As things stand – there being no party offering credible proposals for restoring Scotland’s independence, I intend to spoil my 2024 Westminster election ballot by writing across it in heavy black ink the legend #EndTheUnion. This is my personal choice. For spoiling ballots to be effective as a campaign tactic, large numbers of independence supporters would have to spoil their ballots in precisely the same way.
As to consequences, it must be clearly understood that, for Scotland, there is no good outcome to the 2024 Westminster election. There are only bad outcomes and very bad outcomes. It is difficult to distinguish between the two.
Regardless of which of the main British parties forms the next UK government, that government will take power with a mandate to secure the Union AT ANY COST. Few commenters on Richard Walker’s column in The National seem to have got beyond the superficial ridiculousness of the ‘pints of wine’ idea being peddled by the Tories. Beneath the silliness there lies a devious purpose. Ludicrous as the idea may seem taken on its own and at face value, considered as part of a campaign intended to rouse fervent British Nationalism, it appears very much less benign. In the coming weeks and months, this foolishness will be recognised as the opening shots in a fight to be the party and/or party leader who is most ardently committed to crushing the national movement in Scotland.
That the Union gives the British state the power to do this is beyond question. It requires only the political will to use that power. The most significant product of the coming election campaign will be that political will.
Richard is less explicit in his support for the SNP than was once the case. It would be gratifying to think this an indication that he is awakening to the fact of the SNP’s betrayal of Scotland’s cause. Until this realisation is confirmed, I must assume that it is a vote for the SNP that he has in mind when he urges us to “vote for the fresh hopes of the future rather than a repeat of the failures of the past”. The reality, of course, is that it makes absolutely no difference if we vote en masse for the SNP. It hasn’t been an effective way of pursuing “fresh hopes” for many years.
The likelihood is that the SNP will lose seats. We will be told that this would be a blow to the independence campaign. Perhaps so. But the seriousness of that blow would be relative to the alternative – an increase in support for the SNP. Which would be represented as an increase in support for independence. But the SNP has no plan or proposal for translating that electoral support into political action. As far as Scotland’s cause is concerned, increased support for the SNP achieves nothing. So, nothing is lost to Scotland’s cause should the SNP suffer the consequences so well-earned by a monumentally appalling leadership clique.
The only possible ‘win’ for Scotland’s cause in the 2024 Westminster election would come from a mass campaign of ballot-spoiling. As noted, this would require that all those taking part in the campaign spoil their ballot in exactly the same way. Otherwise, it’s just random noise. Only if the same method is employed for the spoiling of all ballots will it be recognisable as a campaign.
It is extremely unlikely that there will be this ‘win’ for the independence campaign. Observing the behaviour of activists over the last couple of years I have to conclude that they are incapable of acting as a movement. I am obliged to assume there will be no agreement on a common method of spoiling ballots. Therefore, there will be no campaign. Just various factions blaming each other for the lack of coordination.
Peter A Bell 
Missed your birthday, Peter – sorry, but for a better 2024 – it might be worth following the Declaration initiative in it’s next Stage and those to follow.
LikeLike
Great idea Mike. It will be as effective as the Stirling Directive.
LikeLike
Do you even know what effect the #StirlingDirective was supposed to have?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well you were there Peter when it was delivered to some Pleb at the Scottish Parliament and sadly the Stirling Directive was flung into the nearest the bin with the rest of the chippy takeaways “snigger”.
LikeLike
It is informative that you see the way the Stirling Directive delegation was treated at Holyrood and St Andrew’s House as reflecting badly on the people rather than the institutions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi, Mike. Thanks for the birthday wishes. How does the Declaration address the matter of legislative competence?
LikeLike
They say walls have ears, social media has both ears and eyes, until I can manage to visit you in Perth, and have a detailed discussion with you, I will limit my reply. You know me well enough to now that is not me dodging your question, a subject which you have raised in depth repeatedly and for very good reasons. However …
Let me alter the terms of reference and use the word ‘circumscribe’, and perhaps for ease use both ‘limit/control’.
What factors limit, and allow others to control, the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. An immediate (but for me too simplistic an answer) is the Scotland Act, another lies in the Royal Oath and more. Based on my original post may I place them within a ‘domestic’ arena.
A question of perhaps equal importance, but rarely asked is – do such factors also pertain to the Westminster (supposedly Sovereign) Parliament? If so, how and where do they manifest themselves. Was it not such factors that gave birth to Brexit, the limits imposed on a UK Parliament, and the control it allowed others to exert? Current manifestations of those factors continue in the debate over the ECHR, and in the terms of the Belfast Agreement, Rwanda and more. Based on my original post may I place them within an ‘international’ arena.
That in no way answers my question, Mike, I hear you say – but I hope it may widen the horizon of debate for when we meet, a necessary distinction between what may be a ‘domestic’ as opposed to an ‘international’ perspective.
That distinction gives rise to these two questions, which form the basis of the Declaration initiative:
Domestic: The people of Scotland are Sovereign. True or False?
International: All peoples have the right of self-determination. True or False?
I’ll make contact for a meeting as soon as I clear some other demands being made on me just now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that, Mike. It remains a fact, however, that no action which might result in the restoration of Scotland’s independence can happen without the Scottish Parliament passing legislation which British legislation stipulates it does not have the legislative competence to debate, far less enact. It remains a fact also, that the Scottish Parliament cannot obtain the necessary legislative competence other than by assertion. The only question then remaining is the manner in which this is done. And there’s not a lot of scope for variation there.
It follows from these absolute facts that no ‘route’ to independence can be considered credible unless it explicitly specifies that the Scottish Parliament shall take the necessary legislative competence unto itself in determined and tenacious defiance of the British ruling elites and all their apparatus. All the rest is just wind and pish. It all comes down to the question of legislative competence in the end regardless of how circuitous and loquacious the journey may be. For the most part, all the circuitousness and bloviation is simply a device by which to disguise the fact that the thing being presented as a ‘route’ to independence isn’t what it pretends to be. Or it’s an attempt to make the whole thing immensely more complicated than it needs to be because in some minds complexity equates to legal and constitutional soundness.
There is only one exception to the uselessness of all the supplementary blethers around the essentially very simple process by which Scotland’s independence can be restored. That is the matter of an electoral mandate. Although it can easily be argued that no further mandate is required given the way Scotland’s electors have voted in all democratic events since 2007, there can be no doubt that it would be useful to have a mandate specifically to restore to the Scottish Parliament the legislative competence in constitutional matters withheld by the British state using the powers afforded it by the Union. It is only a question of the best way to obtain such a mandate.
I maintain that the most effective way of establishing a mandate to restore the constitutional powers that rightfully belong with the Scottish Parliament is to use an election in which all the pro-independence parties stand on an identical #ManifestoForIndependence; thus making it a de facto referendum in which a vote for any of the pro-independence parties counts as a ‘Yes’ response to the question of whether the Scottish Parliament should assert the power to facilitate the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination – there being no other way this can happen.
To date, nobody has come up with a better idea. To date, no Scottish political party is proposing this course of action. No Scottish politician is even talking about this approach despite the fact that it is the only thing that can possibly work.
I realise that others have their pet projects. I recognise that many have put in a lot of work on those projects. I readily acknowledge that much of this work is useful as background and support for the ‘route’ I have identified. But until everybody accepts that in the end, it all come down to the fact that power is never given, only taken. Scotland’s cause will not progress. And the clock is ticking. Any project having a timeframe stretching beyond the announcement of the date for the next Westminster election has to be considered useless.
At which point I should explain why this cut-off point. But I’ve repeated this stuff so often over the past three or four years, I just cannot be arsed. So, instead I’ll go and have a shower before making inroads on today’s beer allowance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Having a go at the British Tories is the default refuge for Richard Walker and most of his fellow columnists at The National. He and his colleagues have been doing this endlessly since at least the May election of 2015 … as a means of deflection about what they should really be addressing and dealing with, namely developing a strategy for terminating the British Union.
Given the Scottish electorate’s antipathy (in the main) towards the British Tories (exhibited continuously these past 70 years at various electoral tests) Richard Walker’s ‘attacks’ on the British State’s main proponents – the other junior partners in the British project being the British Labour and British Liberal Democrat parties – is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel and then throwing the dead creatures to the clapping seals that mainly make up the readership who comment on his articles below the line in The National. That seems to satisfy the bulk of them.
Richard Walker may well be concerned about the return of pints, quarts and gallons but it is the other British Imperial measures that he should be concerned with. That is, the poles and chains used to beat us and keep us, respectively.
I live in Edinburgh South where there is only one outcome at the next British General Election: Ian Murray of the British State will be returned in this constituency.
So I will be boldly marking my ballot paper #EndTheUnion.
LikeLiked by 5 people
“I am obliged to assume there will be no agreement on a common method of spoiling ballots.”
My preference, as in my avatar, would be to write diagonally “INDEPENDENCE” across it. However, if enough people go for #EndTheUnion I’ll join in. Unless of course the SNP go back to the plan of making it an actual ballot for Independence, rather than whatever wishy-washy phrase they used (I forget it was so meaningless).
As for Richard Walker I think he was a candidate for selection as the SNP candidate for Ayr South but wasn’t selected. I was born in Ayr, weaned in Troon and I’d say he’s far too left wing for that constituency. Possibly more suited for North Ayrshire where I live, though he’s far too left wing for me. Patricia Gibson is my MP – not one of the worst of the “Westminster owns me now” SNP MPs who went down and got Stockholm Syndromed. It’s made a bit more difficult if you’re a traditional Scottish vote for the person not the party sort of voter, to spoil the ballot. I’ll be voting Kenneth Gibson MSP because he stands up for his opinion rather than meekly sycophanting like so many of the new mirror obsessed breed do.
LikeLike
I’ll be spoiling my ballot, as will my wife, In Westminster elections we only get a choice of the three main English party’s, We’ve been Liberal/Lib dem since the days of Jo Grimond.
LikeLike
Is there a prize for finding a LibDem supporter?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m an auld bugger like you, also I have a policy of not posting when imbibing in the water of life. However. Spoiling your ballot paper as proposed is akin to the Alba party’s proposal regarding the second vote thingy (excuse me I have been drinking , did I already hint at that?) . I’d be surprised if many took up the option you propose. We are all doomed. Yours sincerely Oldrottenhead.
LikeLike
As I note in the final paragraph, I too think it unlikely that there will be any mass ballot-spoiling. The independence movement is too fragmented and rife with tribalism for any such coordinated action. There is much talk of ‘direct action’ in support of Scotland’s cause. But few recognise how much discipline this requires. Direct actin only works if people are prepared to follow instructions issued by a central coordinating team. Few are prepared to submit to that kind of management and control. Few realise that a campaign organisation is very different from a movement.
One of the most effective forms of direct action is the boycott. A boycott only works if lots of people participate and if they are all boycotting the same thing at the same time. Lots of people doing the same thing at the same time rarely if ever happens spontaneously. They have to be told what to boycott and when. The Yes movement is now about as far removed from being a campaign organisation as is possible. There is no structure. There is no overall management and control. There is no coordination. Therefore, there is no campaign.
Furthermore, it is almost certainly now not possible to create the kind of campaign organisation that Scotland’s cause requires. Factionalism is the antithesis of solidarity. Once factionalism and tribalism set in, the damage cannot be reversed. Principally because people are blind to their own tribalism. They see clearly the tribalism of the other. But tend to be oblivious to the fact that the other’s tribalism cannot exist without its counterpart in themselves.
Scotland’s cause is all but certainly doomed unless there is some kind of mass epiphany. It’s probably too late for that anyway. Which is not to say we should simply give up. I have tried and find that I am quite unable to walk away from the fight even knowing that success is unlikely. Defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory in 2015.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://votingcounts.org.uk/spoilt-ballot
Table 3. For info, the average spoilt ballot papers per constituency in a GE is around 120 to 150 these days. With 57 constituencies in Scotland, getting a total of 10,000 extra spoilt ballot papers would more than double or even treble this overall, and localised there would be more.
LikeLike
Getting the numbers is one thing. Getting them all to spoil their ballots in precisely the same way is a different matter altogether.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Note for Peter: this was intended as a direct Reply to “Oldrottenhead” but WordPress is preventing me from doing that without logging in to WordPress. This is disrupting the flow of the comment chain. 😦
“Spoiling your ballot paper as proposed is akin to the Alba party’s proposal regarding the second vote thingy. … I’d be surprised if many took up the option you propose. ”
Indeed. Expecting the nominally ‘independence’ espousing parties to either support this action or even just not campaign against it is politically unrealistic.
We have already seen it amply demonstrated that their self interest is their primary interest.
Therefore, as Peter and others have been saying, we must attempt to progress the Independence cause through non party means.
I am reminded of “IndyCar” Gordon Ross’ talk which was prompted by a previous post of Peters: “As things stand” from back in October: https://peterabell.scot/2023/10/17/as-things-stand/
“Ideas for direct peaceful action for Independence” from 17.10.23 is still viewable on youtube here:
Wherein he talks of protest, direct action and boycott
As Peter and Gordon Ross describe it, the action of a Boycott can be powerful.
As we also note, the cynical self interest of the Political Classes, combined with a fear of ‘letting the unionists in’ will likely be influential in dampening calls for a boycott.
To some extent this might be countermanded by suggesting to the naysayers that if they do not want to commit to a full_on Boycott, they they can content themselves with the half-measure of Protest by following the suggestion made at around 9 mins 44 secs : the idea of writing #EndTheUnion against the SNP candidates name.
Who could in good conscience say that they refuse to Protest and reject your right to Boycott?
Surely saying such a thing would be exposing that Political Campaigner at basest of political Hypocrites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t attempt to explain the quirks and picadilloes of WordPress. I’m seriously considering a move. For the moment, I can only apologise. The other thing I’ve been noticing of late is a tendency for Akismet to consign perfectly legitimate comments to the spam folder. I now check it more frequently. But this isn’t supposed to be work.
As to the main content of your comment; the effective impossibility of a direct-action campaign is acknowledged by all who are honest in appraising the state of play within the independence movement. The factionalism and tribalism rules out any concerted, coordinated action. A situation made much worse by the SNP’s hijacking of the only ‘banner’ under which the independence has united in the past. In a moment of fervour, I recently registered the domain realyes.scot. Having returned to my normal realistic (cynical) self, I’m reluctant to do anything with it. I know from chastening experience that those who talk of ‘unity’ generally insist that it be on their terms. Terms which are inevitably unacceptable to at least one other faction.
It’s very depressing. At times, I find myself envying those who are oblivious to the reality of our predicament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aye Peter, many who follow this blog will share in the sheer frustration o’ yon crude ‘tribalism’. It says much that you can be ‘arsed’ enough to repeat the notion that ‘tribalism’ (political cannibalism) is sucking the arse out of the Independence movement beyond recognition when so many of those ‘tribalist’ actors are in denial.
‘Envying those who are oblivious to the reality of our predicament’ isnae a trait that I would have associated you with, however perhaps your finishing comment @ 12:45 regarding an intake of the ‘beer allowance’ (possibly in association with Inveralmond) will assist in refreshing the soul for the New Year which is beckoning.
To all on this journey, let’s make 2024 the year to remember.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is no political ‘tribe’ of which I would I would like to be a member. I feel disenfranchised by what’s on offer, they are all so hopelessly – tribal.
At least I can express my views from a non-tribal position. Which isn’t always understood or appreciated. So when I am severely critical of one party – say the SNP for example- the automatic reaction from many is to press the ‘tribal’ button to counter my arguments.
I believe that there is a substantial number of Scottish voters who feel disenfranchised like me, and who are seeking out that elusive tribe to join which fits their views.
I recognise that many of them are not in favour of independence, but they are never going to vote Tory or Labour. Their default position is the SNP, if they vote at all, as they are at least voting for something with the word ‘Scottish’ in it, and they have rumbled the fact that the SNP have no idea or intention of achieving independence.
I suspect that many of these people will have been put off the SNP by its bizarre lurch into policies which are not remotely rellevant to their way of life, and by those which are relevant causing ruination to Scotland. So they will abstain.
For those like me who seek an independant Scotland, the only alternative to abstaining seems to be to join a tribe which spoils its ballot paper in a particular way, to which I will give serious consideration.
But what a sad state of affairs we are in for this to be the only alternative on offer. Especially as the result would seem to be a continuation of the same tribes, but with fewer members of them, and the continued ruination of Scotland, blaming of Westminster, and furtherence of mad ideas which people have not voted for.
The Unionists could have not planned it any better for this position to be arrived at. Perhaps I should join the tribe of conspiracy-mongers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The Unionists could have not planned it any better for this position to be arrived at.”
Indeed. And no need for any conspiracy. Time and human nature were all that was required.
LikeLike
“For those like me who seek an independant Scotland, the only alternative to abstaining seems to be to join a tribe which spoils its ballot paper in a particular way” Not My Government. End the Union.
LikeLiked by 2 people