Bad ideas and worse ideas

It sometimes happens that people get so involved with disputing the relative merits of different ways of doing something that the omit to ask whether the thing should be done at all. A case in point is the argument about whether a Westminster or Holyrood election should be used as a de facto referendum. Actually, it’s not much of a dispute. If there is to be a de facto ‘independence’ referendum then it is clearly better that this be a Scottish Parliament election. The franchise argument should clinch the matter even if nothing else does. The only thing Nicola Sturgeon’s choice of using a UK general election has going for it is the fact that it will come sooner than the next Holyrood election in 2026. And given the fact that there has been no planning or preparation for the proposed plebiscitary election, coming sooner may not be an advantage at all.

As has so often been the case, the proposal to use the next UK general election as an ersatz ‘independence’ referendum has all the hallmarks of an idea conjured from desperation, if not panic. An impression enhanced by the fact that the de facto referendum idea was ‘Plan B’ to the referral of the draft Referendum Bill to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) ─ an act which amply demonstrated the dearth of strategic thinking going on in the SNP leadership.

Before proceeding any further, I should perhaps explain why I use single quotes when writing ‘independence’ referendum. The reason is that neither the referendum that was unsurprisingly slapped down by the UKSC nor the ‘Plan B’ de facto referendum are actually about independence. As was made very clear by the First Minister and others, the proposed referendum cannot lead to the restoration of Scotland’s independence. A Yes vote rather than being a vote for independence is merely a vote for yet another Section 30 request. In no meaningful sense is it an ‘independence’ referendum.

The SNP loyalists are, of course, in denial about this fact. Either that or they are perfectly aware the the proposed referendum is no more than a glorified opinion poll but are determined to deceive as many people as possible. Even many of those who see the pretendy referendum for what it is nonetheless seek to rationalise it with the argument that ‘every little helps’. That a Yes vote, even in a fake referendum, still aids Scotland’s cause in some unexplained way. Or there’s the argument that even if it does no good, at least it does no harm. This is just wrong.

I have frequently pointed out that there is no route to independence which does not pass through a point at which there is direct and all but certainly acrimonious confrontation with the British state. Confrontation in which the British state obviously has obvious advantages. The only significant advantage Scotland has is ability to choose the issue on which the confrontation takes place. We get to choose the ground on which the battle is fought. It seems to go without saying that Nicola Sturgeon is busy squandering this advantage.

When the draft Referendum Bill was referred to the UKSC, this was the Scottish Government inviting confrontation on that issue. This was a battle the Scottish Government was almost certain to lose. And a battle in which victory was, in any case, meaningless. There was absolutely no rational reason for doing this. There was absolutely no strategic thinking involved in the decision to do this. This was no more that Surgeon flailing around in a panic when faced with the need to do something ─ or appear to do something. The de facto referendum nonsense was tacked on after it was realised that the referral was likely to fail. But the de facto referendum is the same referendum as was proposed in the draft Referendum Bill trying to piggy-back on an election. Instead of being a pretendy referendum that at least looks like a referendum it is a pretendy referendum that doesn’t look anything like a referendum. Am I supposed to get excited about this?

It may be said that Sturgeon’s ‘plan’ represented confrontation of a kind. If it did, it was the wrong kind. Only the conclusive confrontation matters. The final confrontation. Every failed confrontation in the interim undermines our ability to prevail in the ultimate confrontation. With every failed confrontation, something is lost. For example, prior to the referral of the draft Referendum Bill it was perfectly possible for the Scottish Government to steer that Bill through the Scottish Parliament. After the judgement of the UKSC, that ability is lost. If there was to be confrontation on this piece of legislation, how much better that the legislation be presented as having been passed by the Scottish Parliament? If the anticipated finding was supposed to demonstrate something about the nature of the British state and its attitude to Scotland’s democracy that some people were supposedly still unaware of, how much more powerful would that demonstration have been if it was an Act of the Scottish Parliament that was at issue rather than merely a draft government Bill?

Choosing the wrong ground on which to fight can be very costly. Choosing the ground for the wrong reasons will almost inevitably lead to choosing the wrong ground. Nicola Sturgeon’s choices are not those of someone prioritising Scotland’s cause.

What, then, is the correct ground on which to fight? Given the choice of issues on which to confront the British state, which would be selected by a government prioritising the restoration of Scotland’s independence? What are the criteria for such a choice?

I would suggest that the criteria for choosing the issue on which to confront the British state should align with the criteria for the kind of referendum we need. That referendum should be an impeccably democratic event which stands as the exercise of our right of self-determination. This means the referendum must be binary. It must be decisive. It must be conclusive. It must offer a clear choice between two options which are discrete, defined and deliverable. The outcome must be not just a result but an unequivocal decision as to what ensues.

A de facto referendum does not meet these criteria. The question of whether the British state should permit a referendum is not the issue which aligns with the criteria for a ‘proper’ constitutional referendum. Regardless of how many erroneous or subsidiary issues we confront the British state on, eventually we must come to the one essential issue. All the rest is simply depleting our resources for no possible gain. That essential issue is the issue of competence. That is the issue on which all imaginable ‘routes’ to independence converge. The big question of who decides ─ Westminster or Holyrood?

There is no point in asking the British government or its institutions where the power to decide resides. How else can they possibly answer but to insist that power is theirs? The notion that the British are ever going to concede that ultimate power is not theirs is beyond naïve. It is insane! And yet that is the basis of Sturgeon’s whole approach to the constitutional issue.

Rather than asking if the Scottish Parliament has the competence to hold a pretendy referendum, a nation confident of its claim would proceed on the basis that its parliament has the competence to determine all matters relating to the constitution status of the nation. That is the issue on which the British state must be confronted. It is the issue on which the British state will have to be confronted if Scotland’s independence is to be restored. Our independence cannot be restored unless and until this issue is resolved. All other confrontations are merely skirmishes which leave us exhausted for the ultimate confrontation. Sturgeon’s every choice since becoming First Minister has been about avoiding and deferring the only confrontation that matters.

A de facto referendum using a UK general election is a very bad idea because it is entirely the wrong ground for the fight and ground on which we would probably lose. A de facto referendum using a Holyrood election is only a slightly less bad idea because it is still the wrong ground and while we might win, we would gain nothing meaningful and would still have to face the final confrontation.



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

42 thoughts on “Bad ideas and worse ideas

  1. In the end the ratification of Scotland’s proposed Independent nation-state status will have to come from the people in explicit form.

    But I really don’t think we need to worry about a ‘de facto referendum’ being proclaimed by the SNP either using Holyrood or Westminster elections. Nicola Sturgeon will find some reason that she believes is plausible so as to avoid it … after all, by my reckoning, she has managed to come up with around a dozen excuses to back away from any form of commitment to exercising Scotland’s right of self-determination in the last 8 plus years.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Denial, deflection and ‘de facto’, together a unique projection of this Sturgeon led Scottish Government in 3D.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. “In the end the ratification of Scotland’s proposed Independent nation-state status will have to come from the people in explicit form.”

      And how do you get that if you don’t ask them?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “And how do you get that if you don’t ask them?”

        You don’t ask them, well not right away, the declaration of independence is made at Holyrood with a majority of indy MSPs confirming this.

        A confirmatory indyref can be held at a later date, one to confirm what we already know that Scots want independence and two, this route seriously hinders interference from England.

        I’m of the opinion that the MSPs confirmation is enough as each MP represents their constituents so a majority of MSPs voting for UDI equates to a majority of the Scottish electorate.

        Scottish independence will need to be taken, it will not willingly be given.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. There’s an awful lot of personal opinion coupled with wishful thinking in there. You cannot take the people of Scotland for granted, and in what fantasy world will the limbo period between the unratified UDI and confirmatory referendum NOT be utilised to the max by a hostile UK Govt to wreak all sorts of disruptive harm to ensure a No vote?

          The way to go, in my opinion, is to get a Yes vote in a democratic event (such as a de facto referendum) and THEN declare a UDI that has already been ratified by the people. It does not negate the chance of hostile UK Govt actions, but it does remove their chance to cancel independence by getting a No vote in a semi-suicidal confirmatory referendum. Why give them that opportunity? A UDI should be the end of the process, not a stop on the way.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You obviously think that we’ll stroll into a de facto indyref, win it, declare independence and then sitdown with England to share the goodies, now that’s what I call a fantasy.

            I’m beginning to wonder if you even seek independence with that notion floating about inside your head, there’s still far to much naivety swirling around in the minds of the folk in the indy camp. They’ll be no velvet divorce with England, it cannot afford to lose Scotland.

            Liked by 4 people

            1. The de facto referendum is already policy and we have a far greater chance of winning it than a confirmatory referendum, at the end of a tumultuous limbo period, in a process the people did not consent to.

              Like so many malcontent “plans”, actual people are either ignored or taken for granted. Malcontents would take decisions, like an unratified UDI, on the people’s behalf because they assume to know what’s best for them. A dictatorship of the electorate exemplified by Alba supporters assumption it was within the SNP’s gift to deliver List votes to their party at the last Holyrood election. It never was.

              An unratified UDI us going to piss a lot of people off including many people who identify as Yes voters. That is a problem. But because it is a “people” problem, rather than a problem with the “process”, it is ignored by those who propose it.

              It is a problem that will be amplified by a hostile UK Govt and their many supporters within the Scottish body politic (and wider populace) during the limbo period of social, economic and political uncertainty prior to the confirmatory referendum. Again, though, that is a “people” problem, not a process one, so is ignored.

              And the likely result will be that the confirmatory referendum will see the end of the nascent independent Scottish state. Not a guarenteed defeat, but an incredibly steep and unnecessary uphill battle.

              So when it comes to “winning it, declaring independence and then sitting down with England to share the goodies being fantasy”, that applies to the “unratified UDI/confirmatory referendum” process to a far, far greater extent than a “simpler”, already “ratified” UDI.

              Thankfully, no pro- Indy Scottish Govt, not even an Alba one, is going to be stupid enough to go down the “unratified UDI/confirmatory referendum” as both the SNP and Alba want to win independence, not go down in a pointless blaze of glory.

              Ultimately, no matter what process is used, negotiation with the UK will need to happen to make independence a reality. Not to ask “permission” for independence but to settle the division of assets etc. To pretend otherwise is just more fantasy.

              Like

              1. “The de facto referendum is already policy and we have a far greater chance of winning it than a confirmatory referendum,”

                Me Bungo Pony.

                Now I know you’re not interested in Scottish independence, for they’ll be no de facto indyref whilst Sturgeon is at the helm, and only a die-hard Sturgeonista would still believe in this fallacy.

                “An unratified UDI us going to piss a lot of people off”

                Again your naivety is astonishing, of course it will piss off a lot of people, and there will be some civil unrest, you can’t make great changes like this (breaking away from England) without this happening, it won’t be a velvet divorce, it will be messy ugly, prone to threats and even violence, independence comes with a price if you can’t see that you’re a bigger fool than I first thought.

                We’ll have the Westminster branch offices in Scotland wail and scream and call for action from London, we’ll have sporadic violence and vandalism on the streets, did you honestly think that after 300+ years of England controlling Scotland and stealing from it that there would be a pleasant clean break.

                I’ve now come to the conclusion that Scotland won’t cede this onesided prison of a union without UDI, and for that to happen we’ll need someone with the strength of character and tenacity of say Ireland’s Michael Collins, unfortunately I see no one in any indy political party in Scotland with the right credentials to lead us out of this union.

                Like

                1. “…. they’ll be no de facto indyref whilst Sturgeon is at the helm ….”

                  Purely a subjective, jaundiced opinion formed in various malcontent echo-chambers. It is SNP/Green policy. The SNP are holding an emergency conference to hammer out the details. It seems the more the SNP do to bring independence closer, the more hysterical the malcontents get. The fear of being proven wrong no doubt.

                  “Again your naivety is astonishing, of course it will piss off a lot of people ….”

                  You are assuming I believe a “ratified” UDI would not piss people off. I don’t. The difference is, a “ratified” UDI leads directly to negotiations, no matter how many people it pisses off, while your preferred process leads to months of limbo, as described above, with a confirmatory referendum at the end of it that would most likely be lost. Why give unionists a potential “get out of jail free card”?

                  “…. did you honestly think that after 300+ years of England controlling Scotland and stealing from it that there would be a pleasant clean break”.

                  I’ve never made that claim. It’s just another incorrect assumption on your part.

                  “I’ve now come to the conclusion that Scotland won’t cede this onesided prison of a union without UDI ….”

                  I’ve come to much the same conclusion. I just want the nod from the people of Scotland before it is declared. I don’t want to give unionists that potential “get out of jail free card” I mentioned before.

                  “I see no one in any indy political party in Scotland with the right credentials to lead us out of this union”.

                  So you’ve given up then. Why are you even bothering to posit a route out of the Union if you don’t believe it can happen?

                  Like

                  1. “Purely a subjective, jaundiced opinion formed in various malcontent echo-chambers. It is SNP/Green policy. The SNP are holding an emergency conference to hammer out the details. ”

                    Desperate garbage from a Sturgeonista, only a mug would fall for that, Sturgeon’s carrot dangling record on indy speaks for itself, emergency conference my arse, its there Spring conference where the membership no longer has a say, anyone with half a brain knows that Sturgeon and Murrell run a tighter more stricter ship than Ron L. Hubbards Scientologists do, and they run a water tight ship.

                    “The difference is, a “ratified” UDI leads directly to negotiations, no matter how many people it pisses off, while your preferred process leads to months of limbo, as described above, with a confirmatory referendum at the end of it that would most likely be lost. Why give unionists a potential “get out of jail free card”?”

                    You still don’t get it do you, UDI is about seizing the initiative, taking back control of our own country, the below would need to be in place first.

                    “A Scottish government, whether arising from the Scottish Parliament or from another body, needs in declaring Independence to ensure it has practical control of Scotland.

                    That means that the organs of the state have to acknowledge the Scottish state. All taxes collected must go to Edinburgh, not to Westminster. The judiciary must apply Scottish laws and not Westminster ones, where they conflict, and specifically apply all new laws post the Declaration of Independence. The police must answer only to Scottish authorities. Ultimately so must the military stationed in Scotland.

                    At the time Independence is declared, immediate action must be taken to ensure all civil servants, judges, police and military take an oath of loyalty to the people of Scotland and its new government, and renounce any previous loyalty to Crown and to UK political institutions. Anybody refusing must be summarily dismissed from their positions.”

                    There would be no get out of jail free card for we would control all the cards, apart from the branch office parties posing as Scottish political parties at Holyrood, which could do nothing if we control everything else. Also there would no months of limbo, a competent government would be securing our borders and assets, and this plan would need to be drawn up prior to the UDI.

                    “So you’ve given up then. Why are you even bothering to posit a route out of the Union if you don’t believe it can happen?”

                    Never, I just don’t see any indy minded politician at Holyrood or in the surrounding periphery with the strength of character and determination to carry this out, at the moment, they are all too soft, apologetic and accommodating afraid to upset anyone, they are not true leaders in the sense more like populist politicians if you ask me.

                    Like

                    1. The scenario you lay out above gives the impression there would either be no confirmatory referendum or the result would be ignored if it was the wrong one. What you appear to be describing is akin to a “dictatorship of the proletariat” …. whether the people want it or not (a malcontent staple). It sounds like an oppressive regime will be installed that will tell the people what they want, and if they don’t like it …. I dread to think.

                      Is the confirmatory referendum just a sham then? Do the wishes of the Scottish people mean nothing?

                      Like

                  2. ” The SNP are holding an emergency conference to hammer out the details. ” .

                    Ah , Bungle , you’re an inspiration to Scientologists everywhere – ie.. the ones at the start of their very , very expensive journey to ultimate disappointment/mental derangement . Xenu is real , YO !

                    What kind of hammer d’ye reckon will be deployed in this detail-mining , epochal , Nation – forging ” emergency conference ” ? A rubber one ? Chocolate ? Or maybe they’ll borrow Thor’s . My money is on a more abstract , metaphorical one ; one made purely from the hopes and dreams of the poor delusional innocents who still believe a word that ushers from twisted gubs of L.Ron Sturgeon et al

                    Liked by 1 person

                  3. “The scenario you lay out above gives the impression there would either be no confirmatory referendum or the result would be ignored if it was the wrong one.”

                    Me Bungo Pony.

                    If a majority of the people call for one after UDI then fair enough, but UDI is first and foremost, you strike me as a person who doesn’t have the stomach for the job at hand, not to worry you are not alone in the department. It will take a courageous and determined FM and his entourage to implement this, someone who isn’t afraid to do what many politicians before them have cowered away from.

                    UDI would clear Holyrood of London serving unionist politicians they’d need to swear an oath of loyalty to Scotland, I’d love to see that day and watch that happen.

                    Like

                    1. “If a majority of the people call for one after UDI then fair enough ….”

                      How would their desire for one be expressed?

                      Like

                    2. Ha….What you really mean is how could Britnats find a way back into the union, I’d give you a C+ for trying but that would be too generous, now away and play with yir union jack sonny.

                      Like

                    3. Peter, I have laid out my reasons for being sceptical of your proposed process. I’ve given reasons above, and on the “Sturgeon’s Citadel” thread I wrote;

                      “I question the wisdom of declaring a UDI without proof positive independence is what the majority of Scots want. I question whether a UDI that is subject to a confirmatory referendum can be truly described as a UDI. I realise that, as legislation, organisation and campaigning will be required, it would be months before the confirmatory referendum could be held. I question how Scotland would function in what looks like, to me, the political and economic limbo of the period between UDI and confirmatory referendum. I question the validity of expecting a YES vote in the confirmatory referendum after months of limbo (my words) and hostile UK Govt “mischief”; especially as the people had not indicated support for any of it. And I question whether the consequences for Scotland in the likely (to me) event of a NO vote have been considered”.

                      Getting a majority Yes vote in a democratic event before declaring a UDI negates all that and gets us to independence sooner.

                      You insist on cherry picking what some one has said, interpreting it to suit your narrative, and then declaring it as incontrovertible fact. There are no facts here, only opinions. It doesn’t matter what the referendum bill said about the referendum itself. Once a Yes vote is obtained, it becomes a thing in its own right, separate from the process that generated it. It becomes a “fact” to be acted on. It does not “ratify” a subsequent UDI but it does justify it in the eyes of the people and the wider World.

                      Unionists and the UK Govt realise this. It’s why they deny Scotland the right to choose and have unleashed a constant barrage of anti-SNP/Sturgeon/independence material in print, on-line and on-screen? Malcontents have probably missed all that as they have been concentrating on unleashing their own barrage on the same targets.

                      I have been clear why I have reservations about your preferred process. You have done nothing to address those reservations.

                      Like

                  4. If you are in favour of “ratified” UDI why do you keep railing against #ScottishUDI? Is there some reason other than your proud ignorance of the subject? Which is NOT because it hasn’t been laid out for you but because you are too dumb and bigoted to take in the information.

                    The whole point of #ScottishUDI is to enable the ratification to which you refer. That’s what the confirmatory referendum is all about. Fuck knows what you imagine it to be about.

                    The thing you are too blinded by dumb partisan loyalty to recognise is that ratification requires a particular form of referendum. The form of referendum that is required CANNOT be held until AFTER the Scottish Parliament has asserted its competence in constitutional matters.

                    The SNP/Scottish Government is NOT offering a referendum that will stand as the exercise of our right of self determination. Read the fucking draft Referendum Bill, FFS! Listen to what the Lord Advocate said about it! Listen to what the First Minister said about it! Listen to what party spokesbladders like Mhairi Hunter said about it! It is NOT an independence referendum!

                    Why am I bothering? You’ve already proved that you are pathologically incapable of taken in any of this.

                    Liked by 2 people

                    1. POSTED TWICE BECAUSE I PRESSED THE WRONG ‘REPLY’ BUTTON

                      Peter, I have laid out my reasons for being sceptical of your proposed process. I’ve given reasons above, and on the “Sturgeon’s Citadel” thread I wrote;

                      “I question the wisdom of declaring a UDI without proof positive independence is what the majority of Scots want. I question whether a UDI that is subject to a confirmatory referendum can be truly described as a UDI. I realise that, as legislation, organisation and campaigning will be required, it would be months before the confirmatory referendum could be held. I question how Scotland would function in what looks like, to me, the political and economic limbo of the period between UDI and confirmatory referendum. I question the validity of expecting a YES vote in the confirmatory referendum after months of limbo (my words) and hostile UK Govt “mischief”; especially as the people had not indicated support for any of it. And I question whether the consequences for Scotland in the likely (to me) event of a NO vote have been considered”.

                      Getting a majority Yes vote in a democratic event before declaring a UDI negates all that and gets us to independence sooner.

                      You insist on cherry picking what some one has said, interpreting it to suit your narrative, and then declaring it as incontrovertible fact. There are no facts here, only opinions. It doesn’t matter what the referendum bill said about the referendum itself. Once a Yes vote is obtained, it becomes a thing in its own right, separate from the process that generated it. It becomes a “fact” to be acted on. It does not “ratify” a subsequent UDI but it does justify it in the eyes of the people and the wider World.

                      Unionists and the UK Govt realise this. It’s why they deny Scotland the right to choose and have unleashed a constant barrage of anti-SNP/Sturgeon/independence material in print, on-line and on-screen? Malcontents have probably missed all that as they have been concentrating on unleashing their own barrage on the same targets.

                      I have been clear why I have reservations about your preferred process. You have done nothing to address those reservations.

                      Like

                    2. Your “reservations” are based on a false idea of what #ScottishUDI is. And don’t start your standard whining about it never having been explained unless you can explain how come so many other people understand it perfectly.

                      It’s not even as if an explanation is really necessary. Once a few basic truths are recognised, #ScottishUDI follows as the inevitable and only conclusion. All that is required is to stop and think about it for a while. Not, as you have so evidently done, decide that it is wrong and then try to justify that conclusion.

                      We must have a referendum. That is a basic truth. That referendum must serve as the exercise of our right of self-determination. That is a basic truth. A Section 30 referendum cannot serve as the exercise of our right of self-determination because the process itself denies the popular sovereignty on which our right of self-determination rests. Yet another basic truth.

                      We then ask what are the criteria for a referendum which serves as the exercise of our right of self-determination. It must be binary. The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable. It must be impeccably democratic. It must involve ONLY the people of Scotland, their elected representatives and democratically legitimate institutions AT EVERY STAGE. All basic truths.

                      The next question is how do we go about holding this referendum? By this time, it should be obvious that the right kind of referendum can only be authorised by and held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament. A crucially important basic truth.

                      Here we have arrived at the point at which all supposed routes to independence converge. The point at which the Scottish Parliament has to do something which is unlawful within the legal and constiutional framework which armours the Union. Simple logic dictates that if there is no lawful way to proceeed within that framework and the right of self-determination is absolute and inalienable then it becomes necessary to step outside the framework which constrains in any way the exercise of that right. More basic truth.

                      The rule of law must hold. Democracy and, indeed, civilisation depends on it. So the conduct of a referendum must occur within some legal framework. What other legal framework might there be but the same legal framework which identifies and guarantees the right of self-determination ─ the UN Charter and relevant Declarations. We must step outside the local (British) framework while staying within the international framework. All basic truth.

                      So, we need a particular kind of referendum. This kind of referendum can only be done by and through the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is denied the relevant competence by the British state using the power afforded it by a grotesquely asymmetric political union. How can the Scottish Parliament acquire the competence it needs? Only be taking that competence. Asserting it.

                      This is #ScottishUDI. It is not, in fact, on outright declaration of independence. It is a de facto declaration of independence because once a parliament has competence in all constitutional matters the nation is effectively independent. But crucially, it is not an explicit declaration of independence. It is an assertion of a particular competence ostensibly for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of our right of self-determination ─ there being no other way the exercise of this inalienable right would be possible.

                      The British government then has two choices. It can accept the new reality. Or it can mount a challenge to the actions of the Scottish Parliament in asserting its competence to facilitate the exercise of our right of self-determination. If the former, the British will try to attach conditions and caveats to their acceptance of the new reality. This must not be permitted. For reasons which I wish I didn’t have to explain but am resigned to having to do so, just not here and not now. If the latter, the British state will have to go to court (ICJ not UKSC) and openly state some things that it would prefer it didn’t have to say out loud and which once stated aloud would all but guarantee a massive majority in favour of ratifying a proposal to dissolve the Union. Again, the sort of arguments the British would have to make in open court and why it would prefer not to are things which should be obvious and which have been described in some detail on numerous occasions, but I fully expect a demand that I explain them again for the benefit of those so intellectually indolent they’d rather use my brain than test their own.

                      It’s all there. All the basic truths of the matter. Every day I see more and more people coming to similar conclusions because thay have actualy started to think about the issue for themselves rather than latch onto some pre-packaged ‘solution’ offered by politicians and other political actors. This shift may be happening solely within the relatively tiny ‘echo-chamber’ of independence activists. But this matters because these activists are the ones who will take the arguments to others. It is a tiny bubble only in a realitive sense. In practical terms, it is all the people who matter in terms of mounting a campaign. It is the people who have to be persuaded first. It is, therefore, a cohort whose importance is out of all proportion to its size.

                      My hope is that a tipping point will be reached at which the slow dawning will turn into a flood of illumination such as not even Nicola Sturgeon wll be able to ignore. That is the only hope for Scotland’s cause.

                      Liked by 1 person

  2. “In the end the ratification of Scotland’s proposed Independent nation-state status will have to come from the people in explicit form.”

    Duncanio.

    Collapsing Holyrood and holding a de facto vote where the majority is in favour of Scottish independence should lead to a declaration of independence. The routes there its the SNP/Greens that standing in the way.

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/how-you-do-it/#more-133055

    I’m hoping both parties get an absolute doing at the next GE, die-hard SNPers/Green supporters who might have voted for them at the next GE, might decide that the GRRB and the up and coming strict prosecuting laws surrounding their proposed outlawing conversion therapy are a bridge too far for them.

    However Sturgeon will promise the earth at the next GE to get as many SNP MPs elected as possible, but its a ruse it won’t lead anywhere on the indy front.

    I’m also hoping that Alba get quite few more MPs that replace the SNP troughers, such as that useless turd Wishart.

    I see nothing game changing happening until 2026, again there’s been rumblings that Sturgeon’s/Harvie’s GRRB, and maybe implemented by then, strict anti-conversion laws, along with the HCB which will probably be active by then as well, will lead to Alba getting a shitload of seats at Holyrood.

    Even then it will take for Sturgeon to stand down as leader and for Alba to shame the SNP/Greens week in and week out on why we are still trapped in this onesided prison of a union, maybe then some of those SNP MSPs will snap-out of their torpor on the indy front brought about by Sturgeon iron fist and self-preservation, that will lead to majority to collapse Holyrood in the first place, and the declaration of independence.

    There’s no other way out of this union bar a UDI declaration, unless of course Salvo/Liberation/SSRG comes up with some unknown way out.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Maybe Salmond hasn’t got what it takes to be tough enough, but I’m hoping someone else in the Alba ranks is, and will be strong enough to do the dirty work that’s required to get us out of this prison of a union, if Alba manages at some point to be in government.

        The SNP are now untrustworthy, their reputation is shot.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “…if Alba manages at some point to be in government.”

          Aye. Like we have time to wait for that to happen! It’ll be 25 years before it’s even realistic to talk about Alba being in government. If it happens at all, it’s likely to be closer to 50 years hence.

          Like

          1. “Aye. Like we have time to wait for that to happen!”

            I’m all eyes and ears Peter if you have a faster route, deep down you know there isn’t one, Sturgeon f*cked us for nearly a decade, ten years wasted by the time we hit 2026 and beyond if we want Alba in Bute House, and even then in my opinion there’s no one in the party (Alba) with the strength of character to go down the UDI route.

            Like

        2. Kenny MacAskill is doing a great job informing us about the idiotic and criminal way energy in Scotland and the jobs it creates are being systematically stolen from us. see Yours for Scotland and Grouse Beater who both print his argument.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. The madness of the malcontents in full flow. It’s a wonder to behold, leads absolutely nowhere, offers nothing and is not a little self destructive. Sigh!

    Like

  4. Very few of us are political experts – neither are politicians, of course; yet, most of us understand and can share different ‘political moods’ and perhaps that’s why and how certain groups of voters follow and support certain politicians and political parties.
    Perhaps my writing describes the average voter, but for various reasons, we fall into groups of like-minded people and while this sounds simple; it’s almost too complex to be expressed or described in simple terms.

    Unfortunately, some uncertainty has crept into our independence supporters’ cause and this is when politicians of Alex Salmond’s qualities become the foremost politician that he had become. We must remain calm for some time longer, while our Peaceful Scottish Liberation Movement is ready to further our movement; and while politics and perfection don’t normally come together, regaining Scotland’s independence will be absolutely perfect!

    Like

    1. Do you have an agreement with the British state that it will suspend its operations whilst we “remain calm for some time longer”? Do you seriously suppose they will honour this agreement?

      Like

      1. Dear, Mr Peter A Bell, “thinker. Listener. Talker. Reader. Writer.” I’ve been a regular follower of your articles for some time now – and will continue to be – However, I’m disappointed by your reply and perhaps your temporary lack of thinking carefully.

        You cannot understand me and should perhaps think twice before you ask me about me having an agreement with the British state etc. I will not ask you questions or make assumptions that are only based on supposition only. I detest the British State; I was born to Hebridean parents and bilingual speakers, of course.

        I seriously regret having said so much here, but I assure you that I will never waste our time again by replying to any of your future articles.

        Yours,

        Ewen A Morrison

        Liked by 1 person

  5. This is getting tedious. ‘Republic of Scotland’ should take a long hard look at himself and control his hatred of Sturgeon. We will get nowhere without the SNP fully signed up to an agreed strategy for declaring Independence (and with help from the Greens and indeed Alba). On a positive note, there are still many ways forward for Independence. I accept that there will be an inevitable clash with Westminster (Tory or Labour) when it comes to the final chapter of this process, but I ask everybody to keep positive. Remember, we have youth on our side (unlike me). Faced with a de facto Westminster Election we can do a repeat of 2014 and fire up the typical non-voters as we did in 2014 and make the reduced electorate work for us. Friends in Ireland, France, Germany and the Netherlands, as well as the diaspora in Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand, will support democracy without question. Reference to the International Court, the UN to follow. Much to look forward to!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. “This is getting tedious. ‘Republic of Scotland’ should take a long hard look at himself and control his hatred of Sturgeon.”

    Bill McDermott.

    If you don’t loathe Sturgeon by now, you obviously haven’t been paying attention, and I’m not about to explain it all to you.

    “We will get nowhere without the SNP fully signed up to an agreed strategy for declaring Independence (and with help from the Greens and indeed Alba).”

    Here’s a freebie Bill but no more, do your own research, the SNP and Greens ARE NOT interested in Scottish independence period.

    Like

  7. Don’t demean fellow travellers if you are one. But from all the evidence of your posts you are more interested in causing disarray and confusion than helping in the honourable task of achieving Independence. End of.

    Like

  8. Pretty interesting set of comments which pretty much map out the dilemma. It’s also interesting that the SNP see themselves as one and the same as the Yes movement / Independence – where they, not the outcome, are the centre of attention rather than the dominant driving force.

    Given that asking for permission hasn’t gotten us anywhere and unlikely to change for the foreseeable future, then maybe it’s time to declare independence and beg for forgiveness from the electorate.

    Liked by 2 people

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.