My first reaction on seeing a headline such as this in today’s Sunday National ─ UK Government considering legislation that would require 50 per cent of entire electorate to vote Yes in indyref2 ─ is to wonder why readers might be taken aback by being thus informed of the British state’s intentions towards Scotland. It’s not like this is news. If there is anything surprising at all about the rumoured measures to lock Scotland in jealous Britannia’s leprous embrace forever and ever, it’s that the measures themselves are innocuous relative to what some of us have been anticipating for ten years and more.
Elsewhere in the Sunday National, Ruth Wishart apprises us of the latest demented ranting from that exemplar of spitting, spluttering, slavering British Nationalist fanaticism, Stephen Daisley. In the spate of his seething detestation of Scotland’s distinctiveness, Daisley presents a particularly obnoxious spectacle (archived). I’m duly grateful that Ruth ventured into that roiling cauldron of bile so that I didn’t have to. I trust she showered thoroughly afterwards. Like the smell of putrefaction, the stench of Daisley’s imperious British exceptionalism clings. The measures to thwart Scotland’s aspirations that he commends wear the term ‘Draconian’ like a suit several sizes too small. Ruth gives us a sense of the vileness.
1) The United Kingdom should continue to exist as currently constituted.
2) In the UK, sovereignty resides exclusively at Westminster, or ‘the crown-in-parliament under God’.
3) The devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales operate within a framework defined by principles 1) and 2) and should be forbidden, by statute if necessary, from any actions contrary to these principles.
This is not an either-or situation. It’s not a choice between the harshness of Truss and the heartlessness of Daisley. All of what both are saying ─ or rumoured to be saying ─ is believable. The proposals identified in both articles mentioned above are perfectly credible regardless of how appalling to those who adhere to democratic principles. That the British would react thus to Scotland’s persistent independence movement was always inevitable and entirely predictable. We know that preserving the Union is an existential imperative for the British state. Add to that imperative the No vote in 2014 which gave the British political elite licence to dispose of Scotland as they will and the EU referendum which gave them the opening to constitutionally redefine the UK and you have the perfect combination of motive, means and opportunity. Give motive, means and opportunity to sociopaths such as Boris Johnson or Liz Truss and what can you expect other than that a crime will be committed?
It has taken longer than I anticipated. But there can be no doubt now that the mad axemanperson is poised to hack Scotland’s democracy to a bloody pulp. Incredible as some of this may have seemed a decade ago, today what is astonishing is that anybody can remain oblivious to the threat. It is incomprehensible that there can still be people proclaiming that we have ‘never been closer to independence’. It is inexplicable that there can still be people in the Yes movement talking of compromises and/or ‘the long game’. It defies reason that so little has been done to pull Scotland from under the tracks of the trundling British Nationalist juggernaut.
Urged on by the British media and nutters like Daisley, the British political elite is openly contemplating anti-democratic measures that would embarrass a banana republic. Meanwhile, Scotland’s own political elite is farting around with half-measures and less. We are sauntering into a long night of oppression with not so much as a candle to fend off the gloom.
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 cause.
Peter A Bell 
And yet we have the FM stating on this morning’s Sophy Ridge show that Truss’ alleged views are a “sign of fundamental weakness” (see https://www.thenational.scot/news/20899757.liz-trusss-plans-block-indyref2-a-sign-fundamental-weakness-says-nicola-sturgeon/).
Insofar as this is relevant at all it seems to me that the FM’s utterings are indicative of “fundamental weakness”.
The FM does not smell the coffee. In fact, she’s not even woken up yet.
LikeLiked by 5 people
From now on you’ll have a hard time dissuading me that the “a 50% plus Yes vote for indyref2” was not a kite flown by the FM for her pals in Westminster.
I contend the FM is very much awake and smelling the coffee. It’s everybody else who is still asleep.
LikeLiked by 6 people
The outstanding sign of fundamental weakness I’m afraid is the FM’s preferred course to independence. It was a fundamental weakness to request a section 30 order. It was a fundamental weakness to define backstop #1 as a consultative referendum run by Holyrood. It was a fundamental weakness to go cap in hand to the UK Supreme Court to get a ruling on whether we can hold a referendum or not (The UK Supreme Court ! the clue to the likely outcome is in the name), it was a fundamental weakness (or a deliberate attempt to lose maybe) to propose holding a plebiscitary Westminster election, with the additional qualification that more than 50% of voters would be required to carry the day in addition to 50% or more of the seats. For goodness sake when it comes to fundamental weaknesses, making accusations against Truss is a major example of pot calling kettle black.
LikeLiked by 8 people
Did Johnson get 50% of the electorates vote at the last GE? no he didn’t. The UK government can concoct whatever legislation it likes, the really big problem is that Sturgeon rails about it then does nothing about it. Today on LBC news Sturgeon said the UK parliament could change legislation to allow Scotland to hold an indyref, as if, Sturgeon gives away our power at every turn by legitimising Westminster’s these are not the actions of a leader who wants independence.
The game here is that Sturgeon is hoping to adhere as many folk to her party as possible by finger pointing at Westminster and its colonial policies aimed at Scotland, but she isn’t prepared to do anything significant about it.
Ask yourselves this if we had a strong minded indy driven FM in place would we still be in the EU and if not would we be independent by now.
LikeLiked by 7 people
The turnout was 67%.
LikeLike
You appear to have totally failed to grasp the point. What is being discussed is not just turnout but 50%+ of the entire electorate regardless of the turnout. So, if the turnout was barely 50%, Yes would have to get just over 100% of the votes cast. Such is British demockracy!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“… It is inexplicable that there can still be people in the Yes movement talking of compromises and/or ‘the long game’. It defies reason that so little has been done to pull Scotland from under the tracks of the trundling British Nationalist juggernaut… ”
It’s not really, Peter, but I’ll say no more. I tend to agree with Stuart: this 50% hurdle came from Bute House. She was flying it long before either Truss or Daisley. What I don’t get is that anyone should now believe that the incumbents in the SG are anything other than devolutionists, and some not even that. So few actually seem to understand what happened in 2015 when the SNP was infiltrated. If they would only understand that, they would then understand why we are where we are, and why the SNP doesn’t give a flying whatsit.
LikeLiked by 3 people
But still the party of government. Which is the only thing that matters.
LikeLike
For now, Peter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now is the only time that matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me Sturgeon is a victim of her own proclamations.
She talked about the 60% in the polls stuff 7 years ago. She also suggested that number or close to it was required to deliver independence.
She is either a tactical incompetent, or deliberately assisting the unionists.
Like others have stated. History suggests she is a devolutionist, so we have to deal with what we know about her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or maybe she just makes mistakes.
LikeLike
Does anyone think that 50% of the electorate would not bother to vote in another referendum?
Who thinks that a 45% turnout is realistic?
Not me. Or probably Liz Truss fae Paisley either.
LikeLike