The SNP has been following a gradualist approach to the constitutional issue since before the Scottish Parliament was reconvened. Never more gradualist than the last eight years under Sturgeon’s ‘leadership’. What is not generally understood even by its most ardent proponents – and certainly not by Ben Macpherson – is that the end-point of the incremental approach is not never was and never could be, independence. Incremental progress has no end-point. There is always another increment. The gradualist approach must always be satisfied with falling short of the defined goal.
The purpose of the gradualist approach was to normalise the idea of independence and establish Holyrood as the locus of Scotland’s politics. That has been achieved. It was achieved a decade ago. Ever since, the gradualist approach has been redundant, inappropriate and self-defeating. When a campaign is within reach of its goal, a mindset that precludes reaching out and seizing the prize explains all the missed opportunities since 2014.
The fight to restore Scotland’s independence has stalled at the limit of the effectiveness of an incremental approach. Marking time with constitutional tinkering will no longer suffice. No progress can now be made unless and until gradualism is consigned to a respected place in history, to be replaced with a more daring and assertive approach. An approach which takes as its target not some token additional powers for the Scottish Parliament, but its transformation into the sole and true Parliament of a Scotland freed from the shackles of the Union.
Gradualism is dead!
Devolution is dead!
Independence! Nothing less!
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s cause.
Peter A Bell 
Quite so , P .
Those , like ourselves , know Gradualism Is Dead . Alas , there are still too many zombies lurching around pretending it isn’t . Most of them shrill ( and desperate ) promoters of The Zombie King himself
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
We, i.e. Scotland, must move from the international legal position regarding international treaties of pacta sunt servanda – agreements must be kept – to the also agreed international legal position of ribus sic stantibus – things standing thus. This is a legal escape clause, if you will, out of treaties that no longer benefit signatories, If circumstances change sufficiently, things standing thus, then there is ample reason and justification for an international treaty to be dissolved.
We how do things stand in Scotland today post 300 plus years of English domination in Westminster after the undemocratic ‘equal’ and ‘voluntary’ Treaty of Union was engineered in 1707? We have no Tory government being elected in Scotland since the 1950’s; Brexit against Scotland democratic wishes; the (English) Supreme Court ruling regarding an independence referendum; the trading disadvantages of Scotland re the new arrangements put in place for Northern Ireland, the Labour Party also opposed to any future independence referendum, widespread poverty and despair, highest drug deaths in Europe, the NHS on its knees, and an inability to tackle many of these issues due to a lack of political control, a fixed budget and inability to borrow. I could go on…
Yes, Peter, gradualism is dead and buried and the SNP are teetering at the edge of an open grave. It is highly likely Scotland’s case for ribus sic stantibus would be supported by the international community and courts. It is difficult to see why it would not be. We need to wake up and smell the coffee…
LikeLiked by 4 people
After the Smith report and the progress of the Scotland Act 2016 through the UK Parliament, the SNP did try 2 or 3 times for FFA (Full Fiscal Autonomy) but were voted down. Similarly to the unspecified Devo Max, this would leave everything pretty well in Scotland’s control, apart from defence and foreign relations. It’s inherently unstable.
Similarly, a federal system, or one where Scotland had a veto over some things (as Sturgeon did try in 2018 or so), would mean the tail wagging the dog – the 8% tail wagging the 85% dog (similar to the Greens to the SNP). Or yet again, the 85% by population deciding for all. It’s inherently unstable.
The only way it could work is if England with 85% of the population, had decided it wanted to be 10 different regions, all devolved, all with a vote in some sort of federal system. The problem is England had absolutely no interest, not even the much abused North-East of England. So to an extent, any devolution for Scotland is inherently unstable.
That’s why gradualism used to be OK for Indy supporters. To push it to the point that devolution falls apart to be replaced by Independence.
But it’s too late now, Westminster has noticed the trap. And in fact, devolution is going backwards, pulled by the donkey engine so far.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not impressed b the latest reports from this evening’s husting debate, where the candidates said they would consider supporting a future UK Labour Government in return for getting a Referendum.
What use is that?
Didn’t Ash Regan spurn such a policy?
And don’t they think this would be a perfect gift to the tories to use more imperialistic guff to “Save the Union”, etc, etc, etc?
And hasn’t MP Keir Starmer outright rejected any such idea?
Nicola Sturgeon tried that one in 2017, and it was a bad, very bad mistake!
It would have been better had SNP say they would see what the outcome of the vote was, and take things from there.
But no, they allowed the pro 1707 Media to run riot and the tories get into a huge frenzy over it.
Tho to be honest, we do wonder how many in England actually paid too much attention, but it did play into the hands of the tories at any rate. That very was obvious.
So, to be making the very same failed suggestion now, is self defeating and totally unacceptable.
Besides, as we know, we don’t go asking London “permission” for anything.
We must take the initiative ourselves. That’s the only way to go about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“At the moment, we’re obviously in a political stalemate where Westminster are denying the voice of Scotland being expressed, so a Section 30 order would be an obvious way to go there.” – Ash Regan
Ash Regan just blew it! She has now stated that she is prepared to compromise the sovereignty of Scotland’s people by going down the Section 30 route. SNP members who consider popular sovereignty to be non-negotiable now have no candidate to vote for.
To request or accept or even concede the validity of the Section 30 process is an act of treachery. We are comprehensively betrayed.
#DissolveTheUnion #ScottishUDI #NoSection30 #ProudMalcontent
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can’t be the only Scot that’s obliged to agree with you; and again, I feel that all of the populations living in England, Scotland and the related areas have been ‘Brainwashed’ for centuries; so successfully, that we never realise the situation.
I ended my SNP membership, shortly after Alex Salmond resigned; yet, recently, I felt that Ash Regan seemed like a satisfactory choice for a new F.M… However, I fully agree with your comments: “The Section 30 process cannot lead to the restoration of Scotland’s independence”… This might cause dissatisfaction that can’t be politely described? Eventually, Scotland’s politics will resume its honourable and respectable standing… https://salvo.scot/claim-of-right/ ~ ‘Salvo.scot’ really should be kept in mind.
Anyway, whoever becomes the new First Minister, it’s at an unusually demanding time and evidently happening when there’s bound to be a growing sense of international interest; furthermore, the SNP is not as it used to be – an honourable and trustworthy political party… And this standard is an almost impossible one to match, at any time, especially nowadays!
LikeLiked by 1 person