First Minister
You are reported to have declared that there has “never been a more important time” for Scottish independence. Assuming this comment to have been made with due sincerity and full awareness of the perilousness of our nation’s predicament, may I – on behalf of all who agree with you – make a suggestion as to the action that would reflect the urgency implied by your words.
The SNP is holding an ‘Independence Convention’ on the 24th of June for the purpose of discussing and deciding(?) the way forward for Scotland’s cause. This presents an ideal opportunity to consider a bolder and more robust approach to the constitutional issue. Allow me to outline just such an approach.
Let the SNP/Scottish Government declare that the next UK general election will be contested on the basis that it is a ‘de facto’ referendum.
Let the SNP/Scottish Government further declare that this plebiscitary election shall be on the question of whether the Scottish Parliament should assert its competence in matters relating to the constitution, primarily – but not exclusively – for the purpose of facilitating the exercise by the people of Scotland of our inalienable right of self-determination; there being no other way to do so.
Let the SNP then write into its manifesto that every vote for the SNP shall be considered an affirmative (Yes) vote for the proposal outlined above.
Let the SNP then invite other Scottish political parties to write into their manifestos a similar declaration.
Let it be stated that on there being a simple majority of votes for parties and candidates campaigning in support of the proposal, the Scottish Government shall immediately submit to the Scottish Parliament a proposal that it assert its competence in the manner outlined above.
Let it be stated that the Scottish Government will then submit to the Scottish Parliament a proposal that the Union with England/UK should end and Scotland’s independence be restored, subject to this proposal being approved by a simple majority of MSPs and ratified by a simple majority of affirmative votes in a referendum on the question of ending the Union.
Let it be stated that Scotland’s MPs shall withdraw from the British parliament to participate in a National Convention (provisional title) established by the Scottish Parliament and comprising all nationally elected representatives as well as such representatives of civic Scotland as may be co-opted by the Scottish Parliament.
Let the National Convention be charged with oversight of the aforementioned referendum and drafting of a provisional constitution among such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned by the Scottish Parliament.
Let it be declared that the referendum will be entirely made and managed under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament and other Scottish democratic institutions as deemed appropriate by the Scottish Parliament.
Let it be stated that the referendum will be impeccably democratic and satisfy all criteria to be considered a formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination and that the outcome will therefore be regarded as the expression of the settled will of the sovereign people of Scotland, which none may gainsay.
With respect
Peter A Bell
Peter A Bell 
”
Let it be declared that the referendum will be entirely made and managed under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament and other Scottish democratic institutions and appropriate.”
There is something no right about that ‘and appropriate’.
Perhaps you may wish to edit that line (and delete this comment)?
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Corrected. Going to blame Grammarly for that one. I’m trying it out, but it is causing problems because it is entirely geared toward business writing. Anyway, I appreciate the heads-up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep! That’ll do!
LikeLike
Are you sure you want to end thus, Peter? ” … and that the outcome will therefore be regarded as the expression of the settled will of the sovereign people of Scotland, which none may gainsay.
If the result was 50%+1 for “No”?
Please consider.
LikeLike
It won’t be. It is easier to win support for the Scottish Parliament than for independence. I’m confident that with the right campaign, we could achieve 60% or more for Yes. If we don’t achieve that in these circumstances and for this proposal, we were never going to win a so-called independence referendum anyway.
And, of course, it isn’t really a choice. We have to move now. If we don’t, things such as your UN approach will be killed stone dead. When the constitution is rewritten to create a new ‘Great Britain’, it will put us in a position similar to Catalonia. The UN will no more help Us than it did them. They will not interfere in the internal affairs of any member state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Within the political sphere, I see and perceive a lot of ‘leaders’ – or, to be more accurate, ‘heid bummers..’ What I do NOT see, that which is entirely conspicuous by its’ absence, is ‘leadership..’
‘This is the cudgel; I propose to pick it up – and run with it..’ Makes far more sense to deploy said cudgel – than to leave it lying around in some dark corner, gathering dust, until Westminster lands upon its location . . . and commences to deploy IT against US..
LikeLiked by 1 person
A majority of seats is all we need for a mandate to hold a referendum. Lets not put hurdles in our way that the other parties dont have to cross. Keep it simple. Win a majority of seats then use that as the mandate to hold a ref without UK consent. That is an achievable goal.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your letter, which has been passed to me by the first Minister for reply.
All suggestions are most welcome and will be given appropriate consideration. In this case, the number of your proposals necessitates setting aside a considerable amount of time, and a substantial number of people, to properly evaluate them.
The Independence Minister has therefore decided to set up an inter-departmental committe chaired by himself, as some of your suggestions will impact on many other departments which will want to be in a position to make direct representations on their feasibility. It is anticipated that that a total of 50 staff in addition to Ministers should be sufficient.
A sub-committe will be necessary to scrutinize the financial aspects which will be chaired by the deputy First Minister. A further 30 staff will also be required to service this work.
The Lord Advocate will have to devote her time to the legal and political implications of what the inter-departmental committee’s conclusions are, and 20 staff will work on this.
You will understand that your suggestions are not the only ones under considerationand it is difficult therefore to give an indication as to when work on yours can commence, but a provisional date of 1st April 2030 has been pencilled in, with a final reporting date of no later than 1st January 2050.
Kind regards,
LikeLiked by 4 people
“shall immediately submit to the Scottish Parliament a proposal”
I think you need to be specific – is this a Bill or a Motion?
LikeLike
We have to leave something to the politicians. We have to let them be able to lay claim to the process.
LikeLike
Seems reasonable. When the work’s all done they can take the credit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fine, noble, honourable aspirations, Peter; entirely as it should be – namely, the way forward.. We both know, however, that little if any of your comments will land in or upon ‘fertile soil..’ To do so would go against the collective mindset, the grain, of the SNP – ‘we know best..’ G.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peter, have you actually sent it to Humza?Personally, I’d be for going it a lot sooner.
They could use the debacle over the bottle deposit scheme as a good excuse to begin with!
I was thinking of sending a wee letter of my own too.
Perhaps if many more Independence ppl sent in letters to the First Minister, demanding he gets our Parliament to end the Union, as it has been given such a Mandate just the other year, (one of many such Mandates) then maybe we might just manage to convince him to do something other than continue the present failed strategy.
I wonder if he will actually listen, and take the hint, if enough folks do write directly to him?
LikeLike
Peter, I think you unneccessarily go round the houses just once too often here. You firstly propose a de facto referendum where a majority of votes in favour of independence supporting parties invests the Scottish Parliament with the powers of an independent parliament. So at this point you have had your referendum (to coin a phrase) , so why does the parliament then need to hold another referendum and what is its purpose ?
LikeLike
A plebiscitary election is never going to suffice. You can tell me all the stories you like about how the majority of countries achieved independence without a referendum and blah! blah! blah! but it’s all totally irrelevant. This is Scotland leaving a political Union with England-as-Britain in the first quarter of the 21st century. No other set of circumstances is comparable, The political culture is such that only a proper binary constitutional referendum can possibly be decisive and conclusive. Trying to declare independence on the back of a de facto referendum will only lead to years of wrangling. It would be effortless for the British state to find grounds on which to challenge this. The challenges would end up in the UKSC because the constitution would still be reserved to Westminster. The British challenge would all but certainly be successful Scotland’s cause would be set back by decades.
Scotland’s independence will only be restored by the Scottish Government working through the Scottish Parliament with the consent of the Scottish people. That consent must be obtained in a constitutional referendum that will stand as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination. The criteria for this are not difficult to deduce, It must be totally made and managed in Scotland by Scotland’s democratic institutions. It must be binary. The options must be distinct, defined and deliverable. The process must be impeccably democratic. And so on.
There is only one way such a referendum can happen and that is if the Scottish Parliament has the necessary competence. There is only one way the Scottish Parliament can acquire the necessary competence – by asserting it. By taking it!
If there is to be a de facto referendum this is best used as a means of obtaining a mandate to assert the aforementioned competence. Such a mandate already exists in the form of the mandates for holding a new referendum. But this only implies a mandate to assert the competence of the Scottish Parliament because this is the only way that referendum can happen. So it is as well to make the mandate explicit using the plebiscitary election that is going to happen anyway.
This has a number of advantages. It should be easier to get a majority Yes vote when the question concerns the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey has long indicated that there is far greater support for the Parliament than for independence. Also, it would be very difficult for the British state to challenge a Yes vote in such a de facto referendum. All of this I have explained before.
Once we get an affirmative vote in that referendum on the competences of the Scottish Parliament the Scottish Government must move immediate to propose the dissolution of the Union subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament and ratification by the people of Scotland in a referendum on that specific proposal to end the Union. If the British state challenges this at any point – and that is a big ‘if’ – then they will be fighting on ground of our choosing, Again, I have detailed elsewhere the sort of argument that the situation created by this process will force the British state to make. They would be challenging our right of self-determination. Which means the case would go to the ICJ and not stop at the UKSC,
If you think about it, the advantages of doing it this way are so obvious the only surprise is that it doesn’t seem to have occurred to any of our professional politicians. It is a rational and effective solution. So it will almost certainly be rejected. In fact, it is unlikely to even be discussed anywhere other than here.
LikeLiked by 1 person