The day and hour?

The National reports that Alba party has launched a pro-independence, pro-republican billboard campaign ahead of the coronation on May 6. If it’s time for an independent republic of Scotland then surely it must be time to explicitly acknowledge that the only way this will happen is #ScottishUDI. Why so timid, Alex? Could it be that you are reluctant to acknowledge the reality of the Section 30 process; that it never could and never can lead to the restoration of Scotland’s independence? If so, let me assure you that this will not reflect badly on you or what you achieved in securing the 2014 referendum. To say that times have changed since 2011/12 would be a monumental understatement. Acknowledging the implications of the changed circumstances can only enhance your personal reputation as an astute political operator and make Alba Party the leading party of independence.

Scotland’s independence will not be restored by any party which does not recognise that all routes to independence converge on a point at which the Scottish Parliament is required to do something which the British state will deem unlawful. Scotland’s independence will not be restored by any party which is not prepared to be bold and tenacious in defying the asserted authority of the British state. The accursed Union will not be ended by any party which does not recognise that the only way the Scottish Parliament can have the powers it requires in order to #EndTheUnion is to take that power over the raging objections of the British ruling elites.

By adopting the #ManifestoForIndependence ahead of the 2024 Westminster election Alba Party could go into the campaign as the true party of independence. So, how about it, Alex? Will you be again the leader you were a decade ago?

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.


34 thoughts on “The day and hour?

  1. With the Alba Party now positively and unequivocally advocating for a republican future for Scotland it shows that positions can change. If that is, indeed, what Alex Salmond himself is advocating … his personal view may be different, I haven’t heard or seen him stating his view on the matter. I may have missed something however.

    In the past Alex has always proposed keeping the monarchy at least when old Queen Betty was the main incumbent of Buck House. With the abomination of Chuck Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ascending the throne atop the (alleged) Stone of Destiny next weekend it remains to be seen whether, as a member of the Privy Council, he a) gets invited and b) declines or accepts (see

    With respect to Scotland’s Cause history tells us that the Brits never offer anything up without first being confronted. Ultimately that is what it will take. The trouble, as I see it, is two-fold:

    The first (obvious) one is the connotations that UDI is ‘bad’ … because the British say and the connection with Ian Smith/Apartheid declaration of Independence for a racist Rhodesia the mid-1960s. That British take on UDI is firmly planted in folks mind as being anti-Democratic. Always and in every circumstance. Oh, the irony of that.

    The second one, and much more important in my view, is that, despite all the deprivations cause by London rule, the ordinary Scottish people are not angry. Or at least not angry enough. Certainly not sufficiently roused to get even. After 8.5 years of Sturgeonist timidity and now ‘led’ by her stooged successor Humza the half-witted there is no inspiration and even less hope.

    Maybe the shift to a republican stance by Alba is a sign of a sleepy lion stirring from a near decade of torpor that is about to realise that his belly is empty and he is really, really hungry.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. I reckon Salmond’s position on the monarchy a decade ago has been amply vindicated. The anti- monarchy sentiment now being expressed simply wouldn’t have happened when the old queen was alive. It took her death to loosen the constraints on that feeling. I always agreed with Alex Salmond on this point. Despite my republicanism, my feeling was that combining the campaigns for independence and a republic would detract from both. As with so many other things, circumstances have changed dramatically. Our thinking must change accordingly.

      Liked by 8 people

      1. ‘That was then and this is now’ is probably the approach that Alex Salmond and the Alba Party should take.

        I too am, and have always been, a republican. But I acknowledged that any debate about the monarchy would take place at an appropriate time after Scottish Independence had been restored. There was no point in being diverted on an argument about something that would in time become irrelevant. As it has now. With pro-Republican sentiment now seemingly in the majority in Scotland it makes sense to adopt the same position as it is surely unlikely that any genuine pro-Independence supporters that retain a fondness for monarchy will be put off from the concept of independent republican statehood for Scotland.

        Likewise the question of European relations. We were in the EU in 2014 and people were – and still are – in favour of membership. However, we are not now in that trading bloc. Moreover, there remains a significant proportion of YES supporters – perhaps 35% some commentators have claimed – who voted for Brexit and see the EU as compromising our Independence. So the pragmatic stance is to have some kind of half-way house which entails membership of the Single Market so that the “four freedoms” can be enjoyed by all whilst some of the negative aspects of full membership such as the Common Fisheries Policy are not imposed thus keeping the coastal communities happy. The Alba Party are in favour of EFTA/Single Market membership … again, a change from Alex Salmond’s view a decade ago.

        Now Alex Salmond just needs to embrace a more forthright stance on how to take back our full self-government.

        Come on Alex, carpe diem!

        Liked by 7 people

        1. as it is surely unlikely that any genuine pro-Independence supporters that retain a fondness for monarchy will be put off from the concept of independent republican statehood for Scotland.

          The problem with this is that there are maybe as many as 200,000 Indy supporters, but with a similar turnout to 2014, there are now 3.7 million voters. Which means to get over the 1.85 million YES voters, you’re looking at 200,000 indy supporters to vote YES, but also 1.7 million ordinary voters for whom Indy is about 7th on the list of priorities. They could be put off by virtually anything that Indy supporters might accept regardless.

          And staunch republicans would almost certainly already be YES as Indy is the only way a republic could possibly happen (like nuclear disarmament), so associating a republic with Indy Scotland is likely to be a substantial nett loss for a YES vote. 30% of us are actually going to celebrate, or might consider it accord some poll or other. That’s a lot of voters to hack off.

          Some of the green-eyed monster bile I see posted about the monarchy actually hacks me off though it won’t change my YES vote. My wife likes all that pomp and circumstance and WE have some Asda £1 bunting up already. I’m neither monarchist nor republican (given a choice between a President Trump and some King Charles I’ll take Charlie boy).

          But on Saturday I’ll be waving my little UK fleg, with my wife, for the fun of it, and having a bit of a smile in a draining cost of living crisis which as well as high bills has meant a slow slow start to the year for my small business, and (reduced price) toast without the beans a couple of times.

          Life is for living, not for acid reflux whenever a royal is mentioned. I mean, seriously, who gives a flying one compared to the price of a loaf of bread?


          1. I’d do most things for the restoration of Scotland’s statehood but putting up bunting and waving a Jack wouldn’t make it onto my to do list as I reckon that embracing the propagandist symbols of the oppressive state that we are trying to unshackle ourselves from runs counter to that objective.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. The referendum which restores Scotland’s independence will be binary. There will be no question regarding the monarchy just as there will be no question regarding membership of the EU or NATO. These are all matters for a separate process.


          3. You’ve hit the nail on the head Yesindyref2; as I keep bleating on here, while Yes is only accepting votes from republican, CND, Net Zero worthies we’re going to keep on getting the drubbing we deserve


    2. Regards the Monarchy, and its “German” roots, there is an awful lot of nonsense about this.
      It is actually a very English thing these days and has been for the past few centuries!
      Queen Victoria was born in England, in London. And although the Monarchy had its German history, with the Georgian Kings (House of Hanover) originally German, the previous 2 Kings were also born in England, tho kept up with inter marrying other German royalty, etc. In those times royals across Europe would only ever marry other royals.
      The thought of doing any other, was simply not entertained.
      So Victoria later married a German prince and convention was that even tho Queen of England, she still took the second name of Prince Albert.
      Thus we got (again, as George III’s mother was of that family) the Saxe Coburg name which was kept up to World War One, when during which horrors, English royalty felt they had to be, well, English!
      Tho I was amused that Victoria’s successors for good measure, decided on renaming them after an English castle!

      Regards the present situation with ALBA, and Alex Salmond, it does seem that he personally remains fond of the Monarchy, tho most in ALBA are clearly for a Republic.
      I think Salmond would rather Scotland abandoned the Monarchy in due course, but as has been suggested, not while Queen Elizabeth was still around.
      Too many had too much a fondness for her, tho I can’t quite figure why, as she didn’t actually do very much, and certainly did precious little for Scotland. Even in her name she was hardly helpful. She was Queen, and she could easily have chosen to be known differently in England and in Scotland.

      I have said before, that there is still a certain number of Independence supporters who fancy a Monarchy, but for many, that would be one based here in Scotland.
      They would accept having their own Monarch here, but not have one based in London. That would be unacceptable to them.
      And if Scotland did have its own Monarch, who knows maybe the majority would go along with it, but that is hardly going to happen now, so a Republic it will will probably be.
      However, as Peter says here, that is a question ’till after we are Independent.
      Just as if a Presidential system, what type, like that of Ireland, which is entirely ceremonial, or like that of France, where the President has real power, but not the huge power of the American model.
      We have to get Independence to begin with, and then decide on these things afterwards.
      But as SNP and the “new” First Minister, is prevaricating so much, we wonder when and what will motivate them to make any moves towards it, these days!

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Salvo is NOT a political party. Salvo cannot provide the effective political power that Scotland’s cause requires. And before you rush to the predictable response, this remains true no matter what you say about the SNP.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Electorate

        Dear, Peter A Bell, please note that I’m WELL aware that ‘Salvo is NOT a political party; however, if Scotland’s population is about 5.5 million people, then we must remember that this one word includes a voting number that is too great to be expressed or described in simple words.

        I am much more at home with my chessboard than reacting to ‘Political Chess’ situations; I’m only a humble free-willed voter. But Westminster’s disrespectful and dictatorlike behaviour has gradually become clearer to a growing number of our ‘voting population’ and even among those who are our less politically minded people.

        I hope most of our citizens are less pedantic than some of us; after all, the phrase ‘less is more’ can also apply to much more than artwork. Maybe you’ll recognise that politicians and/or political parties aren’t at the apex of my interests or concerns. Otherwise, please keep on doing what you’re good at.



        1. Explain to us the process by which Scotland’s independence is restored absent the active participation of the Scottish Government and by unavoidable extension the political party of government.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. I will admit I’m becoming a bit jaded, but even looking at the Mhairi Black waffle waffle waffle column in the National, along with Yousaf expecting Bonnie Dundee to campaign to keep bums on seats at Westminster for no good reason, bums that do nothing except occupy stools in any bar in the House of Commons, and waffle about how we’ve never been closer closer fucking closer to Indy when the evidence of my own eyes show we’re getting further and further away, makes it very unlikely I’ll get my bum up to the nearby post box to post my postal vote for next Westminster election …


    You – the SNP – have been warned

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I shall, as always, vote in the way I am persuaded will best serve Scotland’s cause. Even if I must grit my teeth and hold my nose while doing so. And have several pints of Moretti afterwards to take away the bitter taste.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Well said, yesindyref2, however, it IS pointless to warn members of a cult; indeed, even elected politicians cannot recognise that Westminster is delighted to see what one could call a right ‘Bùrach’ ( Gaelic for a right mess).


    1. Apparently a couple of thousand people have joined the SNP and some have made donations, so the SNP now think they’re doing fine and don’t need a total top to bottom clear out with many being taken to the coup and disposed of in “General waste”. The green reverse takeover could be recycled in the glass and plastic purple bin, and turned into pillows. Perish the thought.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. It’s been clear to me since 2014 that at the end ofvthe day we have to declare that we revoke the Treaty of Union. To precipitate a reaction from both England and internationally. By seizing the agenda we can short circuit lots of complex routes which will use time and end up with the current status quo.
    Two outcomes..
    1. The world and England ingores us.
    In which case we are no worse of.. the financial, tax, and social business
    Systems run as before. So nothing lost but we gain the knowledge we are less than a colony and part of an integrated state and breakaway would need to be by some sort of uprising.
    2. The world wakes up to our plight as a stateless nation and some recognise our sovereignty.. it only takes a few. Pressure is put on England to engage in separation negotiations. Wide debate in England raises a majority in favour of dumping Scotland…some with good grace some with bad grace…the end result is a seat for Scotland at the UN
    Unless we force the issue this interminable angst will consume us for ever. Carpe Dieme.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. The international community will do nothing. We cannot and must not rely on anyone other than ourselves. The international community will only respond AFTER we have restored our independence. Mostly, that response will be silence. A handful of nations may rush to formally recognise Scotland’s status. A few will quite pointedly decline to do so. Most will just wait and see.

      Only one can be expected to make a big thing out of refusing recognition. And they probably won’t.

      This fuss about international recognition is just more British state scaremongering. We do not require formal recognition in order to be independent. It is NOT a prerequisite or precondition. Not being formally recognised need not have any impact on our relationship with other nations. Formal recognition is a nice thing to have. But it is not essential. Most of the nations in the world have never formally recognised each other’s independence. This has absolutely no effect on either diplomatic relations or trade among these nations.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. It will fire a shot across the bows, and that might well be enough. It is an indication that we mean business. Most states actually do recognize each other, if only de facto, and this is a huge boost to being able to access loans, for example, from the international banks. Once accepted at this level, the relationships then become legal and legitimate through tacit usage. I do not believe that an independent Scotland would have any problems, anyway, with recognition. However, if the people – or a good proportion of them – approach the international community, we might get the cold shoulder, but our intentions will be made crystal clear. Part of our case must be that the SNP, the supposed party of independence, has won every election for a number of years, that the referendum was stymied only by an alliance of Unionist Scots and rUK voters, and that, had it been a straight contest between native Scots, Unionist and Nationalist, we would have won by a fair margin. Every avenue requires to be explored and exploited.


        1. Define “native Scot” in a way that is not going to be successfully challenged in court. You obsess about getting the the international community onside ─ for no good reason that has been shown to me ─ then commend the ethic nationalism that is best guaranteed to repulse that same international community.

          Here’s a question for you. Would these non-Scots (should you ever find a way of defining them) be allowed to vote after independence? If the answer is yes, how do you get around the inconsistency? How do you justify making what is supposed to be a democratically impeccable constitutional referendum an exception to basic democratic principles?

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Well said, Peter. I, too, believe that ALBA is just not radical enough for the changing circumstances, although I do understand Mr Salmond’s caution, to an extent. Fundyone has it right, too, in that we need to take our case to the international stage and let that be our first shot across the bows. Above all, we must establish the legitimacy of our claim that the Treaty is, and never was, fit for purpose, that it was, and continues to be, breached almost daily and that we, the Scottish people, have an absolute right in international law and domestic law to repudiate it and seek to resile it. That will establish legitimacy and legality, something our opponents harp on frequently, and remove any doubts about our right to pursue independence.

    That will lay the ground work for an independent Scottish republic. King Charles had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to modernise the monarchy by repudiating the extraneous nonsense and bringing it into the 21st century. All of the Nordic monarchies have managed to do just that, to cut state subsidies to the monarchies and to expect all members except those actually doing the job to find another source of revenue by their own hand. Massive royal residences have been trimmed to suit the 21st century in broadly ‘socially egalitarian’ societies.

    Alec Salmond is both cautious and a risk-taker at one and the same time as circumstances dictate, and he may well be letting people know that this is the future direction of travel, but we must still be cautious and take the right steps forward. He might well have decided to test the water with the GE coming up, then going hell for leather in the SE in 2026. I know it’s still three years off, but, if the SNP/Greens will do nothing to advance independence in that time – and I doubt that they will – it will be up to SALVO, etc., to fire the warning shots and try to bring the UK to the table.

    After that – and, yes, I appreciate that time is of the essence – I do believe that ALBA, or a loose alliance of similar interests, with or without the SNP – will launch a campaign never seen before in the UK. The removal of the Stone of Destiny for the coronation – whether the stone is real or otherwise – is a symbol that Scotland is still in thrall. I despair at the SNP compliance and complicity. Of course, the trials and tribulations of the SNP may well bring it down well before 2026, even before 2024, and, if so, that in itself will trigger a constitutional crisis of massive proportions, as happened in Ireland in the last century.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It is not for us to establish anything. It’s the British state’s claim which must be justified. If we once concede that our right of self-determination is questionable and must be proved in court than the British will ensure that court case is never-ending. Or at least, protracted enough to wear out any Scottish Government and allow public interest to wane. Scotland is a nation. We have the right of self-determination. All that’s required is that we use it. Act like a nation, not an applicant interviewing for nationhood.

      I really don’t understand why people want to make this more complicated than it needs to be. We assert the right of self-determination that we know to be ours in the Parliament that we have elected. And dare the British state to challenge us on OUR ground. We’d by the worst kind of fools to go and fight them on ground of their choosing or terrain that gives them the advantage.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Not having a go, Peter, but that makes as much sense as not suing for an equitable share of mutual resources in a divorce and letting the other one have everything because you don’t see why you should make the effort and, anyway, it’s up to them to share with you. It doesn’t happen, Peter. Either we get moving and actually do something or we don’t. Either we make something happen or we don’t. Would Holyrood ever try to establish our right to self-determination in any meaningful way? Really? What is, is. That is our reality. We cannot sit back and expect the UK to hand us our independence.

    Yes, we need to act like a nation, and those of us who believe in our nationhood do act like this every day, but who in Holyrood acts that way, consistently? We must assume bad faith – always – because that is what we get all the time, and not just from the UKG, but from the SNP SG. The minute we accepted devolution, we made it impossible to just take our independence.

    The only way now to establish our own group politically without involving the international community – because we have a treaty and cannot escape that reality – is to take up arms. Ireland had a treaty, too, but chose not to use it when it was breached daily. Ireland descended into war with the British, war with the North, then a civil war.

    Taking our case to the international stage forces the UK to acknowledge publicly, domestically, and internationally that a problem exists and that they will have a fight on their hands. I have no doubts whatsoever, that we will be independent soon, but not if we do not use everything at our disposal to avoid, not political confrontation, but armed confrontation. That would tear Scotland asunder. It is complicated, Peter, very complicated. Alec Salmond knows that. Supreme strategist and tactician that he is, his experience of Westminster and the British State urges caution, but just enough to avoid British troops on our streets.


    1. It isn’t complicated unless you choose to make it so. There is no worse idea than taking the fight to British ruling elite on the ground they would prefer. It makes no sense at all. It is the sort of thing Nicola Sturgeon would do. It is precisely what Nicola Sturgeon did! Look where that got us!

      I take it all the nonsense about armed conflict was to avoid answering my question about the criteria on which you base your ethnic nationalism.


  7. Back in the day – the days when it was real easy to find myself agitated as to the status of Scotland’s cause, that cause being in pursuit of self-determination – I advocated, and on more than a few occasions, that UDI, ultimately, would turn out to be the ONLY serious, worthwhile option in order that Scotland might reclaim her rightful position in the world; for taking that stance, I was villified – and how..

    Changed days right enough, Peter.. G.


    1. Indeed. But it has to be UDI done in the correct way. Hence, #ScottishUDI. This is not explicitly a declaration of independence at all. The idea is that the Scottish Parliament asserts its competence in constitutional matters primarily for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of our right of self-determination. It is a de facto declaration of independence because once you have power over the constitution then you are effectively independent.

      There are numerous reasons for doing it this way. One is that it would be very difficult for the British state to challenge this. The arguments it would have to make in open court involve realities about the Union it would prefer not to state aloud. Also, it presents the measure as being a defence of the Scottish Parliament and would therefore garner more public support. And UDI done in this way would not offend the international community because the British state has made it clear that there is no other way we can exercise our right of self-determination which is guaranteed by the UN Charter.

      This has been well thought through. You’ll note that nobody actually tries to argue against it. Instead, they pretend I’m referring to a Rhodesia-style UDI just as the British propaganda machine has conditioned them to think is the only kind of UDI there can be.

      Last year, I presented my thinking on this matter to the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group (SSRG) Conference in Dunfermline. I anticipated a hostile reception. But the gathering were nodding as I spoke and applauding loudly when I finished. This took me very much by surprise. There was no opposition. I don’t think a single person argued against #ScottishUDI. After the session, numerous people approached me to say how much they agreed with what I said. Needless to say, I was a bit taken aback by all this. It was not what I expected at all. But it did confirm in my mind that I am right about this.

      I call it the competence hurdle. All routes to independence converge on a point at which further progress depends on the Scottish Parliament doing something that the British state will deem unlawful. Unless you have a credible way of leaping this hurdle you don’t have a plan for restoring Scotland’s independence. I have concluded that there is no way to get past this point other than #ScottishUDI. Thus far, nobody has even tried to present a cogent argument that I am wrong in this.

      Currently, no Scottish party is offering a credible plan for restoring Scotland’s independence because none of them even attempt to address the competence hurdle.

      I am now down to the dregs of my second glass of wine. As these were rather generous measures, I now invoke the 3-drink rule. No more from me until tomorrow.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. HUMZA Yousaf on a doorstep in Dundee:

    “Tell me Mr Yousaf, what are you gadgies doing for Independence?”.
    “Eh? What’s that word mean?”
    “Oh. Well, what’s your priority as First Minister?”
    “Taking Westminster to court and losing loadsamoney”.
    “Ah. Well Mr Yousaf, what are the SNP going to do for Scotland?”
    “Sorry, I’ll have to ask Patrick and Lorna and get back to you on that”.

    You couldn’t make it up 🙂


  9. I am not an ethnic nationalist, Peter. I am basing my comment on the reality of 2014 and the reality of basic human rights and the rights of countries not to have their independence robbed by those who come into the country and refuse to allow the pre existing population to realise their ambitions by stifling and smothering any attempt to advance independence. The international community recognises that this happens. I have no wish to remove anyone’s vote – that would be entirely undemocratic, but I find no glory in deliberately thwarting another people’s self-determination. It is arrogant, overbearing and, frankly, repugnant and despicable, and it is something I would never do to another country if I moved there

    The international community understands that this happens, though, where vested interest overrides any rights of the population which supports independence. Quebec? New Caledonia? Catalunya? Persuasion works only if people can be persuaded, and, first, any notions of illegality have to be removed, rights established, then persuasion as to which side their bread is buttered.

    To say that I am like Nicola Sturgeon adds insult to injury because she never once tried to do anything that would have advanced independence. Brexit was the opportunity she needed, but, by that time, she was wholly immersed in ‘trans’ and telling English people to dump Brexit. I’d bet that every other country that has ever tried to gain its independence and ended up with troops on its streets thought that it would never happen. I certainly was not advocating it, but, rather, that we should do everything possible to avoid it. I hope you are right and I am wrong and that it will never happen here, but the SNPG just sold off our seabed and renewables at bargain basement prices, giving the UK even more leverage and reasons to hang on to us at all costs.

    I think our differences are far too deep. I am not a fool, Peter. I will not be commenting on your blog again, which I am sure, you will not find a loss.


    1. You are proposing to excluded people from the franchise on the basis of their ethnicity. However you package that, it’s ethnic nationalism. Or, if you don’t intend excluding them from the franchise, you nonetheless want to stop them voting in the constitutional referendum. What is this if it is not excluding them from the franchise. Or you somehow want to stop them voting because they’re not “Scots” (undefined term) but you don’t want this to be called ethnic nationalism. I think some clarification is required.

      I was quite specific about how you resemble Nicola Sturgeon. The similarity may not be general. But it is certainly there in your eagerness to proceed with a course of action despite the fact that it will inevitably be subject to a legal challenge which you will inevitably lose. No ‘international court’ is going to endorse ethnic nationalism no matter how much you insist that disallowing people a vote isn’t excluding them from the franchise and doing so on the basis of their not being “Scots” (undefined term) is not an ethnic criterion.

      If you have somehow worked out a way of preventing people whose ethnicity is ‘wrong’ from voting without either excluding from the franchise or this not being ethnic nationalism by definition, I’m sure we’d all be interested to hear it.


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.