Further to the earlier article, Playing catch-up, I now have a copy of the Believe in Scotland Statement in question and, as anticipated, it is a bit of a disappointment. Or it would be if I had expected better. Firstly, however, I want to put on record that it is gratifying to see at least some movement towards recognition of the reality of Scotland’s predicament and perhaps the first faint rays of a dawning realisation that an entirely new approach to the constitutional issue is required. Believe in Scotland is headed in the right direction with this ‘Route to Independence’. But they’re not quite on the right track yet. Close reading of the document reveals tell-tale signs of colonised minds at work.
To make this critique easy to follow, I will go through the document picking up on points as I go. The questions start with the very first sentence of the introduction. All emphasis is mine.
Believe in Scotland is writing to the leaders of all the Scottish independence supporting political parties (with MPS/MSPs)
Why only the parties with MPs and MSPs? Surely if one wanted to be truly inclusive, you’d embrace all pro-independence parties.
the voluntary Union of 1707
The Union was never “voluntary”. That is the British state’s myth. It has no place in any serious proposal to restore Scotland’s independence. Speaking of which…
Scotland becoming an independent nation
The appropriate terminology is “Scotland’s independence being restored”. Language matters. It both reflects and informs a mindset.
Westminster may not pass laws that materially affect any aspect of Scotland
How is it proposed to enforce this while simultaneously deferring to Westminster’s claimed authority? (See below.) And why the “materially effect” qualification? Once independence is the settled will of Scotland’s people, the British government ceases to have any rightful authority to legislate for Scotland in any way.
The Convention will meet and design a framework for Scotland to become an independent nation and agree on a legally and democratically acceptable path to Scotland’s independence within 4 years of this General Election.
“Legally” in terms of what law? “Acceptable” to whom? why “4 years”? Scotland’s independence is restored the moment the people of Scotland vote for it to be restored. A (de facto) independence referendum must be determinative and self-executing. Anything less is not a proper constitutional referendum.
The Convention in partnership with the Scottish Government will then invite the UK Government to join negotiations on the terms of Scotland’s independence
This is what was meant by “deferring to Westminster”. The British state has no rightful authority to impose terms on the restoration of Scotland’s independence. The only thing to be negotiated with the British government is the post-independence ‘living arrangements’. No proposal which defers to Westminster in this way can be regarded as a credible account of a process by which Scotland’s independence might be restored.
The Convention may decide to hold events and that may include the decision to have Scottish MPs from Westminster
Whoa! Hold the phone! What MPs would this be? The moment the people of Scotland vote to end the Union we cease to be entitled to representation at Westminster.
In travelling around Scotland, the Convention will develop a vision for a better Scotland. It will pass resolutions demonstrating the value of an independent Scotland.
How many more bloody “visions” do we need? What’s the point of them? Dissolving the Union and restoring Scotland’s independence is about rectifying a grotesque constitutional anomaly and righting an ancient injustice. It is an end in itself. And why try to sell the idea of independence after the choice has been made?
Any future Scottish Government will therefore have the power to hold an additional referendum on Scottish independence following an electoral mandate. This would be not more often than every seven years, reflecting existing legislation in Northern Ireland.
The people of Scotland are sovereign. Therefore, the people of Scotland may demand a referendum any time they choose. Nobody has the right to impose such constraints on the exercise of sovereignty. This would be replicating what the British state is attempting to do.
a Scottish majority of pro-independence MPs returned to Westminster on a mandate for Scotland to become an independent nation would enact the Claim of Right
This is nonsense. The Claim of Right is already enacted. It is the core of the Scottish Constitution. It has never been repealed or rescinded. It is extant and remains relevant and applicable.
Believe in Scotland needs to take this back to whatever committee cobbled it together with an instruction to think again.
Peter A Bell 
Thanks or your critique of the paper and for providing the source.
In addition to your comprehensive assessment I find this statement rather curious:
“This will include finalising the written constitution based on the
existing interim draft.”
What “existing interim draft” is GM-K referring to? The only variant of a Scottish Constitution that I’m aware of is the ancient pre-1707 version. The one that includes the 1689 Claim of Right. If anything should be the basis of a modern written set of values, morals and laws then that should be the basis. What ‘beta’ draft is GM-K referring to I wonder?
Overall the contents and tone of the paper betrays the propaganda addled minds of the author and contributors. It indicates just how much decolonisation is yet to be properly undertaken before the mindset for developing the proper path can be developed.
This still has a feeling of exclusivity about it, an attempt to control and limit.
But I suppose at least they are trying.
Having had their jotters marked they will hopefully do some serious revision and come back with a re-work.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“existing interim draft” – I think might refer to the draft constitution commissioned by one Mike Russell and which only a privileged few may have seen – I haven’t seen it but then I’m not one of the privileged few. It is allegedly due for publication at some point. . . . .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks.
Would that be one Michael ’11 Steps to Independence Plan” Russell who is setting the parameters?
Nothing to do with Scotland’s future, and certainly not the Constitution, should be touched by the SNP’s very own Midas antonym.
LikeLike
The interim constitution was drafted in 2014 as part of the Scottish Independence Bill.
Click to access 00452762.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
It is a bit of a relief that it is not any recent thinking of the SNP’s hierarchy that has gone into the document, given the values and policies that they have been setting out of late.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am almost 100% sure that there is a new version in the works, commissioned by Mr 11 Steps himself – so we should be worried about the inclusion of recent “thinking”
LikeLiked by 2 people
If true – and we’ll have to await the evidence of its updated existence – this would merely be a further exhibition of the ‘command and control’ behaviour of the SNP leadership that has scunnered so many since November 2014.
Furthermore it would prove that the party hierarchy are not serious about engaging openly and without condition with those outside its top echelons.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I scoffed mightily at your suggestion GM-K might “re-work” the document. As someone else has remarked, this is probably what will be presented to the SNP conference in October. If not the actual document, then something very similar. It will be hailed as a significant new approach and cheered to the rafters by delegates who may not even bother to read it. Humza will tell them it’s brilliant so they will all be of that opinion.
Well! Not all! I am reliably informed that genuinely radical proposals are being submitted. Whether any of these will get onto the agenda is another matter. But it is good to be assured that not all those who remain in the party are dumb loyalists. There are a few who continue the fight from within. We all should applaud and support these hardy souls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And that really is an issue, as an SNP member, whether or not these proposals get on to the agenda.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have just read the document in full before reading your blog.
It is just depressing.
Even more depressing is that it will be on the agenda to be ‘discussed’ in October and this dogs dinner will likely pass by acclaim.
But hey, it has a lovely font, colour palate and graphics, and all these people have backed it, so it must be good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
An excellent synthesis, Peter, of a woeful, rather apologetic effort, strewn with error, riddled with the usual inconsistencies influenced by an entrenched colonial mindset, and hence misunderstanding of our ‘condition’.
It is as if we, ourselves, an oppressed and exploited people, are erecting ever more questions and higher hurdles with which to block our own urgent need and right to liberation; that is the function of a colonial administration and its agents – to make any prospect of liberation seem impossible.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yes, some people are intent on tying themselves in knots to avoid confronting the inevitable.
Something akin to Alexander’s sword is required methinks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The pot calling the kettle black.
” This is why the Yes movement is fucked. As soon as something is proposed that everybody could get behind, there are always those who want to turn it into something else and who destroy it in the process. I despair. ”
Seems appropriate to remind you of these words and hope you bare them in mind if any of the alternative proposals get aired at the conference,.
Apart from that I have to agree with your critique, anything that acknowledged the superiority of the british/english state is constitutionally illiterate and bound to fail.
LikeLike
I draw your attention to the words “that everybody could get behind”. Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s offering is not something the entire Yes movement could, or should, get behind. For the reasons I’ve given.
LikeLike
I wasn’t referring to GMK’s offering, but the SNP member alternatives, assuming even one manages to get to the podium).
Unfortunately all to many SNP members, MSP’s, MP’s, and way to many in the Yes movement can’t dig themselves out of this subservient hole, not that you will find many willing to admit it. The submission by the SNP to the Supreme Court left a lot to be desired and it would be hard to find a better example of a missed (squandered) opportunity to challenge the westminsters claim of superiority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With regard to the constitutional issue, the world and his sister now dancing around that which is so obvious as to be almost unbelievable – and even more unbelievable that the political ‘elite(!)’ in Scotland ( and associated environs eg Westminster.. ), almost to a man, appear to be in a perpetual state of denial as to its inevitability: To restore Scotland’s rightful status among the family of nations, confrontation with Westminster, in and of itself, is a sure-fire, racing certainty..
First off, such a term, with such force of certainty, happens to be the ONLY worthwhile, substantive language that Westminster understands – ‘power devolved is power retained’, etc; history demonstrates as much – and on more than one, singular occasion at that..
And secondly, given that, in purely economic and financial terms ( if no other.. ) Westminster CANNOT AFFORD for Scotland to choose her own path; thus, some form of serious confrontation ( albeit that it is limited to the diplomatic and political spheres, respectively.. ) is assured, guaranteed..
When the political ‘elite(!)’ in Scotland finally arrive at that conclusion of their own volition, and, thereafter, are wholeheartedly willing to follow through on this ‘new-found conviction’, I will re-enter the political fray – campaigning, etc.. Unless and until such an occurrence is made to happen, that which spouts forth from their ( collective.. ) lips is nought but froth, steam, and smoke – with a side-order of ‘mirrors and cans’ to go..
People find themselves with lives to live – while our politicians are engaged in little more than dancing around the fire.. G.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed, Gordon, there will, there must inevitably be a decisive moment, and the extensive history of imperial oppression tells us this. There is plentiful evidence to confirm what we are dealing with and remain subject to, and most especially that ‘colonialism is force’. Its a pity that MacIntyre-Kemp and his co-authors, or most of the ‘pampered bourgeoisie’, do not yet realise this; yet postcolonial theory tells us that this class is unlikely to deliver independence; as we see, it will only delay that day of confrontation which in turn makes matters worse. For they first need to understand and acknowledge our colonial condition and what independence means (i.e. decolonization), only then would they be able to find the only remedy – liberation.
Click to access THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why, pray tell, do the polls NOT move upwards – or, at the very least, with a degree of SUSTAINABLE consistency..? From where I stand, the answer is both simple AND straightforward:
From the perspective of our politically elected representatives, gross prevarication and excessive prognostication are NOT in sync with the Scots’ character; one need only take a glance back at history to see the truth of my words..
Logie-Baird; Graham-Bell; Fleming; McIntosh; Dunlop; Carnegie; John Muir; the trading house of Jardine Mathieson in Hong Kong; et al..
Would ANY of these great men ( and many, MANY more besides.. ) have achieved such an enduring legacy – if they had been guilty of faffing around with the issues in hand..? I think not..
Carpe Diem.. ‘Seize the day..’
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Why, pray tell, do the polls NOT move upwards”
Being a colonial society subject to settler occupation inevitably has an effect. As does cultural (or colonial) assimilation and a colonial mindset. Lets remember that independence is decolonization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m simply underwhelmed by the amateurism and ignorance which have conceived this half-understood piece of secondary school English homework.
“What I learned about Scotland becoming independent” by MacIntyre Kemp minor. It looks like something a parliamentary assistant researcher might have sellotaped together, after a half hour on Google.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This pretend Independence paper, is truly insulting!
Those who wrote this garbage, are clearly still of the mind, that Scotland still needs English “permission” and say so to be Independent, that England will have ultimate control over how Scotland becomes Independent, and so they have to be seen to being nice and polite towards London as possible.
As Peter says, it isn’t good enough.
Some of us would go a lot further of our view on this stuff.
Nobody who demands Independence can give any credence to this, at all.
Maybe, just maybe I’m being too harsh, but it comes close to betrayal of the Independence cause, in my view!
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is a great deconstruction Peter, even though I haven’t even read the original article. I personally rate GMK, knew him before even the first SNP minority government, and I don’t think he is anybody’s tool.
Use of language is vital, and used wisely it does indeed influence thought and action, something politicians used to know. Talking about “voluntary Union of 1707” does indeed totally accept the victor’s (England) altered record of history while denying the other side which strangely you can even find on the BBC website, as I posted before. All the opposing records in Scotland were burnt, and it’s only the last few decades that some are re-emerging, some from honest descendants of those from England who took part and didn’t of course have their records burnt. Apart from that there are hidden handmedowns.
Anyways, a great article from Shona Craven, who is the National’s best columnist by far, and one who is attuned to the YES movement in a way that few are. She actually reads comments and opposing views. Few do.
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23707445.gets-decide-divisive-within-independence-movement/
LikeLiked by 1 person