A question for the candidates

I have a question for all the candidates in the SNP leadership contest. How Kate Forbes, Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf respond to this question will give a clear indication of the strength of their commitment to the restoration of Scotland’s independence. I do not, of course, expect any of them to respond directly to this article. I doubt very much if they read my blog, or are even aware of its existence. But if enough people pose this question persistently enough then there is a chance that it might become something that the candidates simply cannot ignore.

The question refers to the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill as published by the Scottish Government on 28 June 2022. A copy of this can be downloaded here. It might also be helpful in assessing responses to the question if people familiarise themselves with the First Minister’s statement announcing the 2023 independence referendum. The full text of this statement can be found here.

Question to Kate Forbes, Ash Regan and Humza Yousaf

Should you be elected as leader of the Scottish National Party and subsequently as First Minister of Scotland; if the British Prime Minister then offers to grant a Section 30 order to allow a referendum according to the terms of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill as published by the Scottish Government on 28 June 2022, what would be your response?

Please share this article as widely as possible and/or copy/paste the text to post on your social media. Alternatively, use the graphic below.

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.

Buy me a Birra

11 thoughts on “A question for the candidates

  1. Good question – my response would be to tell them where to stick it as would yours I guess. I think two of the candidates would accept, and one might accept conditionally – the conditions being that it should be run entirely by Holyrood and the media should come under Scottish regulation prior to the event. All these responses should be unacceptable to the Scottish people as they disregard our sovereignty.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Facebooked.

    Any candidate that answers that they would accept the offer of a ‘Section 30 referendum’ means that they accept the involvement, interference and influence of the British state representatives in and over the process of Scottish self-determination thus compromising the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

    Liked by 11 people

  3. I came across this on Quora and thought it the most interesting contribution to our constitutional ‘debate’ for some time. Many will recognise it as being very similar to #ScottishUDI. I may well adopt and adapt as appropriate.

    I should point out that I am NOT sympathetic to the politics of the English Constitution Party. In fact, I am so unsympathetic that I decline to provide a link to their website.

    “Constitutionally and in law Ash Regan is correct. No referendum is needed. There was not a referendum to create the British political union parliament, nor a convention. All that is needed as follows;

    (1) Withdraw all (enough for a majority vote) Scottish MP’s from Westminster (and lords).
    (2) Reconvene Holyrood as a Scottish parliament not a devolved parliament or EU assembly and simple vote on Voiding the Act of Union with England, if majority go to step 3.
    (3) As Holyrood parliament is a court in its own right, VOID (not repeal) the Act of union with England.
    (4) Inform the UN of Scotland’s Independence and sovereign status as per UN primary international human right – Self Determination.

    The political union with England has now ended.

    Part 2 is optional and needs a constitutional convention – remove the monarchy and establish a republic.

    Stop listening to the British legal fraudsters and do what the Scottish people want.

    Graham Moore, Leader of the English Constitution Party.”

    #AshRegan #DissolveTheUnion #ScottishUDI #NoSection30 #ProudMalcontent

    Liked by 5 people

    1. 4). Appoint Commisioners a la 1705, but genuine ones, not Charlie’s.
      5). Repeal the Treaty of Union
      6). Inform the UN by all means
      7). Open negotiations on a new treaty with EWNI (there would be no rUK as the UK would in that case definitely cease to exist)
      8). Vote on that new treaty at some time in the Indy Parliament.

      Bloody amateurs.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. A couple of wee data points:

        1). “The Scottish Parliament adjourned on 25 March 1707. The proclamation dissolving the Parliament was published on 28 April and the new Parliament of Great Britain sat for the first time in Westminster on 1 May. The Scottish Parliament did not meet again until 12 May 1999.


        (I don’t totally endorse this tale, but it does have the above in it). That is also NOT the full story; the proclamation was literally an “oyez” type thing by Queensberry’s people with the authority of Queen Anne, because without the Scottish Parliament being dissolved, the Treaty of Union and Acts of union could not take place on May 1st 1707.

        The problem is of course, that until the 1st of May with the Union properly in place, Queen Anne almost certainly didn’t have the authority to issue or authorise such a dissolution – only the Scottish Parliament which didn’t meet again until 1999. A Catch 22 back then which was totally ignored for some odd reason by the then totally Anglified monarchy and its bought and paid for stooges.

        In 1999 Winnie Ewing: ““The Scottish Parliament, adjourned on the 25th day of March in the year 1707, is hereby reconvened”” – in the presence of the then Monarch who did not demur or contradict.

        So in theory at least, number 2 is not neccessary, though perhaps, advisable.


    2. Excellent Peter, though there’s not a Scottish indy minded politician alive today that has the courage to see the above through, maybe I’ll be proved wrong I hope so.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Out desire for self-determination is our concern and nothing to do with the UK. They are not sovereign. It’s the people of Scotland who are sovereign. End of.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. So basically speaking, as I said before, an important thing is perhaps not to diss 2 candidates that aren’t your preferred choice, but work out who least you want and just diss that person. And if that happens to be the one ahead in the polling, in STV voting (Single Transferable Vote), where you rank them in order, they are not going to be eliminated first.

    So it doesn’t matter who Yousaf supporters put 2nd, it ain’t going to happen, he is very unlikely to be eliminated first anyway. He has the machine behind him, no matter how many times people deny it. For the other 2 however, it absolutely certainly does matter, as if supporters of them both only vote their 1st choice, they’re both dooooomed. In fact they have to vote for each other, Regan 1, Forbes 2 or Forbes 1, Regan 2, for either of them to have a chance as things stand.

    If it helps anyone decide if it’s a good idea to let the continuity candidate win by default, here’s a thing. There’s an org called Progress Scotland: https://www.progressscotland.org/ – have a look who’s featured on it right now in 2023. I bet there’s been a lot of progress in the 4 years since 2019 though hasn’t there?


    oh wait, isn’t’ that exactly the same person as it is now?

    How’s about (in this forum) Regan as FM and Forbes as finance minister for the economy and possibly DFM?

    Or in other forums, Forbes as FM (maybe McKee as finance) and Regan as Constitutional Secretary and possibly DFM?

    I prefer Forbes but Regan is fine too. Yousaf is a nice guy and still would be in (even less) devolved Scotland in 2050. Vote 1 and 2 in either order for progress – you know it makes sense. Continuity don’t cut it.


  6. As a personal friend of all three candidates, I can pass on their answers:

    Humza: ” As the continuity candidate, there is obviously only one possible answer, which I will let you know when I have spoken to Nicola, as the question is far to hard for me.”

    Kate: ” As the anti continuity candidate, it will be the opposite to what Nicola tells Humza to say”

    Ash: ” That’s the best question anyone has asked in this debate. I’m keeping my powder dry”.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. O/T.

    The Channel 4 husting just finished in Glasgow, the presenter told all three candidates that Labour and the Tories will never grant an indyref again, the presenter asked Humza Yousaf and Kate Forbes what would be their route to independence knowing this, and both said they’d build an indy majority and push for an indyref FFS.

    Only Ash Regan spelt out the route out of the union.

    Liked by 1 person

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.