First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, Humza Yousaf said in his recent address to the party’s much-vaunted ‘Independence Convention at the Caird Hall in Dundee,
We will seek negotiations with the UK Government on how we give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent nation.
Humza Yousaf’s speech at the Convention on Independence
The Alba Party website says,
Thus, preparations need to be done on what to do when an election is won. The focus should then be on how the Westminster Government can be forced into independence negotiations.
Scotland’s Strategy
To coin a phrase, would you look at the state of them! Pathetic!
Make no mistake! Both statements refer, however obliquely, to the Section 30 process. Both statements defer to Westminster. Both statements are casually contemptuous of the sovereignty of Scotland’s people. Both statements say in essence, AFTER the people have Scotland have voted for independence, we will ask the British government whether and how we might honour that democratic choice.
Both these statements come with a preamble littered with bold, assertive rhetoric. Both these statements represent the point at which the posturing cannot be maintained and the faux courage evaporates. Both these statements amount to an admission that both these parties – and therefore the vast majority of nominally pro-independence politicians – put Westminster above the people of Scotland. The people whose sovereignty they find it expedient to proudly proclaim when they are appealing for votes, but which they obsequiously deny rather than risk the ire of imperious Britannia.
As well as demonstrating the tenuousness of its commitment to the principle of popular sovereignty, the Alba Party statement is also an admission that they have absolutely no idea how to proceed to the dissolution of the Union and the restoration of Scotland’s independence. Not a clue!
Angus MacNeil, in his letter advising that he will not be rejoining the SNP’s Westminster group when his suspension expires, has this to say about his erstwhile colleagues in Edinburgh.
The Scottish Government went to the Supreme Court a year ago utterly clueless about how to pursue independence, left the Supreme Court utterly clueless about how to pursue independence.
Angus MacNeil MP on Twitter
While we should welcome such uncommon honesty from a politician and the not inconsiderable bravery required to speak this truth aloud, we must lament the damning verdict Angus delivers on the SNP Scottish Government.
In summary, one lot doesn’t have a clue; the other lot is clueless. These are the politicians and parties we have selected to fight Scotland’s cause on our behalf. These are the people to whom we have entrusted Scotland’s future. These are the people we have chosen to rely on for the defence of Scotland’s democracy; Scotland’s distinctive political culture; Scotland’s identity as a nation; Scotland’s very existence as a nation!
What kind of fools are we to tolerate such contemptible timorousness; such pusillanimity; such treachery?
What kind of people have we become?
Peter A Bell 
So many among us, including many supposedly pro-Independence politicians, compare Scotland to Ireland and Scottish folk to Irish people.
The truth is somewhat different: where the Scottish ask and plead the Irish demanded and took.
While we talk and sing about having “fought and died” for our wee bit land centuries ago the reality today is that “we boast then we cower” and beg for a piece of what’s already ours.
LikeLiked by 7 people
We have become spineless like the SNP ‘leadership’, if you can call it that.
The Scots have an infinite capacity for absorbing insults, put-downs, misinformation, lies, underhandedness and the theft of our natural resources by the British state whilst our people live in relative poverty and our NHS and other institutions are massively under funded. It’s a complete mystery to me that we put up with this situation. Why the independence dial isn’t greater than a mere 50%-ish is beyond my understanding.
I had hoped Angus MacNeil’s statement would be the kick up the SNP’s bahookie I have been hoping for but if James Dornan speaks for the SNP hierarchy, and is not merely running off at the mouth, then I’m sorely disappointed. From my reading of his comments, they have taken their heads out of the sand only long enough to shrug their collective shoulders and announce that Angus ‘isn’t one of us’. That’s him and his concerns dismissed out of hand, then.
As for the s30 nonsense – no more of this, please, SNP and Alba. It’s quite pathetic and embarrassing for a once proud nation. You might not mind going cap in hand to Westminster to ‘negotiate’ but there’s plenty of us squirming every time you refer to s30 even if, by design, it’s not entirely clear that’s what you mean.
Tell Westminster Scotland’s had enough and to eff off instead. Show some bloody leadership before it’s too late.
I never thought it possible but I actually feel worse about the prospects of independence than I did on 19 September 2014 and, believe me, that was a pretty shite day.
LikeLiked by 7 people
The “dial” hasn’t moved on pro-Independence sentiment because there is no focused and concerted campaign to shift it.
There’s talk … and talk …. about ‘visions’, ‘acting like your living in the early days of a new country’ and assorted mumbo-jumbo.
But none of our leaders are doing anything to inspire belief that we will actually become Independence because none among them are describing any mechanism by which it may be achieved.
Until people believe that there is a realistic possibility of Independence happening they will not think hard about the subject, preferring to get on with their lives and the daily challenges, especially at the moment, that face them.
LikeLiked by 5 people
duncanio “The “dial” hasn’t moved on pro-Independence sentiment because there is no focused and concerted campaign to shift it.” and quite honestly even before 2014 Alex Salmond’s snp didn’t do it either , THAT campaign was all about the heart, NO education NO information NO destruction of WM claims, NO provision of comparisons of how the ongoing THEFT of our resources are benefiting WM coffers against what Scotland is actually GRANTED , NO official printed material to show voters the reality of the boundless resources Scotland is endowed with and is stolen every day , it was up to individual independence supporters like Zarkwan and others to produce flyers that exposed our bounty
LikeLiked by 4 people
I agree TW that the campaign in 2012-2014 was, let’s say, incomplete. But at least there was one.
The fruits of this can be shown in the change in the level of support was illustrated in the by average of opinion surveys for YES over the period in the run-up to Referendum Day itself and in the final actual poll itself:
2012 37.83% (8 surveys)
2013 39.73% (27 surveys)
2014 44.60% (69 surveys, Pre-Referendum: Salmond)
2014 44.70% (Referendum Result)
Since 18th September 2014 the picture is somewhat different:
2014 50.08% (3 surveys, Post-Referendum: Salmond)
2014 50.67% (2 surveys, Post-Referendum: Sturgeon)
2015 48.91% (20 surveys)
2016 47.68% (25 surveys)
2017 45.25% (25 surveys)
2018 45.66% (15 surveys)
2019 47.55% (14 surveys)
2020 53.05% (23 surveys)
2021 49.69% (52 surveys)
2022 49.46% (28 surveys)
2022 47.28% (15 surveys, Sturgeon)
2022 48.09% (16 surveys, Yousaf)
YES support has oscillated but the underlying level since quarter 4 has remained roughly the same, perhaps a couple of points lower at present. (I believe that even the uptick in quarter 4 2014 was due to residual momentum generated by the Referendum Campaign, maybe fueled by the British Prime Minister’s EVEL announcement on 19th September 2014).
So a campaign, even an imperfect one, does have an impact. I’m not saying that it would have the same impact that it did very clearly have in 2012-2014 but you can’t generate momentum without one – it makes people have to THINK about the question as if it was a real, rather than merely a hypothetical, thing.
Any campaign in the future might find it difficult to make converts to YES because they are harder nuts to crack. On the other hand there is much more ammunition with which to engage the public. This should be used to stress the anomalous nature of the Union, the normality of nation-state status, the lying outcomes of BTs broken promises, the current and likely future miserable economic and social plight of the UK and the potential prosperity of an Independent Scotland (the latter being the 2014 ‘positive’ campaign).
[All of the percentages quoted above can be derived from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2014_Scottish_independence_referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence%5D
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So a campaign, even an imperfect one, does have an impact. I’m not saying that it would have the same impact that it did very clearly have in 2012-2014 but you can’t generate momentum without one – it makes people have to THINK about the question as if it was a real, rather than merely a hypothetical, thing.”
Clearly, what is needed is a different campaign. The Sturgeon/SNP approach that has been the Scottish Government’s preference for ten years or more obviously stopped being effective in 2014. Maybe earlier. The idea that we should just do the same but better is almost infantile in its silliness. You will note that ‘better’ is defined only as producing more and more economic statistics and the odd bit of evidence that some obscure EU politician or official has said something nice about Scotland. The ‘Holy Grail’ for as long as anyone can remember is something called ‘The Right Message’. Much like ‘The One Truth’, this perfect ‘message’ does not exist, never has existed and never will because it can’t. It is a genuine impossibility to craft a complex political message that will have universal appeal. And it gets more impossible – if that were possible – with every topic that is added to the message. The only way you can even get close to the perfect message is by having one subject and keeping the message concise.
A referendum is not an election. To fight a referendum campaign as you would an election campaign is stupid. A referendum is a single-issue vote. It is binary. Why would any sane, sober and sensible person think it a good idea to fight a multi-issue (election) campaign for a single-issue democratic event?
A referendum is defined by the question. The form of the campaign is dictated by the question. The 2014 referendum was about the wrong question, in three clear senses. The question ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ made independence the contentious issue. But independence is normal. It is the default status of all nations. A nation can only have a status other than independence if another status displaces independence. This imposed status – even if the population has agreed to its imposition – has the be hald in place by various means because the tendency always will be to revert to independence. The Union is the constitutional anomaly. It is the Union which should have been the subject of the question.
The second way in which the 2014 referendum question was wrong is that it addressed a contested concept – independence. A referendum is binary. It cannot possibly deal with either multiple issues or concepts which might be understood differently by different people. There was and is no single, concise and fixed definition of independence. Ask 100 people what independence means and you’ll get 101 different responses. The issue being thus ill-defined, there could be no clear idea of what would ensue from a Yes vote. A referendum doesn’t only have to produce a result, it has to produce a decision. Voters have to know as exactly as possible what actually happens as a direct consequence of their vote should they be in the majority.
It was the same for a No vote, of course. There was no clear and fixed definition. No authoritative answer to the question: What does No mean? Initially, we were told a No vote was a vote for the status quo. As the campaign went on, however, a No vote came to mean a vote for any of a number of things – more devolution, devomax (itself never defined) or some kind of federalism. The difference, of course is that while this vagueness and ambiguity was a massive disadvantage for the Yes campaign, it suited the anti-independence campaign perfectly. No voters didn’t care what ensued anyway. So lang as the Union was preserved, they were content to have the British state do whatever it wanted to and/or with Scotland.
The third way the question was wrong is that it wasn’t even the question that was campaigned on. The question on the ballot paper may have been ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’, but the question that defined the campaign was ‘Can Scotland survive as an independent country?’. The Yes campaign was obliged to PROVE that Scotland would be economical sound as an independent nation. The No campaign merely had to engineer doubt. Something they could do with ease having the British media onside and the resources of the British state at its disposal.
Only a question about the Union can be truly binary, as required by a single-issue referendum. The Union either is, or it isn’t. Scotland is either in the Union, or it is out. Binary.
If the lessons of the 2014 referendum are learned – which they certainly have not up to now – then a new referendum would be built around the binary of acceptance or rejection of a specific and detailed proposal to #EndTheUnion. This proposal should already have been accepted by the Scottish Parliament and should be presented to the public in three forms, the full text; a simplified text and a precis concise enough to be on the ballot paper. The question would be something like, ‘The Scottish Parliament has passed a proposal to #EndTheUnion. Do you accept this proposal?’ YES/NO.
It goes without saying that the campaign which this approach would engender would be very different from that for the 2014 referendum. In many ways, it would be the opposite. It would be the kind of campaign which might reach parts of the electorate the first one didn’t. It would force people to rethink the issue. The polls are static because everybody has already made up their mind about the matter. If we hope to change any of those minds on the No side, we must force them to revisit the issue as it has been reframed.
This, in part at least, is how we win. Why are none of our politicians talking about such things?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You make a rational argument with which I am in agreement.
I mentioned that it is the Union that is the anomaly so it is this that should be scrutinised. It therefore follows that this be the subject of the question posed.
Any campaign should be customised in order to appeal to different segments of the population so as to maximise the outcome for YES. The messages cover a) Better Together lies from 2014 as evidenced by subsequent events – Project Black, b) dismal outlook for UK going forward – Project Fear and c) normality and prosperity of nation-state status – Project Promise. Only c) bears any relationship to what was the entire campaign in 2012-14.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The headline message is that the Union is bad for Scotland. You can then go on to explain how bad it is and give illustrative examples. But ALWAYS come back to the headline message. Everybody involved in the campaign should have that message tattooed on their brain.
We clearly will not get the additional votes we need by trying to persuade people to the Yes side. We’ve done that to death, achieved as much as can be achieved and gone on to make folk sick of hearing about this or that ‘vision’ of independent Scotland that comes across as no more than wishful thinking. It is long past time we added the second half of the campaign which was missing in the 2014 campaign and still doesn’t enter into SNP thinking on the matter – the negative campaign. We’ve done the campaign for. Now we need to do the campaign against. You will not persuade people who are reluctant to move merely by pointing to a place they might want to go. You have to leave where they are.
The analogy I use for the SNP’s strictures on negative campaigning is a commander telling his generals on the day before a major advance not to use their artillery for fear the noise might annoy the neighbours. It’s a little more eloquent than saying it is fucking stupid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think my a) and b) are the part of the campaign against the Union which is detrimental to Scotland. The c) bit tells people that Independence is normal and, therefore, the Union is abnormal.
So the overall message is that the Union is bad for Scotland and is, in any case, an abnormal state of affairs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peter, you have hit the nail on the head with your headline and your final question! In order to regain independence, we, the people, have to radically change our timid demeanour and blind indifference to our fate.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree about the unneccessarily wishy-washy language:
“We will seek negotiations with the UK Government on how we give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent nation.”
Better would surely be:
“We will START negotiations with the UK Government on IMPLEMENTING Scotland becoming an independent nation within a year.” Make that 12 months, sounds more formal and definitive!
But the end effect would be the same – negotiations should take place, same as in 1921 between UK and the empowered negotiators to form with agreement the Irish Free State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty
That’s all that’s needed just now, no threatening “and if you don’t we’ll **** make sure the whole **** world knows you’re a load of **** **** **** “. THAT could reduce support by the rest of the world. No harm in letting on that a refusal to negotiate would lead to further action.
Solicitors will tell you – firm, polite and concise. You don’t have to say “How are you old chep?”.
LikeLike
Wrong! The people of Scotland are sovereign. If the people of Scotland vote to end the Union and restore independence, that is and end of it. No third party or external agency or foreign power has ANY say in the implementation of that decision. When the people have spoken, the Union is ended and Scotland’s independence restored FROM THAT MOMENT. All that is left is a tidying-up job for the lawyers, politicians and diplomats. They are NOT “IMPLEMENTING Scotland becoming an independent nation”, They are dealing with the implications of a decision that has already been made.
You’re really not getting the concept of sovereignty at all, are you?
LikeLiked by 4 people
“You’re really not getting the concept of sovereignty at all, are you?”
You’re really not getting the concept of International RealPolitik. Or Sovereignty for that matter.
From the article which I guess you didn’t read:
“… was an agreement between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and representatives of the Irish Republic that concluded the Irish War of Independence.”
As Duncanio says: … the Irish demanded and took“, and indeed they did, but it still ended up with negotiations, which led to a treaty.
You’re blindsided by this Section 30 thing, which has absolutely nothing to do with such independence negotiations, absolutely nothing; even the Scotland Act itself is totally irrelevant. That as has been proven is only about devolution, not Scotland as a Sovereign nation or Country or State.
What is relevant is the Acts of Union, and the Treaty of Union. The Scotland Act (and all its sections), are in that context, an Aberration.
LikeLike
Sorry, italics should close after “the Irish demanded and took“.
LikeLike
I didn’t read the article because we are not discussing Ireland more than 100 years ago, we are discussing Scotland now.
LikeLike
Ireland is still relevant even today, but here’s a more recent one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia
there were still negotiations before, during and after. And a treaty, the international equivalent of a handshake.
LikeLike
The Independence voters who put their trust in SNP could only vote for whomever SNP put forward.
There was no other choice for those voters.
It is the SNP who have failed the voters.
I’m not quite sure how it came to be tho, that SNP members opted for Yousaf over either Kate Forbes or Ash Regan.
Forbes might have had a better profile with the wider public, but we wonder if she was going to maintain the present SNP policy on Independence. She didn’t seem to be as enthusiastic as Ash Regan, but at least Forbes might have avoided the chaos we see today.
As for ALBA, they have become simply a more vocal advocate of the same SNP approach, and that does not serve them or us, well, at all. We had hoped for better from ALBA . We still hope for them to change their policy. Time will tell.
And thus does Angus MacNeil state a truth for all of us.
The problem we have here is that some don’t want to hear that truth.
A scroll down the comments in The National shows that, as well as comments being made by other SNP politicians.
The voters therefore have as said above, been totally betrayed by SNP to date on Independence, (not forgetting doing next to nothing on Brexit) are left with precious little now.
Who do we vote for at the next UK General Election?
As things stand, it still has to be SNP, and at same time, we vote demanding Independence, which SNP seems reluctant to go for, but yet continue to ask London permission for what they ought to be taking regardless what London says.
It is an infuriating situation!
We can only hope, and demand, that pro Independence politicians change their stance, and urgently at that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The point needs to be made that in all probability neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Scottish Government, both haltered domestic beasts of the Scotland Act which is in itself a haltered hamstrung beast of the UK Parliament, are the right ones to make a UDI. In the words of Prof Robert McCorquodale instructed by Neale Hanvey thru solicitors:
“135. There are two possible international legal routes available:
…
b. Make a unilateral declaration of independence. This requires a clear majority of people representing Scotland to indicate their approval but it should not be done by the Scottish Parliament, as the latter is within UK domestic law. This could be done, for example, through a convention of elected and diverse representatives from across Scotland with a clear majority in favour. This approach relies for its effectiveness on the recognition by States of the Statehood of Scotland.”
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/albaparty/pages/659/attachments/original/1687279203/OPINION_ON_MATTERS_RELATING_TO_INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_ISSUES_CONCERNING_THE_RIGHT_TO_SELF-DETERMINATION_FOR_THE_PEOPLE_OF_SCOTLAND.pdf?1687279203
It’s an opinion, and there are others I daresay. But it should not be lightly dismissed.
And THAT is all I have to say about THAT. Sun is shining 🙂
LikeLike
You still haven’t grasped the concept of #ScottishUDI. If you had, you’d know that it deals with the issue of competence in the only way possible and with the non-issue of international recognition quite effectively. The approach admittedly only sketched by Prof Robert McCorquodale makes no sense as it stands. It “relies for its effectiveness” on something it cannot possibly have until after independence has been restored. No other nation is going to recognise “the Statehood of Scotland” while it is still in question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You probably won’t read it, but others might. For instance:
“Although a political act, recognition produces legal effects in international and domestic law.”
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-58-issue-06/scotland-on-the-world-stage/
Recognition makes life easier, but is perhaps not neccessary immediately. Again, that’s one opinion, there are others.
Anyways, back to your #ScottishUDI, there’s nothing wrong with it Peter. In its bold naming it can exert a suggestive and perhaps even moderately coercive effect in consideration of Scotland as a State, so I guess the more that use the hashtag and / or the term the better.
It’s not just “UDI”, it’s “ScottishUDI”.
LikeLike
OMG!
Angus MacNeil suspended again from an independence party (so they say) for standing up for Scottish independence. What a riddy for SNP bosses. They should hang their heads in shame.
LikeLiked by 4 people
But tjhey won’t!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course they won’t.
They’ve already dismissed him from their minds. They’ll be busy choosing the SNP’s candidate for his seat at the next English (Westminster) election but he said he will stand as an independent.
They’ll be looking for someone who doesn’t want independence quite as much as he does!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mmm, from the National:
“Angus MacNeil suspended from the SNP after Westminster group row”
Why can’t they get these headlines right? HERE’s the right one:
“Angus MacNeil suspended from the SNP for supporting Independence”
It’s seriously bad when they don’t accept any criticism at all. Is the SNP autocratic dictatorship actually trying to disappear into non-existence?
SNP members – take your party back.
LikeLike
Anent Alba parties failure to deal with What to do when England says NO.
From the floor of the Alba public meeting in Edinburgh last Friday evening… I asked that very question of Jim Sillars SNP and suggested we Revoke the Treaty of Union. Jim, who I respect and admire came out with the old chestnut that route is dead duck because years ago an old establishment Lord Couper adjudged both Parliaments became defunct and became one UK parliament. Shite, if it were so then England would have had to have a Devolved parliament too….the traditions of Westminster continue as we are told for a thousand years….does not sound much like they gave up their parly. The late great Prof Neil MacCormick took a different view to Couper…as did Winnie Ewing making the point that on the opening of the Scottish Parliament….it was RE CONVENED. So basically Jim was saying…get a majority of votes then ask England again! Alex was a bit more forthcoming and to paraphrase him …Direct Action is an option. I think I picked him up correctly.
Much else Jim said was sensible if obvious and has been for years…we send emissaries to other countries seeking support informally…
And of course we would not embarrass Spain or France by asking them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In 1711 there was a vote in the London parliament (the Scottish one obviously gone at that point) to dissolve the treaty of union. It was lost by 4 votes (I’m not sure if that was votes of the whole parly or Scot’s votes). Presumably if it had passed the contract would have been torn up and we’d be free.
Today the Scottish people should give their instruction re dissolution of the ToU, then WM MP’s announce withdrawal from ToU. Neither is beyond the bounds of imagination to do without reference to ‘UK/English legality’ if we use our own effective rhetoric/propaganda?
If the SG can set up a company to deliver the DRS before the scheme has come into effect then why cant it put in place the missing elements of a nation state in anticipation?
LikeLiked by 1 person