Liars all around

Despite dodgy knees and a strong aversion to large crowds I had fully intended going to Yestival on Sunday. Reading the statement by the event’s organisers, I’m glad it has been postponed. If that statement is any indication then I have dodged the bullet of Spending my Sunday afternoon standing in Freedom Square listening to speaker after speaker refer to of the proposed 2023 referendum in similar terms. The circular to supporters from Yestival organisers says,

We have our date with destiny. It is 19th October 2023. Demand the right to vote on that day for a new, fairer, more democratic, and nuclear weapon-free Scotland no longer held back by the corrupt and rotten Westminster chains of exploitation and domination.

I don’t want to listen to people perpetuating the myth that is implied by phrases such as “date with destiny”. I don’t want to be obliged to stand in silence as speaker after speaker repeats the lies about what we will be voting for on 19th October 2023 – if the vote actually takes place. That vote will do nothing to bring the restoration of Scotland’s independence so much as one day closer. It will have no effect at all. What is proposed is not an independence referendum in any meaningful sense. It is a glorified opinion poll.

The sole purpose of the referendum as proposed is to allow Nicola Sturgeon to claim that she delivered the vote she has been mandated to deliver for eight years. Or at least, that she tried to deliver it, but was thwarted by the evil Tories. It’s a win/win situation for Sturgeon. Whatever the UK Supreme Court decides, she and her party will be armed for the next election. As ever, that election and not the restoration of Scotland’s independence is the SNP’s main priority. Which is as it should be and no more than we would expect of a political party. But not to the exclusion of Scotland’s cause.

We know that the proposed mock referendum will have no effect because both Nicola Sturgeon MSP and Dorothy Bain KC have told us that it will have no effect. When you’re told by the First Minister of Scotland and the chief legal officer of the Scottish Government and the Crown in Scotland (Lord Advocate), you probably should believe it. Yet still we have the likes of the Yestival organisers leading people to believe that the mock referendum is their “date with destiny”.

Sunday’s event should have been a protest against the mock referendum. The postponed event should be a protest against the mock referendum. Every march, rally and other event involving independence activists should be a protest against the mock referendum and a demand for a real constitutional referendum with direct legal consequences.

Let me ask you a question. When you voted for the SNP all those times since 2014 did you think you were voting for a mock referendum? Or did you suppose you were voting for an opportunity to exercise your inalienable right of self-determination? I know I always assumed it was the latter. So I am not content with what is now being offered. And you shouldn’t be content either. If you are convinced, as I am, that Scotland’s independence must be restored as a matter of the utmost urgency, then you should be as offended and angry as I am at the attempt to fob us off with this pretendy independence referendum.

As for the Yestival organisers and all the others in the Yes movement who should know better, they need to take a long hard look at themselves. But not too long. Time is not on our side.



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

52 thoughts on “Liars all around

  1. Was that what the Yestival was for, to make sure the 2023 indyref went ahead, if so, I didn’t know that. We know that Sturgeon has assured Westminster that it will only be an advisory indyref and nothing will come of it, if indeed it goes ahead at all.

    As you rightly say Peter, Sturgeon is in a win, win situation, no indyref and the indy masses will rush to vote for her party in a kind of demo against Westminster and the UKSC’s decision, if there is an indyref, the indy masses will also adhere to Sturgeon’s party on the grounds that she’s managed to pull it off, totally unaware that the indyref is just a mock one.

    Here’s the rub, in my opinion and it’s a long shot, when the masses who vote for the dissolving of the union find out that it’s a mock indyref, and not the real thing, that’s if the UKSC gives the green light to it, there could be some blowback from them, what that entails I don’t know, it’s the best we can hope for.

    However, I think the UKSC will knock it on the head, and the indy masses will vote en masse for the SNP at the next GE and elect many SNP MPs, Sturgeon will have accomplished her goal and any notion of an indyref will be kicked into the long grass.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. While it’s important to get the Yes Movement going again, it cannot be simply an attempt to rekindle what happened in the run up to the last referendum. Too much has changed and too much is at stake. The UK is a very different place from 8 years go and at we’re only at the start of yet more change. Perhaps if the organisers were to start handing pitchforks and torches with the message, “there will be consequences”, we might actually get some fingers pulled out and something done.

    Liked by 9 people

  3. Spot on, Peter. It is a disgrace that the SNP leadership is collaborating with the Establishment of the UK and following a constitutional route that could never have been duplicated for the simple reason that said Establishment, after 2014, fully recognised the threat, even if it was diverted then. This consultative referendum is very different from the one that Salmond managed to negotiate because it had teeth, and had we voted YES, we would not be independent.

    This one would do little more than reflect the electorate’s wishes, not put them into effect. Even the holding of it is still at the legal stage of being rejected or accepted, with the Supreme Court not deciding until October whether the SG has the constitutional and legal competence to hold it. Likewise, the proposed GE, if the referendum is not allowed, would be just another opportunity for the SNP to gain even more votes for itself because there is no sign that it is prepared to co-operate with other independence parties on an informal basis.

    I have been saying for more years than I care to remember that there is no British (i.e. English) constitutional route out of the Union – none – unless Westminster and Whitehall succumb to conscience and decency, which is about as likely as the Sun suddenly going into orbit around the Earth. There is no other, and never was, any route to independence except the international one. This isn’t about devolution which they could afford to concede because they knew they still had the upper hand. Everything now will be aimed at destroying cohesion around the idea itself of independence.

    We need a Convention to be set up ASAP, invites to all the Unionist parties as well as independence parties and movements issued, whether the former appear or not, and out-with the control of the SNP, but, in advance of its sitting, to approach the UN with the Proclamation read out at Jack’s House, plus a case based on breaching of the Treaty from day one, with the intention laid out that the Convention will make its approaches to the UKG to formally end the Union and hold a ratifying referendum, and, thereafter, to open negotiations to divide the assets and liabilities. This would be the legal case and, as such, is untouchable, whatever the Unionists believe to the contrary, and it would be made in the name of the people in keeping with the Claim of Right.

    The political case would be based upon the many election wins by the SNP, the leading independence party, also in government in Scotland, and the rise of new independence parties, reflecting the will to have independence. If this approach is repudiated by Westminster, we should continue our case at the UN and the international court. Yes, the UN approach will take time, which we have little of, but we can ask in the strongest terms for a speedy resolution. Otherwise, we give it all up for at least another generation or it descends into armed conflict. I can see no other way out if Westminster proves to be insupportably intransigent. Sorry this is so long.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. The ‘Claim of Right’ was written when people were being burnt as witches in their thousands.

      ‘We the people’ = a few exclusively Protestant lairds. We the few exclusively Protestant lairds’ idea on sovereinty extended to deposing a Catholic king and installing a Protestant one, forever (in London). It was a bit of a hang-over from the Scottish Reformation.

      It worked. However, I heard that Charlie3 wants to be the ‘defender of the Faiths’, rather than the Faith. So I guess he wants to ditch the claim of right. It certainly sounds like he was uncomfortable with it during his mystical inaurguration. I would be, too.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Since the mass of the people had no vote, Mr E, and it was only in 1928 that all adults in Britain were allowed to vote, you are technically correct. However Magna Carta, a far less stringent and far older (English) declaration of rights, limiting to an extent those of the king, is still extant and part of English constitutional law. Are you suggesting that it should be excised on account of its age?

        The Scottish Claim of Right (1689) was an Act passed by the Convention of the Estates (nobility, Church and burgh representatives) running parallel to, and with, the Scottish parliament and it was considerably more than a statement of intent towards Catholics. England had nothing like it.

        For its time, it comes rather close to being a human rights act. English sovereignty is based on the powers of the monarch in parliament while the Scots never adopted that kind of sovereignty which is why the Scots claim sovereignty of the people. It comes as close as it may for its time to being, alongside the Treaty, a constitution.

        Everything rests on the Scottish monarch being king/queen of Scots (i.e. of the people) quite distinct from the monarch of England. So many people, north and south of the border, do not understand that there are two realms (Scotland and England) and two separate monarchies in one individual. The Union of the Crowns, 1603, was a union of two heads of state/monarchs/dynasties, the Scottish Stuart dynasty eclipsing the English Tudor one.

        The Claim of Right was, indeed, a response to the attempt by England to impose a monarch on Scotland without Scottish assent. That both chose William and Mary (Protestants) is of less interest to us than the fact that the CoR laid down very fundamental Scottish sovereignty incorporating Scottish principles of civil and criminal law and constitutional principles in keeping with Scottish sovereignty.

        Any Scots interested in Scottish history will know perfectly well that Cromwell, the butcher, did indeed invade Scotland and murdered many, many Scots. The streets of Dundee ran with their blood, as did other places; there were mass rapes and killing of babes in arms. Ireland suffered a similar fate under his hands. Do you really imagine that, as Scots, we welcomed, or welcome, English imposition upon us? What Westminster fondly likes to imagine are sturdy Unionists in Scotland would turn on a sixpence if England were ever to try to impose a system upon us that we do not wish. By the way, King Charles III understands the modern application of the Claim of Rights, even if you don’t.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The Cliam of Right’s purpose was to depose an English king and replace him with a Dutch one, for the purposes of the Protestant Church, who no doubt had a big hand in penning it for obvious reasons. I get the feeling your concept of what ‘sovereignty of the people’ ment in 1689 is based on 2022 thinking, unless you really do have a thing about the nobility and the church. If thoses cats were out to get ‘sovereignty of the people’ as you appear to understand it, there would be a bit about voting (for who should be King (Billy) or more pertinently to them, who should be Laird of Caithness).

          It’s an anachronism. It has nothing of any import to do with the 21st century apart from some mystical warblings at a monarch’s vestiture who looked like he didn’t take it seriously, and said he just did it just because he was supposed to. No doubt there was lots of other drivel as well.

          Like

          1. James II was also King of Scots in his separate capacity, so, no he was not solely an English king. What was happening was that the English, having deemed him to have abandoned his throne, offered to the next Protestant. It was signal to the English to ca canny. The Scots wished to appoint their own monarch, i.e. they wished to remind him that Scotland existed and to make him understand his place in Scottish society. Read the document closely, Mr E. It is far, far more than a statement of acceptance of a Scottish Protestant monarch or a rebuke to the arrogance of the English. It states, in no uncertain terms, the offences of James II and the expectations of the constitutional situation of the Scots that he had transgressed wilfully, and not just in his adherence to Catholicism, but his flagrant disregard for the Scottish constitution itself.

            If you think Charles doesn’t know what he signed up to, you are likely to be very mistaken. Whether he will adhere to it remains to be seen, but I rather believe he will because he knows the penalty for monarchs who do not abide by the rules, and he will be very aware of the strong republican sentiment in Scotland, allied to, but independent of, the independence movement. If the Tory government rides roughshod over our parts of the constitution, which it might well do, he will be aware, also, of the implicit threat to the continuation of the monarchy in Scotland, and, thereafter, in the rest of the UK, even in England itself.

            William of Orange gave the order to attack the MacDonalds of Glen Coe – it wasn’t some renegade Campbell plot – and his popularity in Highland Scotland plummeted as a result. He also ensured, by his interference in Darien, and however one feels about colonialism, (marshalling English, Dutch and Spanish hostility) that many Scots despised him. He was very much an ‘English’ king in the longer term, and in actuality, because he favoured English interests over Scottish, but not for the purposes of the CoR.

            Every monarch in Scotland who has shown contempt for its constitution has been despised. If you think that Charles doesn’t know that, I believe you are mistaken. I am a republican, by the way, but have no beef with the monarchy if it doesn’t overstep its constitutional role, and, in particular, its Scottish constitutional role, as I rather think that the late Queen almost did during the 2014 referendum period.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Another bit of background is that the CoR was penned quite soon after a period when Oliver Cromwell ran Scotland (a revelotionary interlude in Scottish history that people seem to have forgotten about).

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I’ve had a sinking feeling for a while that this is actually worse than we thought – if that is possible.

    It’s becoming crystal clear that, not only are we dealing with an intransigent, belligerent and still powerful British establishment; but we have also been putting our faith in and elected (four times running), a cabal of so-called independence favouring politicians, both in Westminster and Holyrood, who are also, it turns out, an impediment to independence!

    When Ian Blackford, in all his clan chieftan finery, took to the floor in Westminster to declare himself a sympathetic and loyal royalist – simpering on behalf of the government of Scotland – and then went on to shower sympathy on the plight of the newly promoted Tory leader and unelected Prime Minister! Although I half-expected this – I still could envisage a cascade of fresh bubbles bursting. I don’t know if he actually said, ‘God save the King,’ because my boakmeter had already gone into the red and I had to run to the bathroom.

    Neither do I know what our esteemed first minister has said during the course of these events – I just haven’t got the stomach for any more of this – but I’m willing to bet it wasn’t along the lines of , ‘vive la republique!’

    So it’s a double whammy. We are being shafted by Westminster and also by our own representatives. It was ever thus. It’s Scotland in a nutshell. We don’t do things by half – we have not one, but two vichy governments – one elected to Westminster and the other sitting in Holyrood!

    Sara Salyer’s ideas of how to use the Claim of Right – even more valid since the BBC slip-up that allowed a TV audience to see the new King vow to protect it – has great promise. It must have because it already has Pete Wishart pooping his flowery boxer shorts.

    Perhaps the first people we have to go after with the Claim of Right are Nicola Sturgeon, Ian Blackford and Pete Wishart.

    They are selling us down the river. That is illegal in Scotland.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. For some time now, I have had this sinking feeling that this is actually worse than we thought.

    Events of the past week would seem to vindicate this.

    It’s becoming crystal clear that, not only are we dealing with an intransigent, belligerent and still powerful British establishment, but we have also been putting our faith in and elected (four times in succession), a cabal of so-called independence favouring politicians, both in Westminster and Holyrood, who are also an impediment to independence!

    When Ian Blackford, in all his clan chieftan finery, took to the floor in Westminster to declare himself a sympathetic and loyal royalist – simpering on behalf of the government of Scotland – and then went on to shower sympathy on the plight of the newly promoted Tory leader and unelected Prime Minister – although I half-expected this, I still could envisage a cascade of fresh bubbles bursting. I don’t know if he actually said, ‘God save the King,’ because my boakmeter had already gone into the red and I had to run to the bathroom.

    Neither am I aware of what our esteemed first minister has said during the course of these events – I just haven’t got the stomach for any more of this – but I’m willing to bet it wasn’t along the lines of , ‘vive la republique!’

    So it’s a double whammy. We are being shafted by Westminster and also by our own representatives. It was ever thus. It’s Scotland in a nutshell. We don’t do things by half – we have not one, but two vichy governments! One sitting in Westminster (occasionally) and one in Holyrood.

    Sara Salyer’s ideas of how to use the Claim of Right – even more valid since the BBC slip-up that allowed a TV audience to see the new King vow to protect it – has great promise. It must have because it already has Pete Wishart pooping his flowery boxer shorts.

    Perhaps the first people we have to go after with the Claim of Right are Nicola Sturgeon, Ian Blackford and Pete Wishart.

    They are selling us down the river. That is illegal in Scotland.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Regardless of what ‘route’ to independence you have in mind it is pointless going after the British while at the same time saying it is a matter for the people of Scotland alone. All campaigning should have been aimed at the Scottish Government and SNP since 2016/17. As ever, it has been left too late. But there may be some signs of a mass awakening in the Yes movement. Maybe a small mass. Maybe too small.

      I would dearly like to see a demonstration at the SNP conference with thousands of #DissolveTheUnion and #ScottishUDI placards. That would get their attention. Perhaps more importantly, it would get the attention of the media.

      But I’m only dreaming,

      Liked by 8 people

      1. Perhaps it’s a waking dream, Peter. I agree with you on the principle, but, by 2016/17, the woke faction was already in control of the SNP. In alliance with the foot-draggers (the devolutionists), they would never have given an inch. We can see just how entrenched they are and how invested in them the SNP leadership is. I really believe that they would take us all down and utterly destroy the independence movement and Scotland before they would let us establish an independent Scotland that is not made in their image. They are a very dangerous faction, essentially existing on a plane that is trapped in toddlerhood, and driven by faith-based unreality. Every bit as dangerous as the witch finders and burners that Mr E alludes to because they are being controlled by interests out with Scotland itself, and even out with the UK. This fight is an existential one, on several levels, for every Scot regardless of his or her allegiances. Having said that, yes, we should still be pressuring the SNP until they squeal.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I think we could have stopped the rot at the 2019 conference. The last real one. But Sturgeon was too much of a star. Some of us tried. You’ll remember what happened to Chris McEleny. Everybody remembers that disgraceful episode. What fewer folk are aware of is that I tabled a point of order right at the very start of the day’s business. It took the form of a handful of questions about the agenda committee. (It’s not called that now. But I don’t care.)

          The Business Convener took thee point of order but never dealt with it. Under standard rules, no other business could be dealt with until the point of order had been cleared. They just ignored it. Then there was that incident with Chris and I knew we were banging our heads against a wall. Officially, though ─ and probably in law ─ that conference never happened. Any other time if the Business Convener tried to proceed without clearing a point of order half the hall would shout at her. Nobody said a word. That’s when I knew the membership had completely lost control of the party.

          It took me a while to actually resign. But I think I knew then that the SNP had gone off someplace I have no interest in going.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. You may be right, Peter. Yes, I do remember that conference and the humiliation of Mr McEleny. An utter disgrace. I didn’t know about your point of order, but I am not at all surprised because adherence to the law of the land, or to the rules of the SNP itself, is now of no importance to the SNP leadership. Almost everything they do now is either out with the law or out with their own rules. They have become a law unto themselves, but, again, that does not surprise me as the woke faction behaves like this in every situation in which their tentacles probe: they lack proper understanding of democracy and law or the temperament to adhere to them. Theirs is the world of the screaming tantrum and heel-kicking if they are thwarted. That is what I meant by their being stuck in toddlerhood – they have the temperament of toddlers who always must have their own way at whatever cost to others. You must have felt so let down.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. The Scottish ruling elite, lions67, is in place of the monarch in Holyrood, so, yes, the SNP leadership had best watch its step. I may be very wrong, but I think the acknowledgement of the CoR by King Charles III (of Scotland as well as of England, etc.) is the monarchy’s way of showing that it takes cognisance of Scottish sensibilities. In other words, it knows that its coat is on a shoogly peg in the face of Scottish republicanism, but is going to fight to retain its place as Scotland’s (separate) monarchy post independence, if necessary – always, of course, being champions of the Union. They are nothing if not pragmatists and realists.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. The 2014 referendum was consultative, the Brexit referendum was consultative.

    They really are consultations unless it’s a referendum on a specific proposed law.

    Like

    1. Er… yes. And? If it was to be over 50% YES, what then? Do you think the Scots will accept another gerrymandered referendum? Do you think the Scots would accept a 60% rule when Brexit was enacted on very much less? Dream on, Mr E.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. They could make the threshold 80% for all the difference it would make. In fact, it might be better for us if the thing was obviously rigged. The referendum as proposed is politically insane. Win, even with a qualified majority requirement, and we get NOTHING. Lose, and we’ll have had our second referendum. If the British are looking for an excuse, that’ll be the point at which they legislate to make a referendum in Scotland as close to impossible as they can contrive.

        Sturgeon evidently still clings to the belief that the British will relent if the pressure gets great enough. She’s counting on the mock referendum having a political effect even if not legal consequences. If she believes that she’s, a fool. The only thing that might force the British to the negotiating table is if independence is a fait accompli. That requires that the FM and her government do something extremely bold. And that they show steely determination when the Brits start ‘being reasonable’. The starting position in the negotiations is that they get nothing.

        That doesn’t sound like Nicola Sturgeon, does it?

        Shit! I’m exhausted after that. I think the damned Covid might have found me. Covid is a fat bastard and he’s sitting on my chest.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Yes, you are right. I have never been a supporter of referendums. Never. They resolve nothing if used constitutionally, as we see from Brexit, the very first referendum and the failed second one, and leave everything in a bigger mess than it was previously.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Mr E.

      If I recall correctly Sturgeon herself said that a 2023 indyref would have no power, if yes won, to implement it, as Peter rightly said its nothing more than a mock indyref.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. It’s not the winning, though, is it, Mr E, it’s the losing – again. No, the winning would not hand us our independence, but it would give a very powerful signal that more than half Scotland’s voting population ants independence. Losing it would be fatal. Do you expect that the SNP leadership doesn’t know that? Nicola Sturgeon has said that she must exhaust all the legal (i.e. English/British constitutional) routes, which, coming from a party leader who has been conscientious in legal adherence and probity would be a fine thing, but almost everything the SNP does now is illegal or illegitimate, at best.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. She was stating the obvious. The 2014 indyref had no specific power. The Brexit referendum had no specific power. They were normal referendums.

        The UN has run lots of similar ones and they officially call them consultations.

        Voting on something like ‘should Scotland/Kosovo/Wherever be an independant State?’ is a vote on a concept, not a piece of legislation, hence it has no inherant specific powers apart from popular willpower regarding the question asked.

        Like

        1. No, Mr E, the 2014 referendum, although consultative, was binding on the Westminster government to recognise the formal steps thereafter to Scottish independence. That doesn’t mean they would have stuck to that agreement, but an agreement it was. This one would have no such power.

          Liked by 2 people

            1. Binding if we had won, Mr E. It would have been very difficult for the UKG to say it hadn’t gone into it with its eyes open. That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have tried to wriggle out of it as Crawford and Boyle proved, but very difficult. It really was imperative that we said YES. We didn’t. Now, time to try something new. As I said, disagree if you please. I’m not your jailer or the arbiter of your opinions and beliefs. Nor you of mine.

              Liked by 1 person

  7. Thanks for the history lessons, Mr E.

    The Claim of Right might have been written a long time ago, the U.S. Constitution was written less than a century later and is still extant. I’m not sure what your point is here.

    It’s true both referendums you mention were consultative. I think both are very good examples of holding referendums under British rules. It is a path fraught with hideous danger and best avoided.

    Apologies to all for my post appearing twice yesterday in slightly edited versions. Not a senior moment, more to do with the vagaries of WordPress methinks…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The U.S. Constitution has been ammended 27 times. The last one was in the 1990’s. There have been no ammendments to the ‘Claim of Right’.

      Like

      1. I don’t believe that anyone has suggested that it could be, along with the Treaty, anything more than the foundation for a Scottish constitution which would require to be designed for a modern Scotland. Even then, that Scotland would change, and so on. The CoR might be a 17th century document, but its fundamental principles still exist and are extant today.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The principle foundation for any Scottish constitution would entail a monarchy/republic debate that is as unlikely in 2024 as it is today. If it ever happened, I think that would probably result in a monarchy, in which case any Scottish constitution would be based on an act of succession. Not a document written by the decendants of the lairds, earls, and barons that won the Scottish civil war on behalf of the Christian equivalant of the Taliban.

          Like

          1. Would it? Possibly. When we use the word, ‘foundation’, it usually means the bottom layer, Mr E. That means that we would expect it to built upon. Do you see? Built upon means that there would be other layers added. No one has ever suggested that we use it as a modern document. If you read it closely, albeit it concerns the retention of Presbyterianism, it also rebukes the monarch, James II, for his high-handedness with regard to his allocation of offices, and so on, and his blatant disregard of the Scottish constitution.

            That is why it is more than just an anti Catholic rant: it actually goes to the limits of royal sovereignty in Scotland. Scottish burgesses, by the way were often small-town merchants and traders, not barons or earls or even lairds. They were not the common folk either in the sense that they owned property, and as we all know, the ownership of property or trading rights entitled one to a vote and participation in either the higher or the lower echelons of government, and this was the case throughout Europe at the time. It is very important never to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

            Most legislation even today is aimed specifically at the default humans, the men, in our society. Women and their needs are largely ignored, as this SNP Scottish government has proved time and again, yet the fundamental principles may well be sound. Furthermore, even the Tories have brought in sensible legislation on occasion. Do we just dump it because it was brought in by the Tories? The proper and democratic way must be to debate and discuss honestly, and to salvage what we can from the 1689 CoR and the 1707 Treaty, both still extant. As far as I can see, that is what we are doing. I have found Peter’s website to be one that evolves, along with its author, as more information arises or a different viewpoint throws up anomalies and new ways of looking at matters.

            Like

            1. As people in Scotland are unwilling to have a monarchy/republic debate, a Scottish constitution would default to a monarchy. It’s foundation would be an act of royal succession. That would be the foundation of an independent Scotland. Maybe the monarch would continue to uphold the ‘claim of right’. I would prefer if he didn’t.

              Like

              1. No, Mr E, the default would be to establish independence, then make the decisions that would lead to a republic or a monarchy. No point in debating whether you’ll wear fantasy satin or silk when you are still bare-a***d and you’ve no way of accessing the piggy bank. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have no intention of ever actually doing anything whatsoever that might lead to independence. When you have a written-in-blood (hers) pledge to push for independence regardless of the Supreme Court decision, then let me know and I might believe you. Might. Right now, I wouldn’t trust Ms Sturgeon as far as I could throw her and her Gucci shoes and Vogue jacket. For now, the SALVO/SSRG initiative is the only positive we have. It might be the only thing that stands now between us and a full-blooded social revolution. Now, if you don’t mind, these circular arguments are becoming tedious and I fear we shall never agree, so let’s agree to disagree.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. The idea that monachy/republic would be debated in Scotland after independence is as likely as monachy/republic being be debated in Scotland, or the UK before independence.

                  I think it would be a defaul hereditary monarchy. With or without Protestant ascendancy as a minor aside.

                  Like

                2. A monarchy or a federation really very is pretty basic to a state’s constituion. I see no debate. Going by that, there won’t be one.

                  Like

                  1. You do have a habit of moving the goalposts as soon as anyone comes close to scoring, don’t you? Why wouldn’t there be a debate? It is one that can be held at any time after independence. A federation would be another waste of effort and time, and we would be no better off. Do you really imagine that Westminster and the British State would settle for England being in any way in thrall to the other three bits? Is that a pink, porcine UFO I clock overhead?

                    Liked by 1 person

  8. ‘Shit! I’m exhausted after that. I think the damned Covid might have found me. Covid is a fat bastard and he’s sitting on my chest.’

    Sorry to hear that. I caught the thing last Easter and it wasn’t that bad for me. I’ve had worse colds.

    Hope you feel better soon.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Aye , I hear what yr saying P .

    I’m assuming the main intent of YESTIVAL is to keep the pressure on the SNP/GOV to , for once , actually follow through on something it’s * pledged * – even while believing the likelihood of there being a Ref next year is slim ..ie the ” holding their feet to the fire ” metaphor . The problem with that is what do you do if your metaphorical roastee is wearing asbestos-lined , fireproof designer footwear ?

    Another motivation may be to provide some kind of locus for people’s frustration and as possible relief from the corrosive divisions that are eating into the marrow of the Movement . A sense that there’s still something worth struggling for .

    There is .

    It would be so much more meaningful though , if this – chimeric – Referendum was about what you refer to . I’m intending to go nonetheless . Been a while since I was last in my home town and being amongst 1000s of people with – at least one ! common interest sounds braw 🙂

    No like you to have trouble getting things aff yr chest ; so , Co Vid should be nae problem . It’s just yr basic cauld wae pretensions . The viral equivalent of ” fur coat n nae knickers “

    Like

  10. [irony alert]
    Well Saint Nicolas tactical master stroke sure has wiped the smile from the faces of the unbelievers who rubbished the ‘Nicola has a Cunning and Secret Plan’ believers.

    Sure proved them wrong. Yessir.

    They sure ain’t looking so confident now. Nosiree.

    Don’t ya just love it when a plan comes together?
    Couldn’t you see it, all the blatant clues were right there.!?

    Tactically reframing the arguments by saying nothing
    and strategically waiting for the Old Monarch to pass through old age after the longest reign in history, to magnificently manipulate the new monarch into swearing to uphold the Scottish Claim of Rite. Cunning.

    We’ll just have a UK wide General Election first, and then with one bound Scotland shall be FREE !!!

    Ah could greet.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. ” and then with one bound Scotland shall be FREE !!! ” . ” Free ” in the sense that * anyone * can obtain big chunks of it for nothing ? Is that not almost the case already ? Has the Nu SNP MP/MSP BOGOF offer not been doing the job fast enough , so they’ve just abandoned the Closing Down Sale and decided it’s quicker and more efficient to give the country away gratis ?

    Turns out , Sturgeon’s – alleged – * mentor * wasn’t Salmond after all , but Bernie Madoff

    Like

  12. ‘The U.S. Constitution has been ammended 27 times. The last one was in the 1990’s. There have been no ammendments to the ‘Claim of Right’.’

    You are correct Mr E. I’m no historian myself but I do know that the fledgling U.S. was so determined to be independent of Britain, that it fought and won a war to achieve this worthy goal. As an independent nation, it then had the power to adopt and amend it’s own Constitution as it saw fit.

    Scotland on the other hand, despite insisting the Claim of Right be a condition of any union with England has, instead, relinquished it’s nationhood for all intents and purposes and so cannot amend or even live by it’s historical values whilst this situation endures.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. ‘The principle foundation for any Scottish constitution would entail a monarchy/republic debate that is as unlikely in 2024 as it is today.’

    There is no debate Mr E. In Scotland the people are sovereign.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The king is soveriegn, hence he is called the soveriegn. That’s the hereditary monarchy under which we live. If the people were sovereign, they would elect a president.

      Like

  14. Indeed, lions67, and they will decide after independence. Right now, although republicanism is strong, it does not appear to be stronger than the desire to retain a constitutional monarchy. We need to remember that Charles will not be King of England in his capacity as the King of Scots in an independent Scotland. The two realms will split along national lines. It is simply the emphasis on the English part of the monarchy that blurs the lines at the moment. Many people believe that the monarch is monarch of Great Britain. Nah. The Union of the Crowns, 1603, related only to the two Crowns being vested in the same monarch, no melding of the Crowns themselves. What could tip the balance is if King Charles III dips his fingers in Scottish affairs to the detriment of our potential for independence – i.e. no purring. I really do not see this present royal circus and the Unionist overkill changing anything in Scotland, frankly. I feel sad that the Queen has passed, and sad for her family, but mourning cannot be enforced in a democracy.

    Like

  15. The idea that the people of Scotland do not know the status of the proposed referendum is absolute, delusional madness.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.