Regular readers will be aware that I don’t do knee-jerk reactions. When something worthy of comment occurs, I prefer to reflect on it rather than react in the heat of the moment. This is never more the case than when I am affected by events and developments on some personal level. If I am enthused or, more commonly, angered by something, I hope to minimise the impact of this on my analysis. I try to be dispassionate. That is not always possible. I confess at the outset that I find it difficult to look back at the events of Saturday 22 July 2023 with a cold eye. The launch of the Stirling Directive was a hugely significant development for Scotland’s cause. I cannot help but be affected by it.
Not that you would be aware of the events’ significance if you were relying on the ‘Scottish’ media for information. The first of the day’s two events was a press conference to which all the media were invited. At the very least, notice of the press conference was put out well in advance. As far as we are aware, not a single representative of the ‘Scottish’ media turned up. Neither can I find any report of the event anywhere. Not even The National attended or reported on the launch of what I could readily argue is the most important development in the constitutional battle since the 2014 referendum. (Some would argue that it is the only development of any note since the first referendum. An argument it’s not easy to refute.)
Not that the Stirling Directive was launched to an empty room. On the contrary, it was standing-room only by the time proceedings commenced. The presentation was well-received and the subsequent Q&A saw a lot of probing questions asked and many informative answers given. By any measure other than the woeful apathy of the ‘Scottish’ media, the first part of the day could be counted a considerable success. The one exception to the ‘Scottish’ media boycott was the estimable Independence Live, who covered every moment of the entire day. Where would we be without them?
Video of both the press conference and the rally is available on the Independence Live website. I must warn you, however, that the sound quality of the former (below) is not up to standard due mainly to the poor acoustics in the venue.
Successful and enjoyable as the presser was, the rally was the real highlight of the day. It has to be allowed that attendance was less than breathtaking. I’m not good at such things, but I would estimate the crowd at less than 300. The weather was dreadful. Wet, windy and far from warm. That’s mid-July in Scotland. Any outdoor event is a gamble at any time of the year. But you hope that your chances of decent weather are improved by holding the event in the middle of summer. We lost that gamble in the most emphatic way possible.
Those who were there will testify that the unseasonal atrociousness of the conditions did nothing to dampen spirits. What the crowd lacked in numbers it more than made up for in enthusiasm. I have not seen this kind of exuberance very often since the height of the Yes campaign in 2013/14. There was a lot of anger in that gathering. Anger at the way our politicians have failed – or betrayed – Scotland’s cause. But it was evident that a thread of good humour ran through the anger. This was not mindless rage. It was a cold anger with more of determination about it than denunciation. There may have been no more than a couple of hundred people there, but this was the beating heart of the Yes movement revivified. It was without doubt the most hopeful experience I’ve had in getting on for nine wearying years.
The rally was remarkable too for the speeches. After I’d made a few opening remarks and warmed up the audience a bit, I went out into the crowd to listen to the other speakers. They were all excellent. And that in itself is extraordinary. I have never attended a Yes event at which all the speakers were good or better. Every one of my colleagues on the Stirling Directive project had something interesting and/or stimulating to say. And the crowd listened to every word. What heckling there was, was all good natured and positive – even if a bit intrusive at times. It was clear people were excited by the idea of the Stirling Directive and the explanations of the thinking behind it provided by the speakers.
I was supposed to wind up the rally with a few closing remarks. But we reckoned without those Yessers! After the last official speaker had left the stage, members of the audience took over. there was comedy, audience-participation, speeches and wonderful singing before it was all rounded off with a mass photo-shoot. Altogether, a superb event. And I’ve attended enough to know.
Aftermath
I spent the whole of the Sunday after the Stirling Directive launch dealing with overwhelmingly positive messages and watching reaction on social media. I tried to answer as many questions as I could. It was impossible to respond to all the supportive comments. One thing that numerous people have remarked upon is the fact that the Stirling Directive appears to have poked a stick into a veritable wasps-nest of bilious British Nationalist trolls. They were popping up everywhere with their bitter resentment of and contemptuous sneering at this assertion of the sovereignty of Scotland’s people. It is plainly evident that the British Nationalists desperately want to keep the people of Scotland in the dark about their legal and constitutional rights. I hope to disappoint them.
It wasn’t all British Nationalist nastiness. Many good points were made. Many pertinent questions were asked. A lot of the questioning concerned the matter of what happens next. Well, firstly we on the Stirling Directive Committee must work to ensure people properly understand what this initiative is about and what it is intended to achieve. Most people seem to ‘get it’. But none of us is so arrogant as to suppose we have made such a good job of explain that it is universally and fully understood. So, we have to clarify where necessary and correct any misconceptions where these arise.
The next task is to get as many organisations, parties and groups as possible to ‘affiliate with or ‘sign-up’ to the Stirling Directive. It is to be hoped that all the pro-independence parties would back it as well as every Yes group and organisation in Scotland. We are not naive enough to imagine this will happen. The politicians, in particular, are likely to be irked by the people of Scotland asserting their sovereignty. They will be quite indignant that we presume to tell them what they must do. That’s not what the people are for, as far as the politicians are concerned. We are no more than ballot-fodder meant to cast our votes and then leave Scotland’s cause – and fate – to whoever gets elected. The Stirling Directive threatens the arrangement which has suited these politicians much too well for far too long, while serving Scotland’s cause in no discernible way.
Planning for this is still being finalised, but it is hoped and intended that there will be another major event when the Stirling Directive is delivered to the Scottish Government. Provisionally, the date for this is Monday 18 September 2023. It is hoped that many hundreds of people will want to be there for this historic moment. Maybe even the ‘Scottish’ media could take an interest. If neither the First Minister nor the Minister for Independence are there to take delivery of the Stirling Directive, this would surely be regarded as an insult to the sovereign people of Scotland.
We then await the response of the Scottish Government to the Stirling Directive. The present intention is to give them until the Scottish Parliament goes into recess for the remainder of 2023. The final date for a response would therefore be Friday 22 December.
Not that we will be waiting idly. From the delivery to receipt of the Scottish Government’s response we shall be campaigning tirelessly to demonstrate mass support for the Stirling Directive for the purpose of putting maximum pressure on the politicians.
What happens subsequently depends entirely on the nature of the response the Stirling Directive elicits from the Scottish Government. Basically, it can go one of two ways. Either the Scottish Government complies with the Stirling Directive, in which case we mount a campaign for the ensuing democratic event. Or the Scottish Government refuses to comply or attempts a fudge, in which case we start fund-raising to take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). For which there has already been significant preparation.
It’s worth noting that the Scottish Government will then be faced with another choice. It can choose to join our approach to the ECHR. Or it can choose to actively or passively support the Union against the people of Scotland. That shouldn’t be a difficult choice.
What about #ScottishUDI?
Some of my readers and followers may be wondering if my support for the Stirling Directive means that I have abandoned #ScottishUDI. Be assured that I have not. I’m not sure how I could, given that I regard it, or something very like it, as inevitable. I see the Stirling Directive as moving Scotland’s cause in the appropriate direction. It is entirely compatible with #ScottishUDI because this would be further down the line.
Asserting the sovereignty of Scotland’s people will be essential whatever realistic ‘route to independence’ is taken. In theory, every single person who regards themselves as Scottish should be fully behind any effort to assert the sovereignty of Scotland’s people. We’ll see.
More to come
There will be more from me on the Stirling Directive over the coming weeks and months. I am, of course, open to questions and comments below-the-line and unlike many bloggers I undertake to respond to as many of these as I can.
In closing, allow me to stress once again the fact that I see the Stirling Directive as the most hopeful and constructive development Scotland’s cause has enjoyed for far too many years. I just hope others see it the same way.
Peter A Bell 
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
Well done and thanks for your – and others – efforts.
Sadly I was unable to make the events on Saturday but I have been a member of Salvo and Scottish Liberation since they were inaugurated.
I attended the Victims of The Union protest organised by Salvo outside the new British colonial HQ Queen Elizabeth House in New Street Edinburgh on 1st September 2022 when Neale Hanvey MP read out the Edinburgh Proclamation. Those at Union Jack House refused to accept both the latter and the Notice to Quit Scotland that we had intended to physically serve upon these overlords. So they were sent courtesy of Royal Mail in any case.
The response of the Scottish Government will be informative. Will they engage positively or will they dismiss and/or ignore as per our imperial masters?
In any event it is great to know that there is coordinated action in the pipeline with alternative scenarios planned depending on the time-bound response received from the Scottish Government.
I believe that the re-education of our people as to their historical and still extant sovereign rights – enraging them with sufficient cold-blooded anger that creates a determination to get even – together with internationalising our dilemma via ECHR plus the #ScottishUDI process (or some variant thereof) for demonstrating the popular will to be a powerful combination that has the best chance of leading to the restoration of Scotland’s full self-government and return to independent nation-state status.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I was at the rally and I totally agree that it was a very positive ‘vibe,’ (despite the small numbers and lousy weather – although I guessed the number of attendees at around 300).
ALL of the speakers were excellent and all offered something different but interesting and inspiring. It really felt like the beginning of a new era in our struggle to regain independence for our country and raise our people to their rightful place in the world.
There is a long way to go and I am not optimistic that our elected representatives will welcome this development with open arms, I imagine most will try to extinguish this candle that we lit last Saturday since it threatens their collective ego and sense of importance.
However, as Peter Gabriel said in his anthem Biko, ‘You can blow out a candle but you can’t blow out a fire, when the flames begin to catch the wind will blow them higher.’
Keep up the good work. We are on the right side of history and we’re finally taking the fight to the enemy – including the enemy within.
To finish with another quote, Napoleon famously said, ‘On s’engage et puis on voit!’ which I translate as ‘We engage and then we see what happens!’
I am with you all the way.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I like that Napoleon quote. It might better translate as “Sometimes, you have to just fucking go for it!”
LikeLiked by 3 people
He also said, ‘Victory belongs to the most persevering’
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Stirling Directive”
It’s a good name, evocative.
As a bit of background about the lack of media response, I posted about this last year, Leask in an article including Salvo in “the ragged fringes of the Yes movement”, and totally dismissing the Claim of Right, unlike several “constitutional law” experts, including some on the other side.
“David Leask: Does the 1689 Claim of Right really give Scotland a Union opt-out?”
https://archive.is/wip/pKE6K
Anyways, so far I’ve deliberately stayed mostly away from this as I did my own research back in Indy Ref 1, have done some since, and want to reform my own opinions before engaging and hence being influenced. But what I did see seemed eminently sensible, mostly. Perhaps I’ll make some “constructive” criticism here, which SNP enthusiasts elsewhere take offensive and inventive offence at š
I daresay you’ll get to call me “fool” occasionally …
… but at least you don’t delete comments that contradict your meme.
Monday 18 September 2023 is a possible, I’d be anon as I get stalked by weirdos for some odd reason (must be my natural odours), IR1 a Herald unionist poster must have spent a long time trying to track me down in real life, unsuccessfully, but you’ll know me, I’ll be the one with the YES badge and Saltire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How much money will it take to get the ECHR to look at it
LikeLike
That is being looked at. All I can say for now is that I was surprised to find how much preparatory work has been done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Peter. Iād love to get involved so please feel free to contact me. I have already joined the movement.
LikeLike
and even 63 and 64.
Sigh. Hit the x on this mostly finished post moving around the tabs. Oh well. Save as you go! It’s a pain I have to reformat the cut and paste pdfs.
Right, some initial squiggly thoughts. Drawing for a base on McCorquodale got by Hanvey, basically because this dude put his reputation on the line and the opinion goes into some deep deep stuff. From 126 of:
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
“An issue arises as to whether a treaty in 1707 can be interpreted in light of contemporary international legal rules. The ICJ in its Advisory Opinion on Namibia clarified this issue:
[A]n international instrument has to be interpreted and applied within the framework of the entire legal system prevailing at the time of the
interpretation.”
And that’s vital because it presumably means the 1706 Treaty CAN potentially be considered under such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which was signed and ratified by the UK), despite this from that Convention:
“Article 4
Non-retroactivity of the present Convention
Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States”
I think Salyers has talked about that Convention, but I can see some articles, 49, thru to 60 and beyond, and even 63 and 64 that are very interesting.
Hope this makes sense, 2nd time of typing it’s disjointed.
Anyways, it means any “amateur” theory has not yet been disproofed.
LikeLike
2nd link: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
Click to access 1_1_1969.pdf
LikeLike
12th May 1999 opening of first session, Winnie Ewing “the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened“.
but Queen Elizabeth 1st July 1999, official opening: “… to mark the point when this new Parliament … new political structures to respond more effectively to democratic aspirations. This new Parliament … As we move into a new era of government in Scotland”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/scottish_parliament_opening/382982.stm
Note carefully “new” as opposed to “adjourned and reconvened”.
And then add that the very first UK white paper was the infamous Crawford & Boyle Annex A, with the red herring everyone focused on: “… England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland. ”
Indignation, shock horror, part of England! But the real meat was this:
“In particular, the Treaty of Union, considered with or without the Acts of Union, does not currently sound as a treaty in international law.”
The thing is, since it was important for the deeply experienced and devious British State to point out these assertions, and indeed they would have had the depth of knowledge to understand these weaknesses in their act, then they have also highlighted what they deeply fear:
Firstly that there is an actual live Treaty of Union, sounding in international law, which could indeed be declared null and void, and secondly that the Parliament of 1707 which could have met and repealed the Act of Union with England before it came into effect on 1st May, was continued in 1999 by the democratic election. Which would mean that our Parliament still has powers over the act of union with England – and isn’t bound by the Scotland Act at all.
Sorry it’s very random, finished a big order and just chilling out before back to the hectic grind. The joys.
LikeLike
Okey-doke, having splurged my thing while fresh in the mind I had another look at Salvo at last, this led me to the Act of Salvo, and then to that old resource, Electric Scotland for this which I remember:
https://electricscotland.com/history/articles/treaty.htm
1994 I think.
“After the Act of Union was passed on the 16th of January 1707 there was one further item of business, as there was at the end of every session of the Scottish parliament and that was the Act of Salvo (salvo jure cujuslibet – let whosoever sue the Crown). ”
however, then this:
“The question of whether the Scottish parliament dissolved itself or merely suspended itself has been raised recently but it has no dynamic relevance.”
which I disagreed with, but then this:
“As a headless chicken it had no more the right to dissolve itself than it had the right to risk Scottish sovereignty in the way it did, especially as a result of bribery. Constitutionally, it can be ordered to re-convene as soon as the People find their voice.”
Bribery indeed, but also personal safety and family threats. Anyways, memories of the heady days, the 90s and the naughties, when anything was possible as long as it was the will of the People of Scotland.
And hey, guess what, it still is possible. And to be honest, though I have to pay deference to established “gold standard” paths to Independence, I’d way prefer it if we, the people, just told the UK to get stuffed.
Mmm, I enjoyed that š
LikeLike
Have to say it’s been a while since you have put together such a coherent comment, much of which I completely agree with. Long may it continue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You and one other, possibly plus one, were the only ones interested.
LikeLike
I’m talking about that other place of course (resistance is futile we are the Borg) which I’m finished with at last thanks be to eff, not this forum where you can express “contrary” views and have them left in place.
LikeLike
It’s complicated and the legal stuff ties everyone in knots.
The UK has deeper pockets to pay lawyers to defend lies – that’s a big advantage.
That’s why the desired outcome for us – the people who fight for Scottish independence, is likely to take a long time. We are outgunned. We need to be smarter to outflank and/or outwit the enemy.
This argument is not going to be won by lawyers.
It depends on a nation rising up to protect what is theirs. It is the same now as it was in the time of Wallace and Bruce.
It is not about legal details. It is about a nation being prepared to defend itself against annihilation.
When our people understand this, we have a chance.
We have been here before.
LikeLike
This whole issue is absolutely about lawyers, courts and the legal recognition by the sovereign parliaments and people’s of the international community. It’s about putting A.V Dicey and his doctrine on trial, it’s about exposing, and putting on record westminsters deceit and malfeasance towards the people of Scotland, unlawfully stripping out wealth, our culture and our rights, it’s about opening the door to massive reparations and making sure that Scotland leaves this union territorially intact as a continuing state.
LikeLiked by 3 people
My finances are crp and I still can’t even afford a tenner to put towards SGP’s crowdfund to fund a poll on the Yes/no, and other interesting questions. But to crowdfund to take Scotland to the ICJ or ECHR if that’s the gemme, I’d find a 3 figure amount somehow and starve or do without my seven seas jointcare for a year. And do without my 1 or 2 beers a month, and rare glass of 19 grimes. And the kids could help by giving me cash for birthday, Christmas and father’s day.
We’d manage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The independence movement has pockets as deep as they need to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I noticed the lack of media cover at the event on Saturday; maybe they were scared to get themselves wet?
I was there and took many photos some of which, I have sent to the National newspaper in the hope that they would include them in an edition of the only paper that supports independence but, so far, that has not happened.
If they donāt, and not because of the quality of the images, they cannot say they are in support when they donāt cover events like this.
I live in hope that they will print themā¦
LikeLiked by 3 people
I too am awaiting some response from The National. As far as I am aware, no member of the Stirling Directive committee has been approached for comment. It’s not like we’re hard to contact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry I’m flooding the site so I’m going back one article. Should Scotland go for a financial settlement FROM the UK in its court case? Of course it should. If anything the UK should then settle quickly out of court for fear of a big settlement which could be anything between Ā£100 billion or 10 times that. As a guide to value in today’s money:
https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/1752?amount=1
Ā£1 in 1752 is worth Ā£278.22 today (2023)
Ā£1 in 1752 is worth Ā£1.73 in 1797
So a quick and dirty calculation says
Ā£1 in 1707 is worth Ā£481.54 in 2023
Which means England’s national debt of Ā£18 million for which the nobles were bribed Ā£398,085 in 1707 in direct contravention of the VCLT to get Scotland to take a share of at roughly 1/12th (Yes, today’s population, not the 1/4th of 1707) would be worth Ā£18 million * 481.54 = Ā£8.67 billion. But that would presumably be plus interest, and the mind boggles. Don’t forget the Royal Bank of Scotland was effectively formed in 1707 precisely to handle the Darien nobles and this debt of England, not Scotland.
And that’s just for starters š
LikeLike
Plenty of political spin in this, just ignore it for the dates:
https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/feature-content/our-updates/2011-2020/royal-bank-of-scotland–serving-scotland-for-almost-300-years.html
LikeLike
Sorry, made a mess of that, should have been a share of the Ā£18 million, and 1/4 of it relative to the relative populations then, meaning Ā£4.5 million for a value today of Ā£2.17 billion plus compound interest, plus later shares of debts.
Got it the wrong way around doing the detail and not standing back and looking at the forest. Whaur’s that axe?
LikeLike
The cost of colonialism over 300+ years is many times greater than the initial bribes peyed tae oor mankit elites.
LikeLike
I must have missed the reply button below.
LikeLike
Even that isn’t to be sniffed at. At 3% annual interest rate, Ā£1 in 316 years becomes Ā£400, so Ā£2.17 billion becomes Ā£ 868 billion – nearly a trillion.
Add in indeed Scotland’s share of the UK’s deficits since 1707 and you could well be up to Ā£5 trillion or more. That’s even without damages and mental cruelty.
Yes, if it looked like a 50-50 thing, and in any legal case you’d have to start there before weighing chances up or down, I’d suggest Dunlop would be screaming “Settle FFS, offer them no debt and Ā£100 billion”.
Well, you can dream.
LikeLike