So, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has issued its judgement and it is that the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the competence to authorise even the pretendy referendum that Nicola Sturgeon proposes. This was, you will recall, a referendum that had been stripped of all its legal and constitutional effect so that it was no more than a glorified opinion poll. We were told that it would have political effect. But there was never any logical, rational reason to believe that. It was, in the words of Anthony Salamone, an “empty” vote. It was empty. It was pretendy. It was a mock referendum. And now the highest British court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament, elected by the supposedly sovereign people of Scotland, lacks even the clout to authorise a mock referendum. The judgement is an insult to the people of Scotland and to democracy itself. But it is no more than was expected. Should we be angry? Of course we should be fucking angry! But at whom?
Should we be angry at the judges? Perhaps. But they didn’t make the law. They merely interpret it. And it must be said that they have interpreted it correctly in the context of the British state. If it seems contradictory to say that the judgement is an insult to democracy but nonetheless correct in the limited sense I have stipulated, then this demonstrates a failure to comprehend the true nature of the British state and the Union – which is ultimately what the judges were interpreting. The Union has always been anti-democratic. Of course, democracy wasn’t even a consideration when the Union was imposed on Scotland. But its essence has never changed to accord with democratic principles. It could not do so because democratic principles would be at odds with the overarching purpose of the Union. That purpose is to give England a permanent and overwhelming advantage in the relationships of power with Scotland and other additions to the Union. Or, to put it another way, the purpose of the Union is to put Scotland at a permanent disadvantage. The UKSC has done no more than take due cognisance of the purpose of the Union. So there’s little point in directing our anger at them. If you address a question to a British court you are always going to get a British answer.
Should we be angry at the British state? Well, of course! We have every cause to be angry at the British state. I’m not about to catalogue the reasons here as everybody reading this will already be well aware of them. But, yes! We should be angry at the British state. But should we be angrier still because of this UKSC judgement? Has it given us a new reason to be angry? It is hard to see any such new reason. This is just imperialistic business as usual for the British state. Nothing has been changed by the courts judgement. All the judges have done is state the reality that has always been since the imposition of the Union. Scotland is subordinate to England-as-Britain. That is the law. The British law. If we accept the legitimacy of British law regardless of how anti-democratic it is then we have no right to complain when we are treated as inferiors. If you hope that the British state will treat Scotland with respect then you will always be disappointed.
Should we be angry at the Scottish Government and our First Minister? Aye! This is where most of our anger should be directed. Who addressed a question to a British court knowing it could only elicit a British response? Who has been pursuing (albeit with vanishingly little vigour and no discernible effect) a process for restoring our independence which is critically dependent on the British state exhibiting the kind of respect for Scotland that the Union makes impossible? Who has been trying to fob us off with a mock referendum because she ran out of excuses for postponing any action at all? Who has brought Scotland’s cause to the dire place in which we find it?
The SNP and its apologists will now try to direct your anger towards the judges and the British state. If you care about our nation’s future you will resist the blandishments. You will direct your anger at the people who have engineered this situation entirely for party political purposes and without regard for Scotland’s cause. Only when the First Minister and her government and her party feel the lash of the people’s anger will they act for Scotland. Remember this when you attend rallies tonight.
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 
As usual , you have correctly set out the arguments , I hope that some of your logic can get a purchase somewhere in the powers-that-be.
LikeLiked by 6 people
WE will have to shout at the right people. If we allow ourselves to be pointed at the judges or the Tories or Westminster or whatever, we will fail. We have to kick Sturgeon’s arse. She must not be allowed to pursue this pointless referendum by other means. She must do something effective. That would be #ScottishUDI. And NOW IS THE TIME!
LikeLiked by 5 people
The claim by the Unionists used to be that the UK was a voluntary Union, the UKSC has destroyed that argument.
It is now official – Scotland is held without the right to self-determination.
Only a complete Numptie would blame the Scottish Government for that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s someone who isn’t a numptie:
“The statement at para 90 of the indyref ruling that “Nothing in the allocation of powers [between the UK and Scottish Parls] infringes any principle of self-determination” is interesting.
Leaving aside the precise content of international law, the question of “who decides” is surely central to any theory of self-determination.”
Indeed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I haven’t had time to read the full ruling. But that part of it alone encapsulates the attitude of the British. They will simply declare that which is anti-democratic to be perfectly democratic and as far as they are concerned that’s and end to the matter. The statement makes no sense. The judges having just ruled that the allocation of powers SOES infringe the principle of self-determination in that it declares the exercise of that right unlawful. Then the judges go on to deny that their ruling does the very thing it does. This is down the rabbit-hole stuff. But so typical of the self-serving ‘logic’ of British exceptionalism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed.
The good thing about it is that it’s a very clear watershed moment. Many activists might have known that the Union was not voluntary, well, now everybody knows. 5.4 million of the People of Scotland, 65 million of the UK, 450 million in the EU, and 7 billion in the world.
Westminster is holding Scotland captive against our will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Westminster is holding Scotland captive against our will.”
Sound like a colony to me, and more especially when you add economic plunder and cultural assimilation to the mix. Maybe time for a new moniker, yesindyref2; that boat has now left the harbour.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It always was dual purpose Alf. Back in 2014 it was yes to getting Indy Ref 2, and YES voting in it.
Well, it could still happen, specially if the 45 SNP MPs at Westminster remembered that we voted them in for Independence not wittering on about hunting in England, and used their strength as the 3rd biggest party at Westminster to deny them their full elected and mandated Democracy in exactly the same way they, and their useful tool the UKSC, have denied us ours.
Until Westminster begs for mercy and amends the Scotland Act as an emergency measure, to permanently devolve the right to a Referendum AND removes the Union as a reserved issue. By 1st February latest.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said Sir.
I must admit to being somewhat relieved at the judgment announced by The Supremes. A meaningless referendum for which the SNP, the arrowhead of the Independence movement, are very clearly unprepared and with an entirely unsuited leadership for the task in hand, would have been a disaster.
The Supremes have shown explicitly the real state of the United Kingdom. That is a good thing – it is black and white now: there is no route out of the Union, as all thinking people know, by playing by British rules …
… although the SNP will now move to trumpet the plebby election as the next strand of this wondrous masterplan. Apart from the fact that 16-17 year-olds and European nationals resident in Scotland can’t vote in a UK GE there is no hope of the SNP alone obtaining both 50%+ of seats and votes (as per Nicola Sturgeon’s self-declared dual criteria required to even ‘open discussions’ or some such with the UK Government regarding restoring Scotland’s nation-statehood).
To this end I note that the SNP/Nicola Sturgeon has now announced that they are going “to convene a special conference to discuss and agree the detail of a proposed de-facto referendum” sometime in the “New Year” and that the SNP will “launch and mobilise a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy”. (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23144324.snp-announce-emergency-party-conference-de-facto-referendum-plan/)
Not so much kicking the can into the long grass but deep into the Amazonian rain forest.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I meant to say, additionally, that my relief at the findings of the UKSC was that they have stopped as wasting time, energy and money on a process that, if YES had secured a ‘victory’, would have led to precisely no change in Scotland’s predicament.
LikeLiked by 4 people
But this hasn’t stopped the Scottish Government pursuing that waste of time, energy and money. It all just shifts onto a de facto referendum that is even more pointless than the real mock referendum – if you see what I mean. We have to get Sturgeon told that this is simply not good enough.
LikeLiked by 6 people
” It all just shifts onto a de facto referendum that is even more pointless than the real mock referendum….” . lol . I bet you could never have imagined being obliged to write a sentence like that , Peter . You’re absolutely correct , of course . In the fiercely competitive League of Political Cluelessness , the current SNP are serious contenders to take the top spot . No contradiction too great . No * tactic * too pointless . They are the arse-backward Olympians….
SLOWER . LOWER . WEAKER .
LikeLiked by 4 people
The UK Govt has just scuppered FM Sturgeon’s plans for a plebsicite election
“the government would not accept the SNP argument that the next general election will be a de facto vote on independence in Scotland. Asked if Rishi Sunak agreed with that plan, the press secretary replied:
I don’t think that is the position of the UK government. The supreme court’s decision today has been very clear.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/23/scottish-independence-referendum-supreme-court-scotland-pmqs-sunak-starmer-uk-politics-live-latest-news#top-of-blog
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, benmadigan, they did indeed. Ian Blackford and his cohort in Westminster must now put the question: when and in what circumstances has an elected government not been allowed from day one to even attempt to put its core policy into action? The ability to put the party’s core policy into operation is at the very heart of democratic elections. Basically, the SNP has been told that it cannot even attempt to put its core policy into operation – ever, in any circumstances whatsoever because the other parties don’t like it, so, again, the Unionist parties, together, as one unelected voice, decide which policies the SNP my put into operation. It’s no argument for them to say that people vote SNP who don’t vote for independence. Tough. Everyone knows when they vote for a particular party that that party will attempt to put its core policies into operation. This is basic democratic politics everywhere in the world – except in Scotland, apparently. In other words, nothing at all that the Scots who want independence vote for is permissible. Totalitarian state or what?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Not a snowball’s chance in hell of holding any kind of referendum without Westminster’s agreement. That was expected because referendums are a reserved matter. The constitution is a reserved matter. The Union is a reserved matter. Except that it isn’t. What the SC of the UK ruled on were the Acts of Union, not the Treaty because it has no competence to rule on the Treaty itself. Domestic Acts relating to a Treaty ratify the Treaty. but they can never supersede it. Treaties between states may be adjudicated on only in international law.
That is what the SG should have been arguing and not basing its argument on the Quebecois case. Quebec was/is considered a territory within a larger state; Scotland was a sovereign, independent state, as was England, when it agreed to the Treaty of Union. The two situations are not at all similar except in context and only then, superficially.
Then we come to the actual Treaty agreement which kind of compromises us because it was agreed to ‘voluntarily’ (ahem). Again, the SG should have been arguing on the blatant and eminently provable case that England and England as the UK has deliberately and consistently breached the Treaty, almost from day one. The Treaty requires to be ‘sound’ in law, but make sure it’s in the Court of Session, and then placed before the UN/International Court.
The SC of the UK has overstepped its powers by ruling that it cannot be challenged in international law. That is simply nonsense. Just as the UK left the EU after agreeing to the Treaty of Rome, so Scotland is entitled to leave the Union by repudiating the breached Treaty. This is the only way we can go. It was always the only way we could go. Now, we have to make a UDI first as soon as the Treaty is ‘sound’ in law and run both cases in parallel. Forget about a GE: the SNP/Greens will use it to get themselves re-elected and give it all up.
Keep the pressure on them and refuse to accept the ruling about international law because that presupposes that the Acts are international law and they are not. This is such a one-sided debate that is is wholly Anglo orientated, it is hard to credit the arrogance. Well, maybe not.
LikeLiked by 6 people
UK domestic Judges no matter how qualified and distinguished do NOT have the last word (NOR as UK domestic judges – any word) in international law.
They added comments on “Kosovo” and “Quebec” – but why did they feel that to be necessary?
Read item “87” in their judgement – it throws every judgement they could find into the mix – but why did they feel that to be necessary?
I speculate they had their reasons – and perhaps their orders!
LikeLiked by 4 people
I rather think, Mike, that they wanted to quash any ideas of appealing to international law, but it is outwith their remit and jurisdiction. They want us to believe that it is pointless going to international law and that the Acts, domestic legislation, cover the situation. They don’t and they can’t because international law always supersedes domestic law. Had the EU refused the UK withdrawal from the EU, international law would almost certainly have been invoked – and you know what, Westminster knows it applies here, too. If this was a Union of equals, a partnership, each of the four parts would have had a veto on withdrawal from the EU. Can you imagine this ever happening? England cannot ever lose because its superior numbers preclude true democracy and partnership. The judges also made great play of the fact that Scotland cannot be deemed to be a colony, but their conclusion that Scotland has no power to do anything at all on its own behalf rather supports the opposite argument, does it not? I must admit to having found the Court’s arguments lacking in substance in some aspects, but Ms Sturgeon has accepted the ruling, so end of. No wonder we get nowhere.
LikeLiked by 5 people
The FM has never been bothered to attend an AUOB march, but yet her job is now on the line and I feel sure she’ll be willing to attend one of these rally’s tonight. Lesley Riddoch and Sturgeonites endorsement of Sturgeon in every regard is the reason we find ourselves in the cul-de-sac on Independence. When has Sturgeon ever been democratic in her approach when it comes to the SNP and we heard her today saying she’ll hold a conference next year for her and her party to talk a way forward for Scotland, don’t make me laugh.
She was asked about working with other parties and straight away avoided the question entirely, this woman hasn’t changed her spots and doesn’t know how to move forward, so for Scotland nothing is going to change until we change the leader running the country. Sturgeon did look rattled, but what would you expect, she asked the opposition (SC) to make a judgement because she couldn’t make the judgement herself, she should have known what the result was going to be, after all the rest of us did.
She said Indepeendence isn’t about one person and yet here is me thinking thats all its ever been since she been leader of the SNP, Scotland is worse of under Sturgeon.
LikeLiked by 5 people
In case anyone has not yet seen it.
Nicola Sturgeon answers media questions at 21:05 or t=1385s
“Nicola Sturgeon’s statement after Supreme Court ruling against Scotland’s independence referendum”
LikeLike
Angry? I’m F*ckin raging!
We now know for sure that we are not in a union but we are being held hostage by a foreign country’s legalese and some compliant House Jocks including our FM Sturgeon.
Sturgeon deserves an Oscar for her acting abilities that would put Betty Davis to shame, her faux outrage at the result today was not unexpected bearing in mind that this so called indyref, was in reality a MOCK INDYREF that wouldn’t affect the union whatsoever.
A smidgen of comfort comes in the shape, that many more folk who thought we were in a union now know that we are not in a union, that we are held hostage and asset drained on a daily basis to provide wealth for this foreign country.
Like I said till I’m blue in the face that there’s NO way out of this hostage position via Westminster, nor is there a way OUT of this Palestinian like position we now find ourselves in, with Sturgeon at the helm.
Her record on independence is abysmal she’s done more harm than good, if she had even a modicum of dignity, honour or respect for Scotland she’s resign immediately, but she won’t because she has none of those.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Not one country got out of the British Empire without fighting for it, without making it harder to keep the country than to let it go alone. That reality never changed. The question is, how are Scots going to do that?
LikeLiked by 4 people
We declare UDI, place our case before the UN/International Court as citizens rather than as government, and take it from there. If the Court or the UN do not accept such a case, then we know exactly where we stand internationally, as well as nationally. That would put the ball right back into England as the UK’s court: negotiate a withdrawal or it descends into something much darker because independence is not going to go away.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I totally agree. I hope leaders can be found who will grasp that bull firmly by the horns and do the right thing for Scotland’s future by bringing it to independence in this way. Alba gu brath!
LikeLiked by 3 people
The most important point about Sturgeons new plan. Is that the time frame is dictated by the British state.
So yet again she is not acting on her own authority granted by the Scottish people. She can sit on her hands for 2 more years. When in actual fact her plan should involve withdrawal from WM. That would be the first mechanism to kick start the process of decolonisation.
Why are our MPs sitting in a parliament where they are ignored and jeered at?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Big Jock, in answer to your question, they have no shame. By remaining at Westminster they are demonstrating a truly wicked contempt for the people of Scotland who sent them there to advocate on our behalf.
They, all of them, have succumbed to the lure of the lifestyle afforded through remuneration and expenses excess. The pathetic response by the SNP on the floor of the House of Commons yesterday demonstrates their dearth of commitment to Scotland’s future as an Independent Nation.
I repeat THEY HAVE NO SHAME and Scotland is payin’ a sair price for their shameless contempt of its people!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Before our MPs walk out of Westminster there has to be somewhere for them to go. Remember, too, that they were elected to Westminster. Their constituents would have every right to complain if their MP didn’t show up for work.
LikeLike
The UK Supreme Court has told verminous chippy Jocks to get back in our boxes and bow down to our Imperial masters. On a scale of 1 to 10 how more likely are you to vote for Independence in any way you can, where 1 means you were already going to vote for Independence, and 10 means go fuck yourself?
LikeLiked by 2 people
As long as Sturgeon “controls” the Independence movement then it is that which is locking us in the Union. The BritNat “Rules” are only effective if you accept and obey them. Ghandi didn’t, the Irish didn’t.
She placed the shackles on her own ankles.
Peter your writing is back to form. I certainly make a point of reading your articles now đź‘Ť
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mike: while I absolutely agree that parts of the ruling were obtuse to say the least, I do think that the part relating to Holyrood’s powers was right in relation to the power that Westminster holds. I have never believed in a referendum, not even the 2014 one which I wholly supported and worked for. Having said that, I will qualify it by saying that it is pre independence referendums that are the problem because they are easily thwarted. I have no beef with a ratifying referendum. The SC of the UK has no jurisdiction to rule on the Treaty of Union because that it subject to international law only. I believe they were referring to the Acts, which are domestic legislation. However, the Acts did not create the Union because they did not and do not have the force of law necessary for that, being merely domestic acts of the Scottish/Westminster parliaments. They are ratifying and translating domestic legislation that translated the Treaty (international law) into domestic law. The Acts could not and cannot supersede international law. They brought in every other instance because they wanted to get the point across that we have no way out of the Union, but that was in deference to Westminster’s case. They were not asked to, and could not, rule on the Treaty itself. Westminster wants us to believe that we have no way to turn and that we do not have even international law. That is nonsense and they know it is nonsense. We could declare UDI tomorrow without any referendum or election and place our case on the Treaty breaching before the UN/International Court to gain recognition, but it would create havoc. If we win an election, however, with the manifesto stating clearly that a win on seats will be regarded as a clear mandate to declare independence the following day, we have the democratic right to go.
LikeLike
We could break out of our prison, that’s portrayed as a union as soon as next year, if Sturgeon and Harvie cared about Scotland, however they don’t care about Scotland, and I doubt they’ll do the right thing.
Courtesy of Wing Over Scotland.
“Sturgeon reiterated in general terms (while refusing to be drawn on any specifics) that the new plan was to conduct a plebiscitary general election, but offered no explanation for why we had to wait two years for it.
It is wholly within her power to stand down as First Minister, have the SNP and Greens block the election of a replacement and thereby force a new Holyrood election which could serve as the plebiscite, and would have the considerable benefit of including two demographics (EU citizens and 16/17-year-olds) who statistically favour independence and would be able to vote in a Scottish election but not a UK one.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, next steps – for us punters, and bloggers.
ONE). Keep going with articles and comments, activity
TWO). Attend marches and rallies. This needs to increase, a lot. I roughly counted out 50 people last night in a block and then eye-shaded similar blocks. At its peak when it was nearly down to the road, (Bath Street), there were about 12 block including on the steps, so about 600 people. Not bad for a Wednesday, but really should be 10 times that.
The usual Socialist Workers presence, well, they do make the effort and help to make it more supported. Yes of course, they kidnap the chants from “What do we want …”, to “Tory Tory Tory out out out”. Like many I don’t shout to that, who cares what the government of a foreign country is? I’d prefer “Westminster Westminster Westminster out out out” but it is a bit long.
A few SNP roundels, a couple of Alba banners on Dewar, and after one speaker said something, an Alba person shouted “You should ask the SNP that”, but nobody tore down their banners – so it seems we CAN have different views without fighting, The 3 x 2 polis along the side had nothing to do, neither did the 2 big polis vans.
Personally before this I wouldn’t have gone to an anti-SNP rally, but if all marches and rallies can be made multi-purpose, then it seems we can all go together under one roof – the open sky!
so – THREE). We really do need to talk about existing “All Under One Banner”, and find ways the anti-SNP mob can stand alongside the SNP cultists, and the rest of us who just want Independence for our country, to continually have public displays get larger and larger and larger.
Part 1 of 2
LikeLike
So, as well as continually converting NOes to YES, I think what is perhaps far more important for a time at least, is to get far more people involved and active, out and about. Because that in its turn will help convert people to YES.
Well done to all of us who turned out yesterday but to be blunt, the total attendance was truly pathetic, and I think the Unionists were actually too embarrassed for us to make any rude comments.
LikeLike
From the National:
“Mhairi Hunter, who is the organiser for the First Minister’s SNP branch in Glasgow, said a victory for pro-Yes parties in the next General Election would not necessarily begin separation negotiations – but could be the basis for a referendum. ”
It’s time the First Minister completely disowned that view of Hunter, and made it clear Hunter does not talk for her. If that is the basis for the so-called de-facto referendum, I will not bother with my postal vote.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23148508.nicola-sturgeon-ally-win-de-facto-vote-likely-lead-indyref/
LikeLike
Right with this section below by the Rev in mind.
“It is wholly within her power to stand down as First Minister, have the SNP and Greens block the election of a replacement and thereby force a new Holyrood election which could serve as the plebiscite, and would have the considerable benefit of including two demographics (EU citizens and 16/17-year-olds) who statistically favour independence and would be able to vote in a Scottish election but not a UK one.”
Get E-mailing your SNP MSP or Green MSP if you have one and explain in the E-Mail why we need Nicola Sturgeon to resign for the good of Scotland and how important it is that she does so. So that a Holyrood election will be used as a plebiscite next year and not in two year time.
Find your SNP/Green MSP here just enter your postcode
Good Luck.
https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps
LikeLike