Bolder! But wiser?

I confess my heart leapt just a little when I read the headline in The National announcing an ‘SNP bid to amend Scotland Act to allow Holyrood to hold indyref2‘. Could this possibly be the kind of bold, decisive action some of us have been urging on the SNP/Scottish Government for several years? Was the new leader of the SNP’s Westminster group adopting a more combative approach to the constitutional issue? If so, was Stephen Flynn doing this with or without the knowledge and approval of the party leadership? What of the ‘ploy’ itself; is it likely to be effective? What effect is it intended to have? What might be the unintended consequences?

My heart ceased its leaping as I read on to discover that Stephen Flynn wasn’t really doing anything. Unless trying to secure the parliamentary time to do something counts as a bold and decisive action in itself, we are not yet seeing such action. We are merely being not-quite-promised some bold decisive action at a future date if the British parliament allows it. The not-quite-promised bold, decisive action might fall before it even reaches the first hurdle. It may not even get to the starting line. Which would imply failure, wouldn’t it?

Not in the minds of SNP strategists, it wouldn’t. (The terms ‘mind’ and ‘strategist’ are used very loosely here.) According to the SNP playbook, political ploys which fail to achieve their purported purpose are deemed successful insofar as that failure can be attributed to the British state. Whatever the ploy was supposed to achieve, being thwarted in that intention by the British state is the next best thing. Because ‘everybody knows’ that every instance of the British state thwarting SNP ploys pushes up support for independence. There have many instances of such thwarting. There has been no increase in support for Yes in the polls. But launching ploys that are thwart-ready continues to be the main thrust of SNP strategy. Presumably because the SNP’s strategists have yet to come up with a better ploy. Presumably, in turn, because it’s so easy to convince the party’s supporters that the ploys being thwarted is itself a ploy to undermine the democratic credentials of the British state.

Which, to my mind, is a bit like adding stink to shit. But I’m not an SNP strategist. I can’t be expected to understand a strategy for increasing Yes support that involves tactics that succeed even when they fail and which is deemed to be working despite their being no sustained increase in support for Yes in the polls over a period of more than eight years. I’d be delighted if someone could explain.

The National explains the Flynn ploy thus.

The party is set to use its Opposition Day debate on Wednesday afternoon to bring forward a motion which seeks to take over the House of Commons order paper on January 10, 2023.

If successful, it would allow the SNP to present a Scotland Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill which would seek to change parts of schedule 5.

Schedule 5 sets out the matters reserved to the UK Government under the legislation, including the constitution.

The move intends to provide a mechanism to amend the Act so that the issue is no longer reserved to Westminster, and allow the Scottish Parliament to “act upon its mandate and legislate for an independence referendum”.

SNP bid to amend Scotland Act to allow Holyrood to hold indyref2

As far as I am aware, this Scotland Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill hasn’t even reached the drafting stage yet. It exists only in Stephen Flynn’s mind. Well, it has to start somewhere, I suppose. But once again we see what seems to be a lack of preparation. Almost as if these things were being done on the fly. That impression could be mistaken, of course. Stephen Flynn may have a fully drafted Scotland Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill in his pocket ready to be launched like a missile into the heart of the British parliament at a moment’s notice. Or at a few weeks’ notice. Which, to be fair, in Westminster terms is near-instantaneous.

However, if such a Scotland Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill had been drafted it seems unlikely that we wouldn’t have heard something about it. Even if it had been in the process of being drafted, word of it would have leaked. So, it is reasonable to suppose work on this Bill has not yet begun. While four weeks isn’t an instant in the real world, it is little time for drafting a rather important Bill. Which bids me wonder to what extent Stephen Flynn might be intending to copy and paste from the Scotland Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill introduced as a Private Members’ Bill (under the Ten Minute Rule) by Angus Brendan MacNeil MP. Just a passing thought.

Angus MacNeil’s Bill timed out. It remains to be seen whether Stephen Flynn’s Bill fares any better. But it has to be said that, at first glance, the idea seems sound. I have long maintained that the common sticking point for all proposed routes to independence is the parliamentary competence obstacle. The fact that all these routes eventually arrive at the point where the Scottish Parliament has to do something that will be deemed unlawful by the British state. I have concluded that the only way the Scottish Parliament can acquire the competence to legislate for a referendum that suffices as the formal exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination is for Holyrood to assert that power unilaterally. Effectively, a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). A thought which terrifies those who have yet to decolonise their minds.

If I am understanding him correctly, Stephen Flynn’s Bill if passed, would effectively mean that the Scottish Parliament already had this competence ─ obviating the need for #ScottishUDI. At least, that is how I would expect it to be presented by the SNP. But supposing the amendments do afford Holyrood the power to hold a new independence referendum, this would be a devolved power and not a sovereign power. That is a very important distinction.

It hardly matters what powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament; sovereign power is asserted by the British parliament.

This distinction between devolved and sovereign powers has a number of implications. Perhaps most importantly in relation to the fight to restore Scotland’s independence is the fact that a devolved power can never be used to create a sovereign power. Sovereign powers cannot derive from devolved powers operating under the constraints of the terms on which the power was devolved. Were it otherwise, devolved power would tend inevitably and irresistibly towards sovereign power. It is in the nature of power that it always seeks increase. Devolution is thus a constitutional device by which any tendency towards the sovereign powers associated with independence is thwarted.

Sovereign powers and devolved powers

Even if Stephen Flynn’s Bill makes it through the British parliament ─ the day the UK’s estimated population of 4.76m pigs take to the air en masse ─ the result will be much like having a permanent Section 30 order. (Except that Section 30 means nothing in the Act is permanent.) The powers that the amendment will secure for the Scottish Parliament cannot be other than limited and conditional. Those powers will not be sovereign and so will allow only a consultative and non-self-executing referendum at best. Basically, a glorified opinion poll which the British state can overrule or simply disregard because sovereign power remains with the British parliament.

The proposed Scotland Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill if implemented, would be progress of a sort. But it would be progress towards a dead-end. The referendum that it might facilitate could not in itself effect the restoration of Scotland’s independence. Only a referendum held under the auspices of a Scottish Parliament with sovereign powers can serve as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our inalienable right of self-determination. We can never exercise that right while those sovereign powers remain in Britannia’s jealous grasp. Those powers can’t be given. Powers that are given are devolved powers by definition and therefore by definition cannot be sovereign powers.

There is risk, too, in introducing such a Bill to a parliament where the SNP is so massively outnumbered. Further amendments might be proposed. Including amendments tabled by British Nationalists which would turn Stephen Flynn’s ploy around and make it blow up in his face. Amendments could ─ and very likely would ─ be carried which do the exact opposite of what Stephen Flynn intends. We have to wonder whether he has considered this possibility. If he has ─ and he surely must ─ then does it not follow that he must be hoping the Bill never proceeds far enough for such amendments to be deployed?

So, even if Stephen Flynn’s political ploy succeeds in its own terms and without being amended to toxicity by the overwhelming British majority in the British parliament, it fails in terms of Scotland’s cause. It fails because it cannot avoid and does not overcome the obstacle of parliamentary competence. The point is still reached at which restoring Scotland’s independence requires that the Scottish Parliament do something the British state retains the sovereign power to deem illegal.

No doubt this failure in terms of Scotland’s cause would be portrayed by the SNP and its apologists as a success in terms of revealing history’s worst-kept secret ─ that the Union is inherently anti-democratic. We will be told yet again that it is yet another boost for Yes. We shall look yet again for evidence of this boost in the numbers. Yet again, we shall fail to find any such evidence.

Stephen Flynn’s political ploy is certainly bolder than anything we’ve seen from the SNP since Alex Salmond’s days as leader. In that respect, it has to be welcomed. But is it wiser? Discuss!

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.


72 thoughts on “Bolder! But wiser?

  1. “It exists only in Stephen Flynn’s mind. Well, it has to start somewhere, I suppose. But once again we see what seems to be a lack of preparation. Almost as if these things were being done on the fly.”

    Precisely! The SNP are totally winging it, both at Westminster and Holyrood.

    It has all the hallmarks of Sturgeon’s ‘squirrel strategy’ of the last 8 years.

    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Let’s have a reset”
    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Let’s stop Brexit”
    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Let’s wait till the fog of Brexit clears”
    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Lets wait till the terms of Brexit are known”
    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Let’s wait till the Covid pandemic is over”
    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Let’s defer to the UK Supreme Court”
    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Let’s have a plebiscitary election”
    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Let’s hold a special conference”
    “Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
    “Let’s amend the Scotland Act”.

    “See – we’re doing stuff!”

    Whatever gets you through the day I suppose.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. Yes, Peter, as you say. Stephen Flynn was never going to change much, and certainly not if his choice of depute is Mhairi Black, she who stated that independence was not a priority for her and who made a video of herself sniggering and making a fool of women for being suspicious of the GRR. Two for the price of one. Thewliss was a red herring. It was always going to be Flynn, the non-boat rocker par excellence. What is the point, anyway, of pursuing the powers to hold a referendum? Another couple of years before we get a decision? These people need a steel toe-capped boot up the jacksie.

    Now, we have been told that the appeal on the definition of woman has been lost, with at least a ten-fold increase in GRCs being anticipated – and that’s a conservative estimate. So, no independence this side of the turn of the next century and all women’s rights stripped away. By the way, I thought we were told, too, that just a handful of people would be applying for a GRC? As I have been saying all along, there are many more ‘trans’ puir wee sowels than has ever been admitted.

    Ach well, when the barmy bints who are so keen on this self-destruction vote it all through, their seats will be gone within a few years. Guaranteed. As will all other female-only spaces and rights and services. Meanwhile, sensible women will be withdrawing their vote from the horror show that passes for democracy at Holyrood, and, while there might be a lot more of them than they have been telling us, there are a helluva lot more females – the real ones – and wee daft lassies grow up, eventually.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. When they do stuff …. SNP baaad. If they don’t do that stuff …. SNP baaad. If it works …. SNP dupes. If it doesn’t work …. SNP useless. Result = malcontent smugness, unionist hilarity and Indy support suppression. Its almost as if the malcontents are actively working against independence. Marvellous!


    1. Not malcontents, MBP, realists. You truly think the Unionists are laughing? At what? How long do they expect to lord it over us? Another year? Two? It is going to explode like a powder keg with a lit fuse. Likewise, the men in frocks’ knickers will ignite. Pow! Malcontents, said Louis XVI, malcontents, said Tsar Nicholas II, malcontents, said George III. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Of course unionists are laughing their little cotton socks off. While they see Sturgeon as the greatest risk to the Union since 1745, they are greatly heartened by all the “good work” the malcontents are doing to blunt that threat. You are all an absolute godsend to them. An enemy within they don’t have to pay for, though, in some cases, they probably do.


        1. You really are offensive, MBP. Most of us, if not all, were long-term members of the SNP and worked towards independence before the majority of the ‘wokerati’, who have ruined the party, were even born. I would never say that they haven’t done some good things under Nicola Sturgeon, but we are no nearer independence and we now have the added burden of the GRA Reform Bill. Entrenched people always realise it is too late when it is too late. You just haven’t realised it yet. It is going to get very ugly very soon, and none of it needed to happen at all. I really do not wish to be rude to you, but just go forth and multiply.

          Liked by 4 people

          1. TBH Lorna my buggered pony has been on numerous sites pushing the malcontents line for yonks , it is unfortunate that he like others don’t support independence they support a failed party with a narcissistic idiot that has a mental condition


        2. ” While they see Sturgeon as the greatest risk to the Union since 1745 ” .

          This from the guy who believes he occupies ” the real world ” ; I really am laughing now , Nikla’s Little Pony .

          That comment ranks as one of most deluded I’ve ever read . Anywhere .

          I’d cut down on that ” Positivity ” Prozac if I was you , it’s giving you a seriously distorted view of Reality

          Liked by 4 people

          1. If unionists don’t see Sturgeon as a serious threat to the Union, why do they expend so much energy trying to bring her down …. with the only too willing help of the malcontents?


            1. Youn persist in this lie that the malcontents (again, compliment appreciated) are seeking to “bring down” Nicola Sturgeon. A few are. Less shallow-minded individuals than yourself will realise that when a leader succeeds in identifying themselves with a party or cause to the extent that Sturgeon has made herself the embodiment of the SNP and the independence movement, part of the price they pay is that they personally take a lot of the flak from opponents. Another part of the price they pay is that they also take the blame when that party fucks up or the cause fails to make progress.

              Most malcontents just want Sturgeon to do her job. It is the likes of yourself who don’t care whether she does her job or not that damage the cause. It is the content and the complacent who must shoulder the blame for facilitating continuing failure. Sturgeon isn’t doing her job for the independence movement because she doesn’t have to. She knows she has the unquestioning support of the likes of you to keep her approval ratings up.

              Liked by 4 people

              1. “Most malcontents just want Sturgeon to do her job”

                Not in my experience. I reckon a lot of them would like to take issue with you on that.


        3. ” While they see Sturgeon as the greatest risk to the Union since 1745,”

          OMG I nearly choked myself by laughing at this delusional twaddle , WM knows the cowardice endemic in the fake indy party led by sturgeon , that is why they are pushing more and more legislation that will damage Scotland because they know sturgeon and her collaborating vichy government will do nothing to oppose them

          Liked by 5 people

          1. Aye , T , we’re talking ” alien reptiles ate my hamster ” levels of delusion from yr man .

            Apart from his Sturgeon The Bruce fantasy , he also thinks this is Unionists ” expending so much energy trying to bring her down ” ! They haven’t even started yet ; there’s been a few shots across the bows recently , no doubt prompted by all the fluff about a Referendum , now a PE , but if it ever looked like Sturgeon was SERIOUSLY going to challenge the Brit State , we would soon see the rabid , snarling MSM dogs unleashed – thrown bones by UK Security Services , we can be sure

            Those dogs will be idle for the foreseeable

            Liked by 4 people

            1. Why should they unleash them when they’ve got the malcontents doing their work for them already?

              But, of course, they already have been unleashed. The Express, Telegraph, Times and Herald rarely go a day without an anti-Sturgeon/SNP/Independence story. You Tube is awash with videos (often bot produced) and BBC Scotland is no friend. It’s just that malcontents are so stuck in their own little echo-chamber bubbles, they haven’t noticed.


    2. “Indy support suppression”?

      “Those Opinion Polls: A Reality Check”. Have you seen them?

      MBP, the opening sentence in your comment sits well with the exposition expressed within that polling analysis, so much so it is almost as if the SNP are actively working against Independence in our time!

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Yes I have seen them. You should look up the site Peter gave a link to.

        According to the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, which asks the same number if people the same question every year, support for independence has risen from 33% in 2014 to 52% in 2021.

        Also, the list of ALL opinion polls since the indyref shows that YES has become the dominant position. Between the indyref and 2019, YES achieved 50+% of the sample only once while NO achieved it 33 times. Between 2019 and the present, YES had achieved 50+% of the sample 14 times compared to NO’s twice.

        And also, the list if ALL opinion polls show YES reaching its inevitable post Indy/Brexit referendum nadir of around 39% of the sample in late 2016. It has now risen to about 52%

        I realise all these “facts” clash with the Malcontent narrative and undermines their strategy of sowing gloom, doom and despondency while generally pouring cold water on any outbreak of positivety within Indy ranks (madness) but hey, that’s reality for you.


        1. There are many other ways to analyse and there are many benchmarks that can be used in order to measure progress.

          In this case as the progression YES support under the current FM’s stewardship is being tested it seems reasonable to look at period as a whole and use the back end of 2014 as the starting point. It is, after all, when the Nicola Sturgeon became FM (November 2014).

          On this basis it is undeniable that the underlying long term level of YES support have indicated at best a marginal increase (circa +1.2%).

          Equally there have undoubtedly been upswings in YES over the 8 years e.g. 2015 Tsunami election, 2016 Brexit vote, 2020 Brexit actual, with some have even been prolonged e.g. 2020-21 Covid pandemic they have all tended to peter out.

          After the latest spike, almost certainly a cost of living – UK Supreme Court ruling joint effect, the real question is whether the momentum will be captured by prompt and decisive action on behalf of the SNP/Scottish Government action or will it be allowed to blow itself out again?

          Liked by 5 people

          1. Well said, duncanio. We have been here before and went nowhere. Polls aren’t enough unless you make hay. Also, what is the point of a rising support level (if it is) and you go for yet another useless referendum. We need independence, not another referendum that we might lose again, and which will bring us no closer to independence because Westminster will never again agree to an Edinburgh Agreement/S30. What we do need is some route that will take us to a declaration of independence and international recognition. A lot of people are working damned hard to achieve that, but, again, unless the hand of friendship is extended to Alec Salmond and ALBA, SALVO and all the other parties and movements, to create unity, we are still going nowhere. If females are alienated by the ‘trans’ nonsense, we are going nowhere. If people would put country before personal ambition and/or party, we would be well on the road. There is no point to independence just to wallow in the doldrums. We must endeavour to create a better Scotland as a future aim, where all are looked after as best we can, not the few. However, that future is impossible without independence, so independence is the most important thing, first and foremost, not GRA reform or anything else that is designed to alienate.

            Liked by 6 people

    3. OMG it is unbelievable that you continue to defend the indefensible , I think one time you mentioned being part of the health service if so you are showing a severe sign of stupidity , and BTW your continued use of malcontents is just boring

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Boring, but handy and accurate.

        As to the Scottish NHS, it has to work within the UK framework but is none-the-less the best performing NHS in the UK with the largest (per head of popln) and best paid workforce (thanks SNP). Things could be a lot better, but while we remain in the UK straight-jacket, it is financially, politically and logistically difficult to do what would be necessary. That’s reality for you.


        1. Spot on, MBP. So why, in eight years, has Sturgeon done her absolute utmost to thwart independence and drag the agony out far longer than necessary? The SNP is a disgrace in its collaborationist mode.

          Liked by 5 people

          1. What should she have done instead of all your alleged “thwarting” lorncal? When and what were the “slam dunk” opportunities that were “thwarted” by her?


            1. You’ve been told repeatedly what should have been done from 2015 onwards. So often that I’m convinced you genuinely can’t absorb any information which conflicts with your prejudices and preconceptions. You’ve been told what opportunities have been missed; starting with the squandering of the momentum Yes had in the wake of the 2014 referendum and continuing through the insane decision to abandon the constitutional issue in favour of the obviously lost cause of trying to turn back England’s Brexit tide. You’ve been told all this. You just can’t learn.

              Liked by 5 people

              1. No Peter, I’ve been told repeatedly “something” should’ve been done but never specifically what at a specific time. The SNP don’t just want to “fight” for independence, they want to “win” independence. After the 2014 Indyref, there has been no time when a move to independence ever looked even vaguely likely to succeed, never mind guarenteed.

                Immediately after the Indyref, there was a surge in Indy resolve, but not in the polls. Leaving aside the madness of doing “whatever” to win independence literally weeks after the people had voted 55-45 against it, the “whatever” (never specified by malcontents what this is) would have crashed and burned, alongside any hope of independence for decades.

                Similarly with your Brexit example. There was an initial surge in Indy support in the immediate aftermath of the referendum (though never achieving 50%), but within weeks, as people took on board the enormity of the change being wrought, support for Indy fell to 38%. Again, any attempt at “whatever” (again, not specified what this is) would have crashed and burned with consequences as before.

                It has only been since 2020, with YES becoming more or less the dominant position for most Scots that another move towards independence looks more likely to succeed. And that is what the SNP govt is doing. You clearly disagree with their strategy but to most of us it looks far more likely to succeed than anything suggested by malcontents. Though, as the Scottish govt is basically doing what most malcontents have been demanding for years, they are mainly raging against their own plans now. You’ve got to laugh.

                The main thing that makes me balk at adopting a malcontent stance is the assumption by them, including you Peter, that the people of Scotland will simply line up behind them. It’s the assumption that no matter what process is proposed (except if it is proposed by the Scottish govt of course), Scots will be blinded by its brilliance and independence will fall into our lap.

                More than this, malcontents seem to believe the support of the majority of Scots is unnecessary. Your “faux” UDI is the worst example of both. You would have Sturgeon declare a “sort of” UDI without the definitive proof independence is what Scots want …. but not really a UDI because it requires a confirmatory referendum several months down the line. Thus, for several months, Scotland would be in a political, economic and financial limbo that would be the most fertile of environments for the UK govt and unionists to wreak havoc and convince Scots the chaos they are currently enduring is what independence is really like. The confirmatory referendum you assume would be won, would more likely be a disastrous defeat.

                The SNP, unlike the malcontents, know the Scottish people cannot be taken for granted. They know Scots have to be wooed towards independence, not clubbed over the head and dragged by the hair back to the independence cave, whether they want to go or not. It takes more than this;

                to convince Scots to back your hair brained plan.


                1. Very specific accounts of what should have been were published. I seem to recall writing an alternative history; although I don’t recall when or where. You seem to think you’re entitled to demand a personalised account which experience tells me you would either not read or not understand.

                  any moderately intelligent personal would be able to work it out for themselves given points I’ve already mentioned; possibly with the addition of using the first lockdown as something other than an excuse to shut down the independence campaign. Use your own brain, such as it may be. Mine is busy trying to figure out what’s wrong with my WiFi network.

                  Liked by 5 people

                  1. “Published”? Where? On some obscure blog nobody read? You wrote an “alternative history” that even you “don’t recall when or where”. This is what I’m supposed to accept as evidence! You just don’t want to accept the reality that at no point was there a valid, or even visible, plan from malcontents to win independence during those periods of “opportunity” you mistakenly believe existed.


            2. Peter and others have consistently pointed out those opportunities. Over and over again. However, even if those were not taken, no attempt whatsoever has been made to research the Treaty, the Claim of Right and every other Scottish constitutional aid. Likewise, no attempt has been made to acknowledge that we are unlikely to achieve independence without a UDI. A wee bit of honesty would have gone a long way to avoid the problems we now face. You may be right in that we have not, on the face of it, had a clear majority for independence, but majorities come with hard work and research when you can show that you have not given up and are just drawing out the days, at the expense of loyal people, until your golden handshake. Get this, MBP, there is no way to leave the Union without UDI, whether that is via international law or an election. None. Absolutely none. There never was after 2014.

              Liked by 3 people

              1. Majorities also come with action, Lorna. You can’t expect people to join in if there’s nothing happening. Look what happened to Yes support in the 2014 referendum campaign. People flocked to Yes because it was there. It was tangible. It was everywhere. Right now, there’s nothing happening. Individual groups are still working hard. But that hard work is largely wasted because there’s nothing for new people to latch onto. The work is done to stir their enthusiasm, then there’s nothing for that enthusiasm to act on. so, it evaporates. And when you go back to stir that enthusiasm again, it’s twice as hard and you only get half as much enthusiasm.

                Build it and they’ll come!

                Liked by 4 people

                1. When indyref1 was run, YES was at around 30% before campaigning began. It eventually achieved 45%. Are you really saying that with YES at around 50% before any campaigning begins, it will be a harder fight? Really?


                    1. Another bold assertion that goes against all logic and offers no evidence to back it up. Though, in a now trademark “the emperor has no clothes” manouver, Peter ducks out of the problem by declaring intelligent people should have no problem seeing why his assertion is “fact”. Avoidance does not solve the problem. It only reinforces the belief you have no answers.


              2. I think you’ll find, lornacal, if you look at what I’ve posted on this site, that I have already acknowledged that. I just believe you need a definitive YES from the Scottish people, as ascertained in a specific democratic event such as a referendum (self executing or not) or a “de facto” referendum/GE BEFORE you declare a UDI. Not just assume their support by declaring a “faux UDI”, with no evidence of independence being the will of the people, followed by months of chaotic limbo with a, by now, un-win-able “confirmatory referendum”.

                If you are going to declare UDI …. mean it from the word go and be sure you have the support of the people beforehand.


                1. MBP: the will of the Scottish people – native Scots, that is – is very much in favour of independence, as the 2014 studies showed (after the referendum). International law takes this into account. Had the independistas been up against only Unionist Scots, they would have wiped the board with them. Because we are taking all Scots into account, that is, migrants from rUK, as well as immigrants from other places, we are now looking at other routes. I take on board what you are saying about the Scots requiring to be in favour, but I believe they are, even many of those who would have voted NO in the past. That is why I favour, and have always favoured UDI after an election (if we win) and the Treaty challenge in international law side by side. I’m sorry to insist, MBP, but that is the only way we can do it in the end. Westminster will never again grant an Edinburgh Agreement S30 Order.

                  Liked by 3 people

                  1. Then we are in broad agreement lorncal. I don’t care about S30s. If Westminster decides to grant one, fine. If they don’t, fine. Once the will of the people has been determined in favour of independence, either WM acknowledges it and we begin the negotiations that will enact that decision, or , if necessary, declare a “real”, for keeps UDI.


  4. How many times do you have to say this ?
    I suppose it’s because SNP “strategists”are sat in their self referential bubble and would not deign to engage with the blogerati.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. View in browser


    MPs block SNP attempt to give Holyrood power to hold indyref2

    THE SNP’s attempt to amend the Scotland Act to allow Holyrood to hold indyref2 has been blocked by MPs.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree with Peter. Not sure what is going on in the SNP right now. Ian Blackford leaves as Leader, either ‘under a cloud’ or to move on to ‘other matters’, whichever version you believe. Next thing he invites King Charles III to his Croft. Steven Flynn, a relative lightweight, takes over with a faux ‘attack’ on Westminster with the anticipated defeat. A lot of energy expended but for what? and Why?

        Liked by 7 people

    1. Hmmmm… And you didn’t think would happen? Nicola didn’t think it would happen? Of course she did! Is she showing everyone how adamant and entrenched Westminster is? We knew that. The secret is to do what Westminster thinks we will never do – which is to confront them, face-to-face and tell them to butt out. Unless they are confronted, we are going nowhere. If you can find one other country’s party of independence – that was actually seeking independence – that behaved in this way, I’ll be indebted to you.

      Liked by 5 people

  6. These things have to be done to keep highlighting the fact Scotland’s sovereignty is held captive in London. The Supreme Court ruling made this particular action useful in that it shows not only Scotland’s Parliament is unable to consult the Scottish people on independence, Scotland’s representatives in Westminster are powerless to amend the laws that would make it possible.

    The vast majority of the Scottish people are not nearly as politically active as malcontents would like to believe. They assume that because they live and breathe their cause, every one else does too. Most people are just getting on with their lives. “Stunts” like this remind/inform them of things that may have slipped from their consciousness or hadn’t yet occurred to them. The SNP realise the importance of this. The malcontents don’t.

    Peter, like many malcontents, doesn’t believe Indy MPs should be sitting at Westminster. He calls them an oxymoron. That’s because he can’t see beyond the independence issue. He believes that is all they are there for. However, they are also there to represent their constituents. To answer their queries, raise issues of concern to them and speak in defence of their communities. As in the SNP MP currently fighting the corner of a local family left in identity limbo by the UK Home Office. With him absent from Westminster, that family would have had to turn to a Unionist MP instead, and you can bet your bottom Euro unionists would be highlighting the SNPs apparent “dereliction of duty” at any and every opportunity.

    SNP MPs walking out of Westminster en masse is for when the Scottish people have given definitive proof of their desire for independence in a definitive democratic event and the UK govt has refused to act on it. That is when it would have the greatest impact. It is not for some pointless, general “yah boo sucks” statement, perhaps years in advance of the pivotal moment, which would kill any impact it would have had. That is more likely to be counter productive.

    Then perhaps that’s why many malcontents keep promoting it. False flags and all that.


    1. They don’t have to be done. That’s the whole point. These things are being done while the things that need to be done are left undone.

      A malcontent is someone who is dissatisfied and rebellious. I am proud to be a malcontent. Your attempt to belittle others has rather backfired on you. If you are the opposite of a malcontent then you are contented and complacent. Hardly an appropriate attitude in the circumstances.


      Liked by 7 people

    2. What planet are you on MBP?

      The independence movement voted in a majority of indy MP’s on the basis of the precise promise and statement of intent that ‘we would not be dragged out of the EU against our will’, which could only mean one thing – that the Treaty of Union when breached by Scotland’s enforced EU withdrawal would therefore be ended. Every single SNP MP is therefore complicit in holding Scotland in the union against the stated will of the people. Thay shuid aw hing thair heids in shame hivin selt oot oor naition.

      Now Blackford has been moved slightly and we are presented with youngsters Flynn & Black to ‘lead our nation to liberation’, neither of whom appear to have had a real job or even a stab at a profession before being handed a nice wee political opportunity after uni. And that’s all anyone with eyes can see here – political opportunists.

      As Peter suggests, people are justified in being malcontents. Why do you think the SNP has lost most of its members in the past few years, or why several new pro-independence parties and organisations have now been created? And why do you think the SNP had to spend the £600,000 ‘ringfenced’ indyfund, and now cannae even afford to pay its owerpeyed party CEO?

      Judged entirely by their actions and inactions, the only ‘false flag’ here is the SNP MPs and MSPs as the dominant national party which, as postcolonial theory predicts, has opted ‘to turn colonial exploitation to his account’ (Fanon).

      Liked by 6 people

      1. ” new pro-independence parties and organisations have now been created”

        All full of pseuds, fantasists, pricked egos and dinosaurs. The biggest organisation, Alba, managed all of 0.7% of the vote at the last LG election while Salvo’s launch video on You Tube has been viewed by literally a few hundred people (that video is a shambles by the way – it should never have been released in that state – it screams “amateur”).

        None of your highly subjective “opinions” could convince me to abandon the only party that can deliver independence sooner rather than later, to throw my lot in with a motley assortment of grievance nursers full of impotent rage, with no viable plan, who may take decades to get to the position the SNP are in just now, though likely never would. To do so would be to give up on independence completely in favour of a pointless, internecine kind of politics that makes student union politics look mature and professional (again, see Salvo’s videos).

        My biggest fear is that the damage the malcontents have already wrought may be enough to kill off independence forever. If the SNP implodes now, just as the people of Scotland are turning to independence, a void will be left that NO malcontent faction is capable of even beginning to fill. No SNP no independence. It’s as simple as that.


        1. The malcontents haven’t wrought any damage at all to Scotland’s cause. For one thing, there’re not enough of us. We merely point to the damage being done by others in the hope of knocking the scales from the eyes of the duped and deluded.

          Liked by 6 people

    3. MBP: the Supreme Court can rule only on what it is asked to rule on, and I have no doubt that Westminster asked it to highlight Quebec, etc., which part of the ruling was actually outwith its remit as far as Scottish independence is considered. Had the Supreme Court been asked to rule on the Treaty, we would have seen the sparks fly. All the excuses under the sun are made by the SNP for not having the Treaty ‘sound’ in law. Why? Because it would become very evident that the Treaty has been hi-jacked by England as the UK for its own purposes. Either that, or it would be gerrymandered. If that ever happens, conflict WILL ensue. If we do not leave the Union very soon, conflict WILL ensue. Why? Because this is always what happens when a people are thwarted of their right to self-determination. Eventually, it WILL happen. I personally would do all in my power, in Nicola Sturgeon’s position to avoid conflict, same with Westminster, but, as we know from The Troubles, these things ignite usually through some other ancillary matter: in NI’s situation, the persistent refusal to grant Catholics full civil rights. In Scotland’s case, it might well be the deliberate stripping away of 51%-52% of the population’s civil and human rights in favour of parasitical men, or it might be another blatant nudge against independence from Westminster.

      Liked by 7 people

  7. So, Trougher Tommy Sheppard SNP MSP had his attempt to amend the Scotland Act to allow the SNP government to hold an indyref soundly defeated 42 for 265 against.

    This is a prime example as to why there’s absolutely no good reason why Scotland should send MPs to this foreign undemocratic parliament, the supposedly independence minded SNP MPs have no power whatsoever at Westminster. Sheppard must’ve known his attempt would be soundly thrashed, which leads me to believe that it was staged in the first place for our benefit.

    Which only confirms what we know that the SNP MPs are at Westminster to further THEIR careers, and independence doesn’t come into it.

    They need to walk out of Westminster never to return again.

    Meanwhile Swinney has confirmed what we already knew that independence isn’t on the agenda.

    Liked by 4 people

      1. FYI mbp swinney has just told WM to do what they like to Scotland as any threatened indyref has just been destroyed by a shower of COWARDS

        Liked by 4 people

          1. There is plenty of evidence from the well-trod decolonization template with numerous examples where the dominant national party elites reach a co-operation with the colonial power and then acts to delay and even to block independence, becoming itself ‘an instrument of coercion’. This is what leads to the rupture in the independence movement and the unnecessary delay in liberation of the people also creates potential for conflict. Unless most of its ‘leaders’ are replaced and its strategy significantly altered, history tells us that a compromised mankit national party is finished.

            Liked by 4 people

            1. All very interesting, and only your subjective opinion, but it doesnt answer the question I asked of twathater. He stated “swinney has just told WM to do what they like to Scotland”. I have asked him to expand on that claim. To no avail. I assume, therefore, he was talking traditional malcontent bllcks.


              1. Postcolonial theory is hardly ‘subjective’, being built on actual events in numerous oppressed and plundered countries, many now independent. The UN Declaration on self-determination of peoples is largely based on this body of work.

                John Swinney looks rather like a colonial administrator presenting the budget of a British state territory, and refusing now to find even a measly £20 million for independence out of £60 billion. His colonial administration will waste a lot more next year, not least another £200 million+ on very poorly specified prototype ferries.

                As Albert Memmi said: “A man straddling two cultures is rarely well seated, and the colonized does not always find the right pose”.

                Liked by 3 people

                1. It’s “subjective” to assume it applies in this case. But anyhoo, my question of twathater goes unanswered. Are you running interference for him?


                  1. The answer to your question is straightforward, and much as my Antwerp academic colleagues used to say; “if a government provides no money for a (ports) policy, there is no policy”. Ditto for independence, i.e. nae money = nae policy.

                    Liked by 4 people

                    1. Ah, I see. Because the Scottish govt has taken the £20m that was to fund the Indyref that is now no longer happening, and given it to people suffering fuel poverty, malcontents see an opportunity for misleading statements …. again. Got you.

                      Of course, the Scottish govt has already stated the question of independence is to be put to the people at the next GE as per the process laid out by them prior to the SC case. This means the £20m is no longer needed and can be reallocated. It can’t be used to fund a GE campaign.

                      So, in a way you’re right. There is no current govt policy for an indyref in 2023. But then, we’ve known that since the SC ruling. However, there still remains the Party policy to fight the next GE as a de facto referendum on independence as a result of the SC ruling. So twathater’s claim is just more malcontent bllcks, as is your attempted defence of it.


            2. Good arguments here and in your earlier post. For some reason I am currently unable to ‘like’ any comments here , so please Alf, lorncal and Peter Bell, accept some virtual likes from me.
              Very interesting discussion, though not very hopeful for our cause.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. You obviously have comprehension issues it is self explanatory if you read the comment , but there again you are not here to argue in good faith you are here as an attention seeker , Is that you Nikla.
            As Mark Twain is reputed to have said “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience” and going by your deliberate attempts at obfuscation you have vast experience

            Liked by 3 people

            1. “You obviously have comprehension issues it is self explanatory if you read the comment”

              …. and you shoot yourself in the foot with your first sentence. There is no explanation in your comment. Not so much as a hint of one. Just a bald statement with nothing to back it up. Reality debunks it.

              And I’m here to debate. To put a counter argument to the fantasies being propagated on these sites. Malcontents appear to be uncomfortable with that. Preferring their traditional monocultural echo-chambers. Though, to be fair, that is typical of the internet.


                1. First you declare the SNP has no independence policy; now you declare they do …. but only because of the malcontents. And, typically of malcontents, no evidence to back the claim is proffered. Ah well,  plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.


  8. Yours is a circular argument, MBP: if the SNP and Sturgeon will do nothing to determine the will of the Scottish people (by declaring a Scottish election now, for example, in the wake of the SC of the UK ruling) then we can go round in circles forever. As Peter has said umpteen times, we need action from the SNP/Greens. You might well believe they will act. I don’t. They prefer the status quo – devolution. Sorry, but they are masquerading as a party of independence, but they ar anything but.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Lorna , Alf and others, mbp is what I would consider a troll he does not engage with genuine interest , his ONLY reason for being part of a debate is not to proffer or gain constructive information that helps take us forward to independence it is merely to defend without any sense of credibility sturgeons and the moronic troughers within the snp’s abject FAILURES in governance within Scotland and their continual lying to the YES movement relating to independence
    A person would have to be delusional or stupid to avoid the GLARING sabotage that sturgeon has wrought on the independence movement , unfortunately there is nothing so blind as a person who will not open their eyes and look at the evidence
    I will not engage with mbp further as I have no time for fake independence supporters , we have enough of them in the snp

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have read nothing from you, or the “High Priest” of the formerly pro-independence site your icon is taken from, that “helps take us forward to independence” in years twathater. It is becoming more and more difficult to argue that WoS is anything but an anti-SNP site with no interest in independence at all.

      Debate requires at least two points of view. If all you’re doing is talking to like-minded people, and actively excluding anyone who doesn’t agree with you, then it’s not a debate. And if all you’re doing is stroking the ego of the site’s owner and changing your views “as instructed” then you’re just a drone. Too many people on too many sites are just drones.

      I have changed my views during debates with malcontents. Peter has perhaps had the greatest influence in that I have taken on board the idea of a UDI from this site. However, I disagree over what form that UDI should take and I won’t modify that view simply to curry favour from him.

      Your claim I am a “troll” stems from the fact I don’t agree with you and you don’t want my views heard. You therefore wish to exclude me. It has been my experience that malcontents on sites like this one, WoS and Yours for Scotland demand they be allowed to “troll” (to use your definition of it) SNP/Indy sites, cry foul when they get short shrift …. then hypocritically bully and exclude anyone who threatens the purity of their own echo-chambers. Thus WoS and YfS have barred me. Only drones and sycophants allowed apparently. Am I going to suffer the same fate here simply for disagreeing?


      1. MBP, ye micht hae wished tae hiv proved Bolder! but ye hiv proven yersel’ nae wye Wiser!! Wan thing ye hiv proved tho’ is ye like ‘strokin yer ego’ oan ither fowks sites!


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 )

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.