The title of this article is a play on the name of a short story by Arthur C Clarke, The Nine Billion Names of God. First published in 1953, the story became something of a science-fiction classic, winning numerous awards and appearing in several anthologies. It must be more than half a century since I read Clarke’s tale combining Eastern religion and what was then the still relatively new science of computing. You will find a plot summary and an analysis of the story here. For the moment, it is sufficient to know that it involves the Dalai Lama tasking computer scientists with writing out all the names by which God can be referenced.
(In passing, it occurred to me that the story could not be written today. The power of computers has increased so much that the monks could now use their phones to do in seconds what would have required a huge installation ond many days back in the fifties. That period of time is crucial to the plot.)
I was reminded of Clarke’s short story as I read a transcript of the speech Humza Yousaf made at the SNP’s so-called ‘Independence Convention’ last Saturday. What brought it to mind was the artful effort which has been put into referring to a Section 30 order without actually using those words. I doubt that there are nine billion such euphemisms. But if there are, the First Minister’s speech-writers will surely discover them – although it’s not clear whether they are using a computer to do so.
This all started with Nicola Sturgeon, of course. Not for nothing was Yousaf branded the “‘continuity candidate” in the SNP leadership election-like thing triggered by Sturgeon’s hasty vacating of high office. One might wonder to what extent her much-remarked communication skill was attributable to those speech-writers given the fact that the voice may have changed, but the words could just as readily have been spoken by Sturgeon.
The problem for the person or persons being paid to write the speeches is that any particular euphemism for a Section 30 order can only be used a limited number of times. Once it has been identified as a way of avoiding saying the words ‘Section 30’ the substitution rapidly loses its effectiveness. The idea is that the words spoken can be heard by those so inclined as meaning something other than a Section 30 order while leaving the possibility that it can later be claimed that this is precisely what was meant. Yousaf requires a form of words that SNP loyalists can convince themselves – and try to convince others – doesn’t mean a Section 30 order, but which allows the FM just as plausibly to state that he has never ruled out requesting a Section 30 order when everybody has voted SNP only to see him go cap-in-hand to Sunak begging the latter’s gracious consent for a referendum that will decide nothing because it is “consultative and non-self-executing” and therefore not the formal exercise of our right of self-determination that those party loyalists will surely pretend it is.
One example of the kind of thing we’re talking about is the term “agreed referendum”. I don’t recall (and can’t be arsed finding out) which SNP spokesbladder first used this phrase. But if you stop to think about it – which is precisely what you’re not expected to do – what else might an “agreed referendum” be other than a Section 30 referendum? So, let’s take a look and see which of the nine billion names for Section 30 Humza Yousaf used. Here is the telling section of his speech.
But we know that independence is best for Scotland’s future. And we must give the people of Scotland the ability to choose that future. And if the SNP does win this election then the people will have spoken.
We will seek negotiations with the UK Government on how we give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent nation. Remember, we are not the block on a referendum – a referendum is our Plan A.
Westminster are the ones blocking it. So whether that democratic effect is a referendum or simply the general election itself, that is for them to answer.
Humza Yousaf’s speech to SNP independence convention in full
The emphasis has been added to highlight the euphemism for requesting a Section 30 order. Note too how the entire matter is to be left in the hands of the British state. The manner in which we “give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent nation” is for them to decide. Whether the election result is accepted as a vote for independence or whether there must be a referendum is, according to Yousaf, “for them to answer”. The British political elite gets to decide. They can choose to accept that an SNP win in the UK general election is the democratically expressed will of Scotland’s people. Or they can opt to ignore that vote and insist there must be a referendum. And if they insist there must be a referendum, what else might that mean but the comprehensively discredited Section 30 process? A process which allows the British state to set the conditions on which the result might be accepted. Or not, as it can only be a “consultative and non-self-executing” referendum and not the decisive democratic event that we need.
But why should the British state limit itself to these options? What force will oblige them to either accept the SNP win as a vote for independence or call it a vote for an inconclusive advisory referendum instead? What is to stop them from simply dismissing the claim that the SNP win was a vote for anything other than the party’s candidates? It is an election, after all, and not a referendum. Yousaf doesn’t explain. Nor does he explain what would constitute an SNP win. Is he talking about a majority of seats? Or is the continuity First Minister sticking with his predecessor’s insistence that it be over 50% of the vote?
Here is the big question! Why the hell is it being left up to them to decide? Why, if the people of Scotland are sovereign, does the British state get to overrule a choice made by the people of Scotland? How does Yousaf deal with this question? As it turns out, we know how he deals with it. Let me quote his own words.
Friends, with independence we will transfer sovereignty, from Westminster to the people of Scotland.
Humza Yousaf’s speech to SNP independence convention in full
Again, the relevant words are highlighted. Yousaf talks of transferring sovereignty from Westminster. This can only mean that this is where he believes sovereignty resides. Scotland’s First Minister and leader of the self-styled “party of independence” doesn’t believe the people of Scotland are sovereign. If you are not shocked by this then you bloody well should be!
Over the weekend, I have watched as SNP loyalists and apologists hail Yousaf’s speech as setting out a plan for restoring Scotland’s independence. It is not possible to know whether they genuinely believe this, or whether they are aware of the reality but want to hide it. The reality is that Yousaf’s speech is an exercise in deceit. Where it’s not plainly dishonest, it’s incoherent. Take the following, for example.
Over the coming months, we will continue laying out our prospectus for building a new Scotland. And I tell you what else we’ll be doing. We’ll be defending our national parliament from being constantly undermined, overruled and sabotaged by an increasingly erratic and overlording Westminster government.
Just think about the events of the last few weeks. We are now at the point where the Scottish Parliament can no longer even do something as simple as include glass in a recycling scheme without Westminster muscling in at the eleventh hour and sabotaging it.
And while we promote Scotland as a place to invest and do business in capital cities around the world, Westminster tries to stop us because they claim we are stepping above our station.
Humza Yousaf’s speech to SNP independence convention in full
In the first paragraph, he makes a bold claim about the SNP Scottish Government defending Holyrood against Westminster encroachment. Then in the next two paragraphs, he gives examples of how the SNP Scottish Government has signally failed to defend the Scottish Parliament! The man is an idiot!
We may mock such foolishness. But the deception being perpetrated by Yousaf is no laughing matter. Nothing less than the nation of Scotland is at stake here. The pretence is that the next UK general election will be a de facto independence referendum. My position is that it can only be any kind of independence referendum if it has independence as an outcome. What the SNP is talking about does not qualify as any kind of independence referendum for the simple reason that independence cannot ensue from even a substantial de facto ‘Yes’ vote. Independence cannot ensue because the choice of whether it does or not is left entirely in the hands of those who are determined that independence will not ensue. People are going to vote in the election believing that they are voting for independence. What they will actually be voting for is one or other of the nine billion names of the Section 30 process.
Spoiler alert! At the end of Arthur C Clarke’s short story, the computer has completed the task of printing out the nine billion names of God. As it does so, one by one the stars in the night sky begin to blink out, like candles being snuffed. It is the end of everything. If the SNP is allowed to get away with the deception it is perpetrating, then what will be extinguished is our hopes of ending the Union and restoring Scotland’s independence.
Peter A Bell 
Well that is a great defenestration of Yousaf and the “Independence Convention”.
It has always been clear that Humza Yousaf is far too half-witted to be in any position of governmental authority and he is evidently not a leader.
At least Nicola Sturgeon has/had cunning – that’s not much I know and not necessarily a compliment and perhaps she does not have as much as she and others thought as recent events might imply – but when Yousaf ‘s speaking his ‘logic’ sounds mostly idiotic, briefly imbecilic with perhaps a peak microsecond moronic moment during his utterings.
But is he really as clueless as his speeches and interviews suggest?
I do really find it increasingly difficult to believe that he and his circle of pals and mates that constitute his cabinet, advisors and speechwriters have not now settled for salvaging what they can in the form of devolution and are abandoning/have abandoned any meaningful efforts in support of Scotland’s Cause.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thanks for the warning, Peter. it is now absolutely clear, if it was not so before, that the current SNP Scottish Government will not deliver Independence, though the reasons why are complex.
I will never vote for a candidate in a Scottish election who is not prepared to sign up that s/he believes in the absolute Sovereignty of the people of Scotland and their ability to chose the form of government best suited to our needs.
Also I would not vote for an SNP party to govern in an Independent Scotland that might make Scotland unsafe for women and girls (Gender Reassignment Bill) or for anyone wanting to exercise their Right to Freedom of Speech (Hate Crime BIll).
Good to see you back writing your usual Common Sense
LikeLiked by 4 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also Sprach Zarathustra: Ubermensch; the death of God; the will to power; (and especially) eternal recurrence.
Humza’s speech was a half – twisted leminscate. His ‘vision’ (ha ha) means that all roads end up where they started: with a begging bowl. In the knowledge that ‘NO’ will be the answer to his request.
What chance now of the SNP delivering independence?
LikeLiked by 4 people
A slippery character using weasel words. Politicians, eh!
During the FM hustings he reportedly said if Nicola Sturgeon couldn’t get independence for Scotland then nobody could! He doesn’t strike me as a man with a back bone so I believe him when he pretty much said he couldn’t do it.
So what conclusions can we draw from his speech apart from the obvious one of pulling the wool over people’s eyes?
The SNP are still – STILL – thinking only of themselves, their salaries, their positions and their pensions. They’re insulting our intelligence even as we suffer astronomical costs of living, lack of funding for the NHS etc., etc.
They need kicking up the bahookie.
Unless, and until, they tell me that a vote for them means independence, no ifs, no buts, no s30, no asking permission from Westminster or anybody else, then they can whistle for my vote.
No more taking the mickey out of the Scottish people, Mr Yousaf. We get enough of that from our neighbours over the border.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I listened to the entire bloody event, via the livestream running in a browser window on my computer desktop.
On the one hand, this would have been a massive waste of my time if I had not already been actually working on my PC all day Saturday.
On the other hand, despite being a PITA inconvenience, it was also somewhat instructive to hear and contrast with what the non-payroll party ‘faithful’ had to say.
Perhaps perversely, I have passed through the despair at their stupidity, short sightedness and willingness to hear something other that what was said.
Obviously the ruling clique have no intention of doing what it would take to move for Independence.
Obviously the careerists and grifters are gonna keep right on with their current grift.
I see them. We see them.
It will not be very long until an increasing number of the Scottish Voting Public see them, as they did with ‘Scottish’ Labour.
We are now in an interregnum. Yuseless cannot rule wisely, so he will be deposed.
He will not recognise his own inadequacy and so will not go honourably.
Ruin must therefore come upon him via external forces.
If that takes until the next Westminster election, then representation by notionally indigenous supporting members is likely to fall below the symbolic 50% threshold.
If it takes until the next Scottish Parliamentary election then the Edinburgh parliament is likely to be left without a majority representing indigenous interests.
As Gramsci might well have said, The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born.
It is summer now. The weather is too hot, people go off on holiday.
It is the ‘silly season’ in the press.
Nothing will change.
Events will ‘suddenly’ (we all see it coming) overtake the current stasis.
Those who can act Must act. There is no other course left.
SNP members MUST ACT.
Otherwise their party is lost. Ruined. Finished.
Another locus of power must arise.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Graeme McCormick was one of the few small rays of hope speaking at the podium.
I have clipped up his contribution here.
LikeLike
Thanks for that. 🙂
I am guessing that you took that clip by pointing a camera at your screen?
Instead of taking a ‘physical’ screen capture you can take a digital copy by downloading any youtube video using free software:
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp#installation
If you are on windows then you will want this one:
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/releases/download/2023.06.22/yt-dlp.exe
command line options are here:
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp#usage-and-options
you can specify the start time by adding the argument &t=xxx to the end of a youtube URL.
where xxx is a number of seconds offset from the start of the video.
e.g. &t=18716 like this:
https:// www. youtube. com /live/qW301VMRzKs?feature=share&t=18716
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks
LikeLike
What matters is that you recorded the clip and shared it. thanks and well said Graeme McCormack for telling it like it is.
Lets hope some of them listen.
LikeLike
Stirring stuff.
Tho there’s one wee problem with just one thing he said there, about “Legal” ways.
There will never, ever, ever, be any Westminster considered “Legal” way to Independence.
And I’ve said many a time, the MPs should’ve have walked out Westminster ages ago.
June 2016 being the main time to leave.
SNP leadership failed us all, abysmally back then.
Sorry to say, but Alex Salmond was also a part of that failure at the time!
We still hope he will see some sense today, however.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Trust me! I could have said a lot more about that speech. The bit you mention is just one of many gaffes. The full catalogue would have made for very tedious reading.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Fair point, but at least this is opens the debate beyond the endless pointless platitudes and endorsements of a steady as she goes, no change, doomed strategy.
Also heartened that the main point got a very warm sounding welcome from the audience.
LikeLike
I think we must be referring to different speeches.
LikeLike
Once again, thanks for posting these clips.
It is a useful addition to the conversation.
People will see them, and may then think about the issue(s).
I thought it might be useful to be explicit here about Graeme McCormicks 2 points from the Scotland Act:
The first is the basis on which it is suggested that the Scottish Parliament could raise a Land Value Tax:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/part/4A/chapter/3
80I Tax on transactions involving interests in land
(1)A tax charged on any of the following transactions is a devolved tax—
(a)the acquisition of an estate, interest, right or power in or over land in Scotland;
(b)the acquisition of the benefit of an obligation, restriction or condition affecting the value of any such estate, interest, right or power.
(2)The tax may be chargeable—
(a)whether or not there is any instrument effecting the transaction,
(b)if there is such an instrument, regardless of where it is executed, and
(c)regardless of where any party to the transaction is or is resident.
The second, it is not clear to me exactly which section in particular was in his mind. ?
Perhaps the possible utility of (5) but recognising that that is tempered by the gatekeeping effect of (3)
i.e. A committed party with popular and parliamentary support could pass anything, and dare the Monarch to NOT sign off on it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/28
28 Acts of the Scottish Parliament.
(1)Subject to section 29, the Parliament may make laws, to be known as Acts of the Scottish Parliament.
(2)Proposed Acts of the Scottish Parliament shall be known as Bills; and a Bill shall become an Act of the Scottish Parliament when it has been passed by the Parliament and has received Royal Assent.
(3)A Bill receives Royal Assent at the beginning of the day on which Letters Patent under the Scottish Seal signed with Her Majesty’s own hand signifying Her Assent are recorded in the Register of the Great Seal.
(4)The date of Royal Assent shall be written on the Act of the Scottish Parliament by the Clerk, and shall form part of the Act.
(5)The validity of an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not affected by any invalidity in the proceedings of the Parliament leading to its enactment.
(6)Every Act of the Scottish Parliament shall be judicially noticed.
(7)This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.
[F1(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.]
Textual Amendments
F1S. 28(8) added (23.5.2016) by Scotland Act 2016 (c. 11), ss. 2, 72(7)
LikeLike
I would not be surprised if Charles III of England decided not to consent to a Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament setting up an Annual Land Value Tax of some sort.
That would cause an interesting constitutional issue, particularly as we can correctly claim that he is not King of Scots (a role not filled since the time of Queen Anne) as he has not sworn the coronation oath in Scotland.
I rather hope that this might happen.
LikeLike
We are drifting into fantasy politics again. Which is a symptom of frustration.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this link. Graeme is one of the good guys.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not been in for a bit Peter, good to see you’re still posting, no matter what some of those b*stards say, you’re an asset to the cause keep them coming.
Good article.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alsa, alas!!
Looking thru some of the comments from others, there is a fair degree of gullibles out there!
Yet at same time, there is also great confusion as well.
We have a bunch of folks who now really believe Humza is intending to by pass the Section 30 route. Paul Kavanagh is one such person and writes telling us so.
We have seen the comments of others believing same thing.
However, the First Minister has made it very clear, he leaves it all up to London to decide, and yet, he doesn’t tell us how he will make London do as he says he wants it to do, or what Independence folks thinks he intends to do.
What will be the First Minister’s response when they say “No” again?
He didn’t tell us on Saturday and left that one up in the air, at Dundee, tho we do him tell us in recent weeks that he wouldn’t do anything, but just girn off again at London’s intransigence, and how that shows up the myth of the UK being a voluntary Union.
What good is that to anyone?
The fact we have folks thinking so differently about his ideas, is as you say here, a fraud upon the Scottish ppl. And as I’ve said previously, he is turning out to be worse than Nicola Sturgeon in his approach.
Also his insistence it must only be how many votes SNP get, and not the wider YES vote, is not being wise, either. The fact he had this meeting in Dundee the same day there was to be large Independence demo at Stirling, was telling.
Some are of the opinion, the First Minister doesn’t have a clue what he is doing, and they may be correct, but others see it rather differently, He must know what he is doing. It takes some skill to manage to be so duplicitous and allow others to have widely differing views on what he really meant, in this manner.
It is barefaced electioneering, and that is what Nicola Sturgeon excelled at in a big way. She managed it because she got the trust of so many. But that same trust is gone now, and Yousaf is nowhere near as popular. And the more he talks on his ideas for Independence, the less trust he gets, and the more confusion he causes.
With such vagueness, and causing so much confusion, and actual downright deliberate deception, for that is what this amounts to, how can SNP expect the voters to go for them and so get those necessary Independence votes it needs?
There must surely be MPs/MSPs in SNP who see this, and they had better do something about it, otherwise, they may find themselves ex Parliamentarians before too long!
LikeLiked by 3 people