which you can interfere with if you like?”

    This compromises Scotland’s sovereignty.

    UK Supreme Court Adjudication

    Or “please can we carry out an Independence survey, to establish opinion on the matter?”

    This compromises Scotland’s sovereignty.

    Self-determination is indeed our inalienable Right. A Right cannot be granted. It just is.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. All of this reminds me of the joke about a traveller in Ireland who stopped a local to ask the way to get to Cork. The reply was, ‘Sure, if I was going to Cork, I wouldn’t be starting from here!’

    Where is arguing about what is being proposed by the Scottish Government going to get us? We are either going to have an independence referendum in October next year – a referendum where the competence of Scotland’s devolved parliament to hold this democratic event has been ruled as legal by the UK Supreme Court – or we are going to turn the next General Election into a plebiscite on independence. This may not be the ideal scenario for the purist and it does play into the hands of unionists, but it is what it is.

    Whichever democratic event takes place, it will have validity and value. It will settle the question of whether or not a majority of the Scottish electorate agree that Scotland should be an independant country.

    If the majority of the Scottish electorate vote in favour of independence, that is of great significance. It then becomes a matter of when, not if.

    What happens next is crucial.

    This is when, I believe, the Scottish Government in Holyrood, with the backing now of a majority of the electorate, should have the courgage to take action with which the Westminster Parliament would definitely take issue.

    In my opinion that means a declaration of independence and our MPs refusing seats at Westminster, refusing to take an oath of allegience to the Crown and staying in Scotland to begin to build a new country. Any negotiations over the terms of separation will take place between delegations of the two parliaments with strict time limits set for a negotiated settlement. We need to start running our own affairs from the outset and we need to start asserting our position as equals in any negotiations.

    If, instead, following whichever democratic event we have: our MPs take or return to their seats at Westminster with a view to beginning God knows how many years of negotiations on the terms of a settlement – we will know the game is a bogey and that the SNP have no intention of getting real and dissolving this union.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The people of Scotland have the inalienable right to determine our own future by choosing the form of government best suited to our needs.

    There needs to be some clarification here, as some don’t seem to understand.

    the “people of Scotland” number approx 5.51 million as at 2022 (wiki)
    of these, as at 27 April 2022, the number eligble to vote was 4,255,180 (from emb)
    the total number of elected representatives at Holyrood is 129, minus 1 for the PO = 128
    there are 64 SNP MSPs, and 7 SGP MSPs – 71 is a clear overall majority of the 128 MSPs

    71 MSPs are not, however, the “people of Scotland” in totality, they are, however, duly elected representatives in a Holyrood election, last done in 2021. They are elected on their manifestoes; this and this alone gives them a mandate to represent the “people of Scotland” in our entirety.

    They are therefore mandated to hold a referendum in this term of parliament, and in the first half if Covid is abated. They have picked the date of 23rd October 2023, and this is therefore the will of the Scottish people as expressed in a democratic and legally carried out election. NOBODY should interfere with that right.

    They are also mandated via those manifestoes to achieve that referendum in the way described or implied by their manifestoes, and to ask the question which is described or implied by those manifestoes.

    This means that:

    a). the preferred route is via a Section 30 order, or other means of devolving to the Scottish Government that right to hold a referendum – and if not, then hold the referendum another way, i.e. without the Section 30. That is the expressed will of the “people of Scotland” via the election.

    b). the question is to be “Should Scotland be an Independent Country? YES / NO”. That is the expressed will of the “people of Scotland” via the election.

    No individual, or self-selected group of people that do not have the provable support of a majority of the “people of Scotland”, or the mandate from them in a democratic and legal election according to the rules of that election, can legally claim to speak for the “people of Scotland”.

    And that is that.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I realise people are having difficulty getting their heads around this after being conditioned for so long to believe that a constitutional referendum – and therefore independence – is something that is in the gift of the British state. It can’t be. Because that would contravene our sovereign right of self-determination.

      A genuine constitutional referendum can and will only be held when it is done exclusively under the auspices of the parliament that is elected by the people who ‘own’ that right of self-determination.

      The sovereignty of the Scottish people gives the Scottish Parliament its exclusive democratic legitimacy. The unique democratic legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament gives it the rightful authority to sanction the exercise of our right of self-determination in a referendum.

      On the single condition only that the referendum on the question of the Union held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament is impeccably democratic, it suffices for all purposes. None can dispute its legitimacy, though some will doubtless try.

      At that point, the Scottish Government must exhibit extraordinary tenacity in fully honouring the will of the Scottish people. There must be no compromising of our constitutional status. Our constitutional status CANNOT be up for negotiation because it cannot be altered by the Scottish Government. The only negotiation will be on the post-independence settlement.

      #ScottishUDI is the only way.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. I realise some people are hard of understanding, so when this is asserted:

        The sovereignty of the Scottish people gives the Scottish Parliament its exclusive democratic legitimacy. The unique democratic legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament gives it the rightful authority to sanction the exercise of our right of self-determination in a referendum.

        the Scottish Parliament – all 129 MSPs at the time – are elected to that Parliament on the basis of their party manifestoes, or if independents, their own. The authority given freely by the Scottish people extends only to that, so this:

        “#ScottishUDI is the only way”

        was NOT mandated by the Scottish people, as it was in nobody’s manifesto, and therefore precisely none of the 2,706,761 who voted in the constutency vote, or the 2,716,78 in the regional, voted for any sort of UDI. They did, however, vote on the holding of a referendum.

        I appreciate elections can be hard to understand.


        1. The Lord Advocate, not surprisingly, puts it so much more succinctly in her UKSC reference:

          “5. The Lord Advocate considers:
          (1) There is a genuine issue of law that is unresolved;
          (2) That issue of law is of exceptional public importance to the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom; and
          (3) It is directly relevant to a central manifesto pledge that the Scottish electorate has endorsed.”

          Lord Advocate Reference to UKSC

          (hope the href works, it’s a long URL)


        2. Manifestos are not contracts. It’s called representative democracy. We elect representatives as individuals on the basis that they will represent us to the best of their ability.

          If you think about it, an election manifesto cannot possibly be a contract. We elect parliaments for five years. Look at how much things can change in five days.

          The majority of the MSPs sitting in the Scottish Parliament were elected on a pro-independence platform. There can be no constraints on how they pursue this objective. When it becomes clear that #ScottishUDI is the only way, those MSPs can only honour their manifesto commitment by pursuing #ScottishUDI.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. The manifesto commitment is what the UKSC will hopefully be looking at, and point 3 of the LA’s submission to the UKSC I quoted above, therefore though you might think it unimportant, clearly legal and constitutional minds disagree. And policies, via manifestoes or quoted parts of them, are precisely what the 5-yearly elections are based on, and what the elected Government is expected to perfor on.

            From the easy read SNP 2021 manifesto:

            Vote for the SNP to:
            Choose Scotland’s Future in an Independence Referendum. Give people in Scotland the right to choose their own future. The referendum should be held once the current Covid crisis has passed.

            Nothing in any manifesto mentions anything like “#ScottishUDI” therefore it would be completely undemocratic, unconstitutional and unlawful, for them to adopt it arbitrarily – even if the parties voted for it. The people of Scotland – didn’t, and we are sovereign, not the SNP or Greens except as a small part of the people of Scotland..

            This isn’t rocket science Peter, it’s very basic. Sovereignty rests in the people of Scotland, not any elected representative whether MSP, MP or councillor.


            1. But does not the total intransigence of London force our hands?
              And as others have said and pointed out, if London can simply change the rules, or openly break the their own rules, why can’t anyone else?
              While Independence might not have been in a Manifesto as such, everyone knew what that Election was really all about.
              And the voters knew what they were voting for last year.
              They demand action, not following London’s rules!

              Liked by 3 people

            2. A manifesto is NOT a contract. Therefore, it can never be unlawful to fail to deliver a manifesto commitment. Our system is, as I tried to explain, a representative democracy. Therefore, it can never be unconstitutional for elected representatives to do something that wasn’t in the manifesto. Whether or not it is democratic to stray from the letter of the manifesto is largely a matter of context and perception.

              None of this, however, prevents manifesto commitments from being used as a basis for arguments either on the political hustings or in a court of law. How much weight is attached to this aspect of the argument is a matter for the voters and/ or the judges.

              Let me see if I can demonstrate why despite your obvious difficulties, this certainly is not “rocket science”.

              A government fails to do something that was in its manifesto. Can they be prosecuted? Can they be subject to any kind of court action, criminal or civil? Is it conceivable that, even if a judicial review was sought and granted, the court would order the elected government to do something which the elected government had decided not to do – presumably with some good reason. Recall, if you will, the issue of re-regulation of the buses – a one-time manifesto pledge of the SNP which was dropped almost as soon as they took office in 2007 on the grounds that it turned out to be totally unaffordable. If this had gone before a court, would the judges have insisted that the elected government do something that the elected government said would be economically ruinous?

              If a government does something that was not even mentioned in their election manifesto. can they be prosecuted? Might they be subject to any court action? Supposing a judicial review was sought and granted, would it be pursued solely or even mainly on the grounds that the action was not in the manifesto? Or is it not infinitely more likely that it would be on the grounds that the action itself was flawed in some serious way? Take military aid to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, for example. No manifesto contained anything remotely like this as the Russian invasion of Ukraine was not foreseen of even imagined by most people. There are people who object to either or both of the actions. Do those people have recourse to the courts on the grounds that the democratically elected government failed to list this among its manifesto pledges?

              I trust that by now most readers will have recognised how foolish are your comments to the effect that straying from the letter of their election manifesto could ever be unlawful or unconstitutional.

              But, just for a moment, let’s suppose you were right. Let’s suppose, for example, that the manifesto pledge that you cite did constitute some sort of binding commitment. The SNP Scottish Government would be in some trouble. Because, as many of us recognised immediately and more are coming to realise with each passing day, the referendum proposed by Nicola Sturgeon does not match that described in the manifesto.

              So, let’s stop this nonsense about manifesto pledges. If you want to argue that the Scottish Government can’t act to restore Scotland’s independence then you will have to find something that is not quite so easily blown away.

              Liked by 3 people

              1. A huge weakness of yours is that you’re so intent on trying to prove your superiority and how thick anyone who disagrees with you is, that you totally fail to even try dimly to understand what people are writing about.

                In this case it’s not about a manifesto commitment to DO something, it’s about an absolute total LACK of one about something which is extremely major – like UDI. Hence it does not have the approval of the electorate and would not only NOT be accepted internationally, it would not be accepted by the people of Scotland, of whom you are but one.

                You treat our sovereignty, the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, with total contempt, professing that you and you alone, have the right to speak for all of us.

                Well, I have news for you – you don’t. Scotland is not a dictatorship.


                1. It would be gratifying to think that’s you got your whining about me off your chest. But I just know that’s not the case. You will never learn that I am totally unaffected by your ill-informed personal judgements. They are entirely for your own benefit. They help you to feel superior.

                  Repeating your assertion while utterly failing to address the points I’ve made doesn’t make your argument stronger. It merely makes you look a bit desperate and frenzied.

                  The penultimate paragraph merely emphasises that desperate frenzy. It could have been authored by any British Nationalist troll.


              2. Incidentally, Sturgeon has no problem understanding this, which is why she has said that if the UKSC refuse the right for Holyrood to hold a referendum, she will use the next General Election as an Independence one.

                That means the people of Scotland will have our democratic right to vote on that proposal, and that then carries the weight of a mandate.

                As I said, it’s pretty basic stuff.


                1. You have totally swallowed the Sturgeon line, haven’t you? But pointing out your errors would require me to repeat stuff that I’ve already said. If you didn’t understand it then there’s no reason to suppose repeating it will do any good. So I will say only that neither the referendum nor the plebiscitary election proposed by Sturgeon represents a formal exercise of our right of self-determination. Neither connects to any process by which independence will be restored. Soon, everybody but the most blinkered SNP/Sturgeon loyalists such as yourself will be obliged to acknowledge this fact.

                  There’s no telling when or if you’ll catch on.


                  1. You can’t even make your mind up if I’m an “SNP/Sturgeon loyalists” or a “British Nationalist troll” in your haste to try to label because you totally lost the debate, and reality with it.

                    ‘Twould be funny but it’s kind of sad, frankly.


                    1. Read more slowly. I didn’t say you were a British Nationalist. I would hardly be the first to note the similarities in the rhetoric of BritNats and SNP/Sturgeon loyalists.


  4. Well said Peter, Sturgeon is yet again trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

    On the National’s UKSC story.

    “This is not accurate. UKGov says UKSC should not entertain the reference. That point has not been decided: it has been parked, to be decided at the same time as the substantive argument. That is far from unusual, & doesn’t involve a “win” for either side. It’s merely procedural.”

    The word “parked” being the operative word, any thoughts of the pretendy indyref next October should now be dismissed once and for all.

    All eyes should now focus on the GE, unless there’s another way out of this rancid union before then.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Tht National is completely correct.

      Full text of the order: REFERENCE by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under para 34 of S6 Scotland Act 1998

      15 July 2022

      UKSC 2022/0098

      Before: Lord Reed

      REFERENCE by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998.

      AFTER CONSIDERATION of the application by the Advocate General for Scotland for directions requiring the Advocate General and the Lord Advocate to file written cases restricted to the question whether the Court can or should accept the reference.

      THE COURT ORDERED that the application be REFUSED for the attached reasons.


      Since the issues of (a) whether the Court should accept the reference and (b) how the Court should answer the question referred will both require consideration of the circumstances giving rise to the reference and the substance of the question referred, it is in the interests of justice and the efficient disposal of the proceedings that the Court should hear argument on both issues at a single hearing.

      THE COURT ORDERED that the application be REFUSED …

      The UK Government lost this stage, therefore the Lord Advocate won this stage.


      1. And the sheeple celebrate on cue. Not because something significant has happened. But because that is what they have been prompted to do.

        This amply illustrates the point about being diverted and ensnared by endless disputation on legal detail. Whether this is what is intended or not, the fundamentals of the matter get lost in the fog of hair-splitting ad infinitum.

        Never mind the fucking legal niceties. Attend to the hard political fact that what is being argued about is NOT an independence referendum. It is a public attitude survey. It is a fancy opinion poll. It is NOT the formal exercise of our right of self-determination that it is being portrayed as. NOTHING said to or by the UKSC will alter that fact.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. It’s getting very pedantic around here!

    Some of you may have noticed that our nemesis doesn’t really do pedantic – they just take action that helps them win. It’s not an issue of intellectual debate – it’s just about cash and power.

    We might need some of that ourselves to win.

    Some of you might also have noticed that the Scottish electorate don’t really do pedantic either. They are the people who matter.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Aye! It’s politics! I have long warned of the danger of taking the constitutional issue out of the realm of democratic politics and putting it in the hands of lawyers. The value of that warning is rapidly becoming apparent.

      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.