With the SNP’s conference looming, it occurred to me to wonder what delegates might be discussing if the agenda addressed the priorities of the nation and of Scotland’s cause rather than the interests of a controlling clique frantically trying to survive. Suppose we were where we are, nine years on and counting from the 2014 referendum with the restoration of Scotland’s independence a more remote prospect now than it was a decade ago. Suppose we had a governing party that included in its higher ranks a few individuals with the capacity for strategic thinking and the guts to do whatever is required to wrench Scotland from the jealous grasp of an increasingly deranged Britannia.
Suppose we had someone at the top of that party of government who possessed the qualities of a leader. Someone with the ability and the daring to stride confidently down a path the people of Scotland might have thought closed to them. A leader unafraid to acknowledge past missteps while honestly seeking ways to get back on track. What might be up for debate at conference if we had the bold, intelligent, imaginative government we need rather than the gaggle of inept, self-serving cowards we deserve?
Make no mistake! We, the people of Scotland, deserve the government we have. We are collectively responsible for giving these people power. We cannot sensibly deny responsibility while proclaiming sovereignty. Being sovereign, the people always get the government they deserve. The government is either what the people make it, or what it becomes when the people neglect their democratic duty. Power unused does not dissipate or disappear. It becomes the tool of whoever is prepared to utilise it.
Let’s use our imagination and pretend that we, the people, have used our votes wisely over the past few elections and shaped our government according to our needs, priorities and aspirations. What might such a governing party be talking about at its annual conference?
(Of course, it might be argued that had we the government we need rather than the government we deserve, we would not be where we are. And that is a fair point. But what we are engaged upon here is a thought exercise. We are permitted to suppose the illogical if it helps us imagine the possible.)
The claim is that the centre-piece of the SNP conference is to be a debate about a strategy by which independence might be restored. One hundred minutes has been allocated for this debate. Which says something about the importance the controlling clique attaches to the topic. But one hour and forty minutes could have been adequate. If the conference debate was the culmination of a lengthy and open discussion by means of which all conceivable options had been considered and whittled down to two or three then it might well be possible to make the final decision after a mere one hundred minutes of further debate. But that is not what has happened. In reality, the SNP leadership – first under Sturgeon and subsequently under Yousaf – has put a lot of effort into stifling discussion of strategies other than that prescribed by the controlling clique. There has been no strategy development process. Which explains why there is no strategy.
SNP loyalists and apologists will protest that there have been all manner of events and initiatives over the past nine years which purportedly provided opportunities for the party membership and wider Yes movement to influence the party’s approach to the constitutional issue. Ask yourself, what has been the product of all that? What evidence is there that this supposed influence has had any effect? How much has the party’s approach to the constitutional issue changed?
Were it not for the fact that the notion of pretending a UK parliament election is a Scottish constitutional referendum has been tentatively grasped, we’d have to say there has been no change whatever. And even the de facto referendum idea as espoused by the SNP leadership is superficial and cosmetic. It is no more than a lick of watery radical paint applied to the Sturgeon doctrine of pursuing a Section 30 order. The idea being that we keep on voting SNP at every opportunity in the hope that this will somehow (exactly how is never explained) erode the British state’s determination to preserve the Union sufficiently that they agree to allow us a vote so long as the outcome does not put the Union in jeopardy.
All those assemblies and consultations have changed nothing. Which was exactly what they were intended to do. There is no need to deny the people access to the democratic process if you can fool them into thinking they have that access. Just as the Section 30 process pretends to offer a democratic route to independence, so those events and initiatives pretended to offer a way of influencing what the SNP leadership is pleased to call its independence strategy. Just as a Section 30 referendum cannot lead to independence, so those talking shops were never going to alter that so-called independence strategy.
Exactly the same can be said of the paltry 100-minute debate to be held at the SNP conference in Aberdeen this weekend. The debate has already been rigged to ensure that no new thinking on strategy is aired. All resolutions that threatened to challenge the controlling clique’s preferred way have been expunged. Instead, what has been arranged is a 100-minute discussion of which shade of watery paint is to be applied to the controlling clique’s preferred way in order to fool the gullible into imagining something significant has happened. If the SNP leadership gets its way, that 100-minute debate will change nothing of any consequence. If their stage-managed event goes as they hope and intend, the failed Sturgeon approach will be given the imprimatur of the party conference. Yousaf et al may well succumb to their subsequent smirking.
But we are supposed to be imagining something different here. We are supposed to be imagining a real debate discussing real alternatives with the real purpose of deciding on the approach which will best serve Scotland’s cause. We have clarified what this debate must differ from. We must now ask how it might differ. What options are available? What strategies might be considered by conference?
Here I run into a problem. I cannot list options that might be debated because I have already given the issue enough thought to bring me to the realisation that there is ultimately only one way in which Scotland’s independence can possibly be restored. It’s as if that pre-conference discussion I mentioned earlier had actually happened, but among a relatively tiny group of independence activists who are able and willing to think outside the box prescribed by the SNP and the British state. If we eschew the self-evident fallacy that there can be a route to independence through a legal and constitutional framework that has evolved under the British state’s imperative to preserve the Union, the only think left is a route which lies outside that British legal and constitutional framework. A route which is, from the totally partial and self-serving perspective of the British ruling elite, neither legal nor constitutional.
What we are imagining changing is the SNP Scottish Government’s insistence that we must defer to this perspective. What might be the subject of that 100-minute debate is giving precedence to a Scottish perspective informed by Scotland’s constitution and Scotland’s law and the needs, priorities and aspirations of Scotland’s people. What the SNP conference should be debating is repudiation of the Section 30 process and abandonment of the party’s failed approach to the constitutional issue in favour of an approach which derives from the abiding principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign.
It is a cold, hard fact that if Scotland’s independence is to be restored it can only come about by way of a process which lies outside the constraints of the legal and constitutional framework devised and developed to serve the interests of the British ruling elite while remaining strictly within the bounds of relevant international laws and conventions. All that is up for debate is the nature of this process.
What is not sufficiently recognised is that Scotland’s cause is not primarily about independence. There are two battles to be fought. As I wrote almost four years ago in a piece looking back at and taking lessons from events leading to the 2014 referendum,
The mistake – and such it surely was – was to mount a campaign to get something we didn’t have (a referendum) rather than a campaign to protect something that was already ours (the right of self-determination).
Pillows against cannon
The first battle which must be fought and won is the battle to assert, affirm and maintain Scotland’s right of self-determination. This must take priority over the fight to restore Scotland’s independence for the obvious reason that the latter is crucially dependent on the former. If we do not hold fast to our right of self-determination, how then might we escape the baleful Union? If we do not emphatically and tenaciously insist on the sovereignty of Scotland’s people, how might we hope to claim our right of self-determination including the right to exercise that right?
The sovereignty of Scotland’s people leads to the right of self-determination which leads to the exercise of that right which leads to an expression of the will of the sovereign people of Scotland which cannot be denied.
An obvious topic for debate, therefore, might be whether a de facto referendum on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament is is preferable to a de facto referendum on independence. A strategy which aims for a referendum of any kind on independence is premature. Such a strategy misses the step by which is secured the means to legislate for a referendum which will stand as the formal exercise of our right of self-determination.
Imagine, if you will, that this might be the subject of the SNP’s so-called independence strategy debate. Were this to happen, would not the SNP start to once again look worthy of its claim to be the “party of independence”?
If your imagination isn’t already strained to breaking point, try to envisage an SNP conference debate on a detailed manifesto for independence. Imagine if instead of vague talk of a manifesto statement that a vote for the SNP being a vote for independence (which is the case anyway!), there was discussion of a detailed manifesto commitment to specified action on the constitutional issue within a given time-frame. A draft #ManifestoForIndependence already exists, and has done for several years. It was originally drawn up in the hope that the Scottish parties would adopt it for the 2021 Scottish general election. It could easily be revised to make it suitable for inclusion in the Scottish parties’ manifestos for the coming UK general election.
It is a manifesto (see below) which gives precedence to establishing the apparatus for a proper constitutional referendum. Surely this is better by some astronomical measure than a tentative undertaking to enter into negotiations with which the UK government will not engage with a view to giving “democratic effect” to a vote in a de facto referendum which the British state will not recognise in favour of a Section 30 referendum which cannot possibly lead to the restoration of Scotland’s independence.
It is possible to imagine such debates at an SNP conference. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to envisage this. With the final agenda published, it looks very much as if there will be no breakthrough. It looks as if the conference will change nothing. What happens then is something I’d rather not think about at the moment.
Draft Manifesto for Independence
- Repudiate the Section 30 process as an illegitimate constraint on Scotland’s right of self-determination.
- Declare one or all future Scottish or UK Parliament elections to be a plebiscite on the question of the competence of the Scottish Parliament to facilitate the exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination.
- Assert the primacy of the Scottish Parliament on the basis of its democratic legitimacy and the sovereignty of Scotland’s people.
- Recall Scotland’s Members of Parliament from Westminster to sit on a National Convention with Members of the Scottish Parliament and such representatives of civic society as are deemed appropriate by the Scottish Parliament for the purpose of overseeing the drafting of a Constitution for Scotland.
- Propose dissolution of the Union with England subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament and ratification by the people of Scotland in a referendum that stands as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our inalienable right of self-determination.
- Hold referendum on the question of the Union under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament and subject to oversight and management by the National Convention and such bodies as may be appointed by the Scottish Parliament.
Peter A Bell 
Peter – you know I will read your thoughts – may I share these of mine – they are preparation for what will follow in about a month’s time.
Shorter Version: 23rd November 2022, within the UK Supreme Court judgement this is a matter of public record.
𝟖𝟔. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰.
It will prove very important for Scotland!
Longer Version:
I have always known it would take time for my fellow Scots to fully understand why I believe the Declaration of a Sovereign Scot would prove to be important. I hope these short(ish) posts help.
It requires us to think – and crucially to ACT – differently. Words – without action – remain just words.
The words “Self Determination” will be heard in speeches, will appear in blogs and newspaper articles, and be part of media debates. But always – just words.
Crucially however, the words – Self Determination – also appeared here. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐊 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟑𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟐:
𝟖𝟔. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰.
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 – 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝟐 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐊 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 – 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐐 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐍, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝟏𝟕 𝐔𝐍 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰.
The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot initiative does use words – but it was from its very beginning, and it will continue to be – an ACT of Self Determination. 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 – 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍!
All those who have signed their individual Declaration – each individual Declaration is a personal ACT of Self Determination!
I will shortly use and post another extract from the UK Supreme Court, and explain why the Declaration says this:
“I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Scotland Act 1998, and all subsequent relevant Acts of like nature and purpose,”
LikeLiked by 4 people
“I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Scotland Act 1998…”
Calling for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament seems a retrograde step. As does repeal of all legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament under the devolution settlement. Much of that legislation is of benefit to the nation and the Scottish people. Mitigation of British state impositions being just one example.
LikeLike
I may well use your comment in the post I intend to make.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Take Back Control.
The sense of that should be obvious , as it was to an English electorate with Brexit in mind but we Scots are made of much more pliable stuff as you so rightly point out . We get the politicians we deserve and they give us the anodyne faux-angry nationalism that as we know only lasts for 80-90 minutes normally and then retire to their comfy lifestyles.
As long as politics excludes and cancels men of a certain age and world view then there is little hope of a significant change in our fortunes, witness the most recent example of Fergus Ewing. Scotland has these leaders but it will take a monumental shift in the way we allow them to do what is necessary for them to volunteer for the task.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If only strategic thinkers and genuine supporters of Scotland’s Cause formed the leadership of the SNP rather than the careerist mafia currently in charge they might come up with something like this approach for restoring Scotland’s full self-
government and independent statehood.
If only …
LikeLiked by 4 people
There are people in the SNP who understand and agree with your analysis and solution Peter. They probably also understand that unless they take serious action against this cabal imposed dictatorship of the agenda then they probably will not get another chance. Time to stand up and be counted folks, some brave deeds required to go with the brave words. Time to take back control, you have nothing more to lose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A I’ve said before, Peter, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame the voters.
They voted for SNP in the expectation and the hope, it would get them what it said it would, namely Independence.
It cannot be blamed on the electorate who have to date given SNP succuh massive support the past few years, that SNP have squandered all the very many opportunities it was presented with, and have so far basically, betrayed all that voter trust.
And with the rigged election for the new leader of SNP, just compounding things.
What else were the voters to do?
It does appear that under the Sturgeon rule, the main aim turned out to be about protecting the Party, keeping it in power as long as possible and so long as it promised this and that, they would still get the votes, and that as we have seen, even against all the warnings, all the evidence facing them, many still would not see by Nicola Sturgeon and were totally convinced she would get them Independence.
And they got the votes so long as she was still in charge, tho rumblings were ignored, and the rebellious going to ALBA dismissed.
But her sudden resignation totally out of the blue, and the subsequent Police investigation, shattered all those hopes, and thus, SNP has been seen to be a fraud, as far as many who demand Independence go.
The problem for them made worse by Humza as the “continuity candidate”.
That to say this is unfortunate, would be a major understatement!
It leaves the Independence voter in a dilemma.
Do they keep voting SNP or look for other options? But others options are few and far between, and the danger of splitting the Independence vote allowing pro london politicians to win elections, is very real.
Many voters see SNP having played on this fear, and it still does to an extent.
Only with a complete change of policy will many voters have any real trust now, with SNP.
I think most of us would prefer a new leader for SNP as soon as possible.
We can’t see how there will be, or can be, meaningful change otherwise.
It would be really something, if the First Minster did in fact completely change strategy.
But will he???
LikeLike
The voters are responsible. That’s what democracy is. That’s what being sovereign means. Ultimate authority = ultimate responsibility.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The voters are responsible.”
Are they really?
In a colonial society there is such a thing as a ‘colonial mindset’, which is a recognised psychological ‘condition’ created by colonialism.
In such a society a colonized mind is not responsible for anything. The colonized ‘crave dependence’ and, much like a child, seeks for paternal instruction and guidance.
As Albert Memmi wrote:
“The colonized…feels neither responsible nor guilty nor skeptical, for he is out of the game.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s my current feeling about the next general election , like a bystander watching events unfold and not having any agency about them. An SNP that only offers crackpot social engineering and hopelessly ineffectual governance. No alternatives in a supine unionist coalition that will cow-tow to their London masters at every turn , it hardly seems worth the effort to engage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the colonized (Scot) is merely an observer, no longer part of history, ‘conditioned to feel inadequate’.
Responsibility? The colonized feels none; because “colonization usurps any free role in either war or peace, every decision contributing to his destiny and that of the world, and all cultural and social responsibility” (Memmi), these are matters only for the colonizer.
LikeLike
How do we get Scots to understand that this is a shameful state of affairs?
We need more effective leaders and if we limit ourselves to them being as innocent as the day they were born or vacuously useless , we are not going far. It looks like the colonizer is selecting our leaders.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In a sense, the coloniser is selecting our leaders. If the political system as a whole is conducive only to the type of person – or mindset – that the coloniser favours, then the tendency always will be for our leaders to be of that ilk. It’s not necessary to actually select them. You start by effectively excluding the ‘wrong type’, then you allow various forms of often subtle pressure to mould the people who rise through the ranks.
I used a similar analogy while talking to Norrie Hunter on Caledon Radio this morning. I suggested that when we look at what has happened to the SNP over the last nine years or so, it appears very much as if the party (leadership) has been slowly squeezed into a British-shaped mould by pressures of one kind or another. This, to me, seems a lot more credible than notions of infiltration and subornation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If not the sovereign people, then who? It is a stark contradiction to say the people are sovereign – the ultimate political authority – yet somehow subject to a higher oppressive power. Bear in mind that I speak here of ‘the people’ as an entity, not as an assemblage of individuals. As individuals, their minds may be colonised to varying degrees so that each to some extent “feels neither responsible nor guilty nor skeptical”. But the means to resolve this situation can lie nowhere else but within the people. The resolution must come from the people. It can only come from the people. If the people are entirely helpless under colonial rule then there is no end to colonial rule.
It is the varying degrees of colonisation of the mind which is the key to unlock this apparent paradox. It also explains why a counter-colonial movement can seem non-existent for decades or even centuries and then grow at an exponential rate from fringe to mainstream movement to revolution. The least colonised minds seek out the next least colonised and act on them to further loosen the grip of the colonising power in a chain reaction that may burn imperceptably slowly initially – and even come close to being extinguished at times – but always has the potential to become the conflagration which liberates.
If spark, tinder and kindling are all properties of ‘the people’, then only ‘the people’ can create the fire. Only ‘the people’ can be responsible for burning down the colonial house. Only ‘the people’ can be responsible if that house is left untorched. The very worst thing the relatively decolonised mind can do is tell the relatively more colonised mind that it is powerless and therefore not responsible for its own condition. Thus is the counter-colonial fire constantly damped-down. It is the duty of the least colonised mind to incessantly berate and harrass and harangue the more colonised mind. This is the draught that fans the spark to incandescence.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And therein, Peter, is harboured an opportunity, one that is truly profound in nature, both in the circumstances that prevail now, and as a legacy we can bequeath to all future generations in Scotland.
The people are Sovereign. Alpha and Omega.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are of course right Peter; if it were not the role of the more enlightened intellectual arm of the independence movement to inform the people of their colonial condition, then who else?
The political elites, who are not intellectuals, are unable to do so because they have yet to undertake ‘a reasoned study of colonial society’. The political class think mere policies on this and that will be sufficient (e.g. see Kate Forbes article in The National today) to shift the mindset they themselves have yet to comprehend never mind acknowledge!
This means the peoples ‘understanding remains rudimentary’, they do not yet know what independence really means or why it is necessary. They must therefore be informed of their ‘condition’, of the ‘painful treatment’ necessary and the only ‘remedy’, which is ‘liberation’:
Click to access THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is reframing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reframing is clearly necessary to explain to an oppressed people their reality, and that independence means and requires decolonisation (also of the mind). This has not yet even been attempted by oor daeless political class, for the reasons noted above.
Independence does not guarantee better governance or policies, necessarily, although we would hope this to be the case. What it does mean is that our country’s governance will be by oor ain fowk, oorsels, an naebody else, i.e. self-government, and wi nae mair: external interference in oor affairs, nor plunder o oor stuff, nor obliteration o oor cultur, nor replacement o oor naitional identity, nor ony ither efforts tae haud-doun oor fowk.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Any independence party worth the name would have the Manifesto for Independence front and centre and on every election manifesto. It is very telling that the SNP – the party of independence – doesn’t.
Independence will be no further forward after the blah, blah, blah of the conference. Surely people must be catching on after all these years that the SNP hierarchy will never take the necessary steps to free Scotland from the union. Too many of them have no interest in independence; it’s obviously a step too far for them.
The membership should be kicking up a fuss at conference, taking back control of their party and telling the devolutionists/careerists/comfy slipper types to take a hike but they won’t. They voted for the continuity candidate after all. Those calling for a more radical approach appear to have been kicked out of the SNP or, disillusioned, left like me.
As you say, “Just as the Section 30 process pretends to offer a democratic route to independence, so those events and initiatives pretended to offer a way of influencing what the SNP leadership is pleased to call its independence strategy.”
With that in mind, when next the SNP asks for my vote for a further tilt at a Section 30 – you know the Section 30 the SNP doesn’t want to call such preferring “negotiation” – I’ll stay home and pretend I’m voting for them.
As far as I’m concerned the SNP have run out of road.
LikeLiked by 3 people
For some time, it’s been quite clear to me that the SNP is now the major road block to self-determination and independence. When I think back to the people I knew in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, they could only have dreamt of the opportunities wasted over the past 8 years.
I know it’s wrong, but it still made me smile to think what they would have done with the current mob at the top of the SNP. Of course, there would have been little chance of them ever getting to high places within the party back then. However, we were much smaller then and infiltration was easier to spot but it was also unnecessary because the SNP of those days did not pose the same threat and didn’t have over half the population of Scotland supporting them.
When the SNP did begin to make inroads and minds began to change that resulted in British State intervention to protect the union – not so much their precious union, but unfettered access to Scotland’s huge resources that has kept the UKs afloat for at least the past 50 or 60 years.
They will go to any lengths to protect access to Scotland’s assets and resources. We only need to look at what happened to Willie McRae when he successfully interfered with their nuclear waste programme.
So, we come to what may well be what many consider to be the last opportunity for the SNP to save their party at the forthcoming conference, although I think it’s already too far late to do so. The members that could possibly have turned the party around have long given up their memberships and we are left with what we see today and it’s indeed a sorry picture.
My main concern now is that, with the demise of the SNP now largely accomplished, it’s an excellent opportunity for the British State to help it carry on in some form, thus continuing to split the Yes Movement. However, later this week, we shall see if the SNP still has a hundred of them that remain alive!
LikeLiked by 4 people
The SNP 100! I like it!
LikeLike