Some of the reaction to my recent article describing Humza Yousaf’s now admitted commitment to the Section 30 process as An act of heinous treachery indicates that there are still some people who don’t understand the implications and potential consequences of the Section 30 order request that the First Minister proposes to submit. There is, of course, the fact that such a request compromises the sovereignty of Scotland’s people and must therefore be regarded as a gross betrayal. This alone should rule out a further Section 30 request. Quite why Humza Yousaf supposes it acceptable that the First Minister of Scotland and de facto leader of the independence movement should exhibit such contempt for the most fundamental principle underpinning Scotland’s democracy, is for him to explain. Although it is doubtful that he will ever be asked to do so. But if he has some explaining to do, then so do all those who claim to see nothing wrong in seeking the British Prime Minister’s consent to do something which we have an absolute right to do – exercise our right of self-determination.
There is also the far from incidental matter of the SNP leader’s dishonesty in encouraging or allowing people to believe that the ‘new strategy for independence’ decided on by last October’s party conference was a departure from the ‘Sturgeon doctrine’ which has left Scotland’s cause moribund for a decade. One would hope that Yousaf would be called to account for this, also. But, again, it is unlikely to happen. Such deceitfulness has become a feature of normal politics and is barely remarked upon any more.
Those who fail to recognise the dangers inherent in a Section 30 request fall broadly into two camps. There are those who, like the ‘continuity’ First Minister, continue to accept as gospel Nicola Sturgeon’s assertion that the Section 30 process is the only “legal and constitutional” route to independence. In fact, it is not a route to independence at all. But at the time Sturgeon made this claim, few were willing to challenge her lofty pronouncements. Those who did question both the accuracy of her claim and the political wisdom in excluding options were invariably drowned out by the clamour of Sturgeon’s fawning fans. That the Section 30 process was the ‘gold standard of democracy’ came to be accepted as fact by SNP loyalists and a large swathe of the independence movement. Many continue to believe there is no alternative and that there really is a route to independence through the legal and constitutional razor-wire protecting the Union. They are woefully mistaken
Then there are those who take the view that while the Section 30 process might not be all we might wish for, it’s ‘better than nothing’. They seem to imagine that we can safely pursue the S30 process and if it doesn’t work out then we can just try something else. They are woefully mistaken.
What these two viewpoints have in common is that both imagine that a Yes vote in a 2014-style referendum would lead to the restoration of Scotland’s independence or represent considerable progress towards that goal. They are woefully mistaken.
If Humza Yousaf is not prevented from writing a begging letter to whichever British Nationalist is occupying No10 after the 2024 Westminster election, one of three things can happen.
- The British Prime Minister contemptuously denies the request as others have done before.
- The British Prime Minister ignores the request or postpones responding.
- The British Prime Minister grants the request.
Let’s look at each of these in turn and speculate as to what might ensue in each case. Bear in mind that all speculation makes assumptions. The safer the assumption – the higher the degree of confidence – the more credible is the speculation. Only safe assumptions will be used in what follows.
If, as is widely anticipated, the British Prime Minister denies the request, where does that leave us? The people in the two categories described above might well opine that this simply leaves us back where we started. They will say that we must persevere and hope to somehow make it impossible for the British Prime Minister to refuse a further S30 request at some time in the future. This is simple-minded nonsense. The very act of submitting the request not only constitutes an act of treachery by the First Minister, but it also concedes a British veto over our right of self-determination. It makes it exceedingly difficult for a future Scottish Government to proceed on the basis that no such veto exists.
This would be of less consequence if Humza Yousaf had a plan ready to follow when the expected rebuff is received. It is clear that he does not. Beyond some talk of the 2026 Scottish Parliament election being made a de facto referendum on independence, he has given no hint of having any ideas. Wasn’t there much the same talk of the 2024 UK general election being used as a de facto independence referendum? Hasn’t it in fact turned out that Yousaf intends it to be merely a de facto referendum on submitting another S30 request? Why would we believe the 2026 Scottish Parliament election would be any different?
We don’t even know for certain that there will be a 2026 Holyrood election. Even if there is; even if the Scottish Parliament still exists by then, we must assume the British state will have acted in the interim to neutralise it as a threat. It is all but certain that if there is an election in 2026, it will not be for the Scottish Parliament as we know it. A Section 30 request is, as well as everything else, another SNP delaying tactic. More pusillanimous procrastination.
If the British Prime Minister ignores the S30 request, or intimates that he/she will respond ‘in due course’ we get all the downsides of the first scenario plus the fact that so long as the request is actively under consideration – or portrayed as being so – the Scottish Government can have no other recourse. While that request is ‘pending’, it cannot be claimed that all options have been exhausted.
Again, there is nothing to suggest that Humza Yousaf and his colleagues have even considered this possibility.
Quite rightly, many people regard the final scenario as extremely unlikely. They see not slightest possibility of any British Prime Minister ever again granting a Section 30 request. For the simple reason that to do so would put the Union in jeopardy. So long as the Scottish Government remains wedded to the S30 process, the British state can bring the independence campaign to a grinding halt simply by saying no. So, why wouldn’t they?
Well, because there are potential advantages for the British state in granting that Section 30 order which must be weighed against the risk. Bear in mind the reality of a S30 referendum. In the first place, it cannot be other than ‘consultative and non-self-executing’. In other words, it has no legal or constitutional effect. It changes nothing
In addition, a Section 30 order is always conditional. The British state can attach any conditions it wants to the granting of the order and in relation to the referendum it permits. Let your imagination run riot on the conditions that could potentially be attached. Using the Westminster franchise would be one. Setting a qualified majority is another. Attaching an undertaking that there will be a minimum 30-year gap between this and any future referendum. There really is no limit.
There is no way that a Section 30 referendum could lead to the restoration of Scotland’s independence. For certain, independence would not automatically ensue from a Yes majority. No matter how big that majority, the British state retains the authority – acceded to by Humza Yousaf – to decide what that Yes vote means. They could decide that it means nothing and that they need do nothing. Or they could decide that a commission of some kind is required to consider the implications of the Yes vote – reporting in maybe five years’ time. Again, while the findings of this commission are pending, the Scottish Government’s hands are tied. The British state, on the other hand, would be free to do whatever it considers necessary to secure the Union.
A Section 30 request is not only an act of treachery in that it represents a denial of the sovereignty of Scotland’s people, but also a betrayal in that it sabotages Scotland’s cause. The Section 30 process to which Humza Yousaf has committed spells disaster for the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence. He must be stopped!
Peter A Bell 
“The very act of submitting the request…….concedes a British veto over our right of self-determination. “
Deid richt, Peter. Sovereign Scots only real veto here is to end the union ourselves, preferably in the way it began, via a majority of Scotland’s representatives. Thay coud dae it noo! Thay coud hiv duin it in 2015! But, as postcolonial theory tells us, ‘the national party elites fail to act at the decisive moment’ (Fanon).
We are also fortuitous in that a referendum is not a legal requirement for independence.
Our national cause may not yet be lost, but on both above counts the SNP are a lost cause.
LikeLiked by 9 people
A referendum may not be a legal requirement, but it is a political necessity. We’ve spent decades telling the public that they are entitled to a referendum; government’s have been elected on the basis of (false) promises to deliver a referendum. Telling people now that no referendum is required would, at best, make us look silly. More imporantly, it would be presented – I think very easily and successfully – as the people being denied that to which they are entitled. Which is precisely our complaint against the Union. So, we’d be open to a further charge of hypoocrisy.
There must be a referendum. The important questions relate to the form of the referendum and its place in the process. By my reckoning, it has to be a confirmatory referendum. Only thus can it be a vote on a firm proposal to end the Union.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“We’ve spent decades telling the public that they are entitled to a referendum”
Well, yes, maybe over the last 15 years or so the political classes have waffled on about a referendum, as well as a new rather woolly concept of nationalism termed ‘civic’ – all of which has arguably served to prevent independence. One suspects they could see the trend that we were heading for nationalist majorities of MPs and needed to raise the exit barrier a bit?
Nevertheless, over most of the period of Union, a majority of Scotland’s MPs was deemed sufficient for independence and that is still the lawful reality, which cannot be ignored. It is this lawful reality that disnae suit the unionists or the faux-nationalists today, hence their emphasis on a referendum as being the only, albeit relatively ‘new’ and non-legal required, colonial hurdle that must be cleared by exhausted Scots; a bit like a runner made to wear tackety buits and a heavy back-pack.
LikeLiked by 4 people
But the majority of MPs has been ignored. And not just by the British. Our own ‘party of independence’ has ignored it. I feel there has to be a wee bit of consistency somewhere.
Besides, why be afraid of a referendum. So long as it is a proper constitutional referendum entirely made and managed in Scotland, it’ll be a Yes win. An undeniable, incontestible win. That is important. I want a conclusive decision.
LikeLiked by 5 people
“Our own ‘party of independence’ has ignored it. “
Yes, Peter, and this is precisely what has caused the rupture in the movement.
The national party have been given three national majorities by the people at successive UKGE’s and instead of declaring independence as they are lawfully entitled and constitutionally and indeed morally obliged to do (i.e. to end our ongoing oppression and liberate the people at the earliest opportunity), they have decided to make “an accommodation with the colonial power” (Fanon), which only continues and extends the ‘scourge of colonialism’, which is a ‘form of punishment’ and a ‘crime against humanity’.
I very much doubt we will see a “proper constitutional referendum entirely made and managed in Scotland” under the present colonial regime.
Its all there in the postcolonial theory playbook:
LikeLiked by 6 people
Unfortunately, “the present colonial regime” is all we’ve got. It’s all we’re going to have for much longer than it will take for the next British government to create a whole new set of legal and constitutional impediments to the exercise of our right of self-determination.
If it is futile to suppose there could be an internal revolt in the SNP this is almost entirely because almost all the people who could help bring about that internal revolt have decided it is futile to try. They are so intent on the SNP being the bad guys in this story that they do everything possible to ensure that the SNP is the villain of the piece. As adept as the party is at missing opportunities to progress Scotland’s cause, the independence movement is just as proficient at missing chances to force change on the SNP
I simply don’t see the SNP as the monolithic power so many others do. It’s only a political party, FFS! Political parties undergo internal upheaval all the time. To listen to some folk banging on about how ‘the SNP will NEVER change’, you’d think it was somehow unique among all political parties. It isn’t!
And if it was, then we’d be as well giving up on the beautiful dream. Because it simply isn’t credible to suppose our independence could be restored without the involvement of the existing political elite and the existing democratic institutions. Appealing as the idea of a tabula rasa may be, it just doesn’t happen in thèreal world. Not without extremely bloody revolution. It might be different if Scotland’s democratic infrastructure were primitive and part-formed. But where the existing democratic infrastructure is developed and sophisticated, it cannot just be swept out of existence in order that a whole new infrastructure be put in its place. Where is the material for this new infrastructure to come from if the pool of existing ‘talent’ is excluded?
If Scotland’s independence is to be restored, it must happen DESPITE the inevitable imperfections of a system which has developed under colonial rule. There is no shiny new system sitting on a shelf ready to be unboxed and plugged in. We will have to make the best of what we have. The idea that because what we have is broken we can simply throw it away and get a new one is childish in the extreme. Although, obviously, it suits politicians to have people believe that they are the pristine replacement for the shoddy old guard, they are drawn from precisely the same pool of ‘talent’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A very well laid out description of the likely scenarios and, more importantly, of their consequences.
“The Section 30 process to which Humza Yousaf has committed spells disaster for the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence. He has to be stopped!”
But how?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Numbers. Only directed, concerted effort by a very large number of people can possibly force Yousaf’s hand. Which is why the fragmentation of the Yes movement is such a tragedy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“indicates that there are still some people who don’t understand the implications and potential consequences of the Section 30 order request“
The problem is that it is not a matter of the patronising “don’t understand” you use so often, it is a matter of opinion, and well-informed people disagree with you.
As far as I’m concerned, Independence is Independence, and if it was set in cast iron that if I, yesindyref2, could achieve independence for Scotland just by walking down to Westminster and kissing Sunak’s feet, along with those of Truss, Johnson, May and Cameron, throw up Mundell, Jack and Gove for good measure, I’ll be off just as soon as I get my backpack, water and a rake of sandwiches to take with me. Pass on the spare clothes!
Meanwhile from 2012 and my favourite constitutionalist who I don’t always agree with:
https://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/340/Aileen-McHarg-The-Referendum-Memorandum-of-Agreement-and-Draft-Section-30-Order.aspx
LikeLike
A Section 30 referendum cannot lead to independence. Apparently, you care nothing for the damage that it would do to Scotland’s cause or the compromising of the sovereignty of the people.
And you’re wrong again. When you say “Independence is Independence” you exhibit a regrettably characteristic shallow-mindedness. But if you still haven’t grasped the problems with the Section 30 process, I doubt you’ll understand any explanation of why the way independence is achieved matters. I have written an article on this subject. But is it worth my while finding it? I think not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh dear. More froth from you.
Is there something about “I disagree with you” you don’t understand?
I’m going to go back to ignoring you.
LikeLike
As ever, the infantile notion that this is about you disagreeing with me. It isn’t, of course. I don’t give a shit whether you agree with me or not. Your agreeement is just not as important to me as you appear to imagine.
What my response was about is that you failed to address any of the points. I’ll take you seriously if you disagree and present a reasoned argument as to why. Or some kind of counter argument. You fail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This idiocy has to be addressed. The author is clearly oblivious to the importance of history. The stories a nation tells itself about itself are the very foundation of culture. Without history, there is no culture.
The author of this drivel evidently sees no difference between a story in which our independence is graciously granted by a beneficent ‘Mother Country’ (with certain conditions attached) and one in which our independence is restored by our own efforts and sacrifices.
I know which I’d rather my grandchildren were taught in school.
Contrary to what this fool asserts, the manner in which we restore our independence will define what kind of nation and people we are. Left to them, we would be defined as a nation of arse-lickers.
Fuck that!
LikeLiked by 7 people
A Section 30 Order is a deliberate cul-de-sac for the unwary, unrealistic and those who continue to believe that somehow a referendum based on the 2014 franchise and process is the answer to Scotland’s desire for independence.
We have to remember where the Section 30 Order originated. It comes from the Scotland Act 1998 that created the Scottish Executive, later renamed as a Parliament to make it appear more powerful and in control. The Scotland Act was designed to prevent independence, not as a staging post to that end – it is the end!
Just in case anyone considers somehow we can persuade Westminster to allow a Section 30 Order, they created a Section 35 Order as a backup to prevent anything untoward happening, and as a veto for anything the “Scottish Parliament” may try to enact. Westminster can then use a Section 35 to illustrate their power over Holyrood, just as they did with the Scottish Parliament’s incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots Law back in 2021 that resulted in many changes and over 2 years of delays.
More important than a Section 30 Order is when in the process a referendum is used. A referendum using the same process as 2014 can simply be ignored because the result is not binding and provides a multitude of opportunities for Westminster interference.. The same applies to a ‘de facto’ referendum where all kinds of barriers can be erected to ensure failure and even if by some miracle it succeeded then it too can be ignored.
However, the use of a ratifying referendum is necessary to have our independence recognised internationally.
On the matter of sovereignty, the Scottish government made it perfectly clear in their non-response to The Stirling Directive that they do not consider the people of Scotland to be sovereign and the leader of the Alba Party likewise believes in Parliamentary Sovereignty or Representative Sovereignty, where we exchange control by one set of political elites at Westminster for another set at Holyrood.
There is a need for a complete change in the way that Scotland is governed and where the people are truly sovereign. That scares the life out of politicians because they consider themselves as being the only source of knowledge and the only people with the ability to govern the rest of us. The loss of their status as MPs would be a personal and financial disaster for many of them as there is no guarantee that they would secure a similar role in an independent Scotland. With no transferable skills or experience for prospective employers the future looks bleak outside of their own protective political bubble.
That is why I believe our current crop of MPs, supposedly at Westminster to achieve independence, have no real interest in making that happen and many reasons why they are perfectly happy with what they have now.
LikeLiked by 7 people
“We have to remember where the Section 30 Order originated. It comes from the Scotland Act 1998 that created the Scottish Executive, later renamed as a Parliament to make it appear more powerful and in control. The Scotland Act was designed to prevent independence, not as a staging post to that end – it is the end!”
Well said, Spear o’ Annandale. In 1997 the people of Scotland voted, foolishly imo, for devolution and Scotland is now infantilised both legally and psychologically. Westminster is the parent and Holyrood the child.
I see people banging on about history; 843, 1320, 1707, etc. Yet Scotland is currently suffering from events following votes in 1997 and 2014.
Devolution was designed specifically to stop independence. Unionists said so at the time, as perhaps did some of the more astute nationalists.
We have a devolved parliament – not an independent parliament in waiting – and our parliament is full of devolutionists, none more so than the governing SNP, a party that has supported devolution since the 1970s.
What are we supposed to do about 1997 and 2014? Have an uprising of the sovereign people of Scotland and take over the pishy Holyrood building before it falls over from the ills of the woeful construction project!?
Some ideas concerning the sovereignty of the people of Scotland remind me of the nutters now getting jailed in the USA after events in the Capitol on January 6 a few years ago.
LikeLike
“It’s the wrong type of Independence”. What a total plonker.
Can you imagine if someone had said that to Kenneth MacAlpin?
LikeLike
I suspect Kenneth MacAlpin would have understood what you evidently can’t. In fact, I suspect most people would understand the importance of the story of independence. Most will realise that this is a story that will be told over and over. Most will recognise that this story will be central to the nation’s idea of itself. You’re the odd one here, being apparently genuinely incapable of comprehending any of this. Very odd, indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, if this were the early days of his rule and we were then where we are now geographically, Kenneth and I would be colonisers and you would be about to be colonised. Bow down and greet your Irish origin masters, you gom!
As far as I’m concerned by the way, if we got Independence because of all my foot kissing, in 100 years certainly, but possibly even in 50 years, I, Angus Yesi, the Second would according to those fireside stories, have strode down to Westminster with the very earth shaking around me, whole towns collapsing into rubble, seized the mace and with one might blow, split the dispatch box in twain, with the 6499 burly members and the craven speaker, running round in circles like chickens, crying and bawling that they’d do what I want. Hurry now before I blow down your Houses.
History, and how it’s remembered, not your strong point I see.
LikeLike
FFS!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“FFS!“
Indeed, it must be a bit of a shock to you. It’s a shame more people don’t know Scottish History, it might open the eyes to what was, what is the “official” version of what was – and what is. Anyway, that version is of course disputed though the previous importance of Dalriada in the West can not be overestimated – and of course, the origins of that were probably from the south and west of Ireland – the High Kings of Ireland to mix and match it a bit. A reverse takeover was tried later and failed, but hey, that’s history for you.
Anyways, not to worry, your own origins were probably in Northumberland (the old one), along with the Normans, so you were later settlers – colonisers in your vernacular. Which does unfortunately mean that dedicated blood and soil nationalists wouldn’t give you the vote in their franchise.
LikeLike
The process of self-determination considers indigenous peoples (and their descendants) as those living in the territory at the time of colonisation. In the Scots case that would be 1707.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The problem being that back in the early middle ages, the indigenous peoples were picts, and the colonisers were – the scots. As I posted a long time ago – how long back in history does this “indigenous” definition, go?
You can’t just pick one date of your own choosing. 1707 is a good date, but so also is 843 in terms of Picts whose language, culture and traditions were disparaged. Or indeed, 1320 in terms of the Normans.
Some might even argue that the 1920s saw the Italians colonising Scotland! Alora allora.
LikeLike
Reagrads “The wrong kind of Independence” the point about that is if it is up to London to “grant ” us Independence, you can bet it will have a great many strings to go with it, and so, it wouldn’t really be Independence.
And so we could indeed end up with the “wrong” kind of Independence. Easily so!
It might be a slightly more glorified version of Devolution, but London would still insist on this and that.
Now there are some, who would be happy to be like Isle of Man, or Channel Islands,, with pretty much everything run by themselves, save Defense and Foreign Affairs, but as we see with Brexit, we would still be at the mercy of decisions made in London on our behalf in that situation.
We would not be able to go back into EU, nor have control over say, no arms sales to Israel, etc.
And again, as I say above, London would devise such a system in its favor, everything from what kinds of passports we could use, to how much of our natural resources we get, and how much London still would get (which would be most of it) and thus we do not get to fully control these things as we should.
So, an “appearance” of being Independent in that case, would be a false one, and be of no real use to us.
For one example to take, we would still have a Head of State based in England, whose Governor General could still remove a Prime Minister, like happened in Australia in the early 1970s.
I can’t see that ever happen again in Australia, they wouldn’t tolerate it today, but who’s to say they don’t try it in Scotland, if we have that system?
Regards a Referendum, etc, Peter’s whole point of it is that we more or less Declare Independence at the Scottish Parliament, then move to have a Referendum, made entirely in Scotland, with zero involvement of England.
For as we have seen, anything else is simply brushed aside by London, and indeed, the “Rules” made up at Westminster, make it impossible to get Independence any other way, but doing it for ourselves.
That, is the reality!
LikeLiked by 5 people
“And so we could indeed end up with the “wrong” kind of Independence. Easily so!“
Not really, if it’s not actual independence, then it’s dependence.
There is no real true independence in a way, the world is full of interdependence. But if a country doesn’t totally control the full extent of its interdependence, then it is not independent. An Independent Scotland will still have interdependencies in the World, even if we don’t join the World Bank, IMF, EU, EFTA, NATO – and perhaps even the UN!
As for Westminster, who would trust them these days?
LikeLike
It’s ironic that one of the first open histories of Scotland – The Lion in the North – was written by an Englishman, John Prebble. You can get it on Abebooks or Amazon. He also wrote of course The Highland Clearances.
But more than ironic, it shows how, being outside Scotland, he wasn’t subject to the Unionist indoctrination that many Scottish history writers used to suffer from. I’d disagree with some of his stuff of course.
Another insight is looking into the history of Scotland Yard, perhaps using electric scotland and also undiscovered scotland, but also going on from there. Here’s an interesting one as it isn’t really about Scotland:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa7acb15cfd793ea13e6a74/t/6335a4d981d2677f18128fd5/1664460010138/LR+Service+.pdf
but use that as a base and explore its other history, looking for the word “tribute”, which relates to earlier postings, and going back over 1,000 years of history. Something Independence negotiators could take note of:
rUK negotiator “Going back over 10 years you owe us so many billions“.
Scotland negotiator: “Going back 1,000 years, you owe us that in trillions“.
If all Scots took an interest in our history, support for Independence would be higher even than devolution levels in 1997. Which of course is why it’s been so suppressed, and why some of the best works are by – the English.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The most serious blow suffered by the colonized is being removed from history. The colonized…. feels neither responsible nor guilty nor skeptical, for he is out of the game. He is in no way a subject of history any more. Of course, he carries its burden, often more cruelly than others, but always as an object. He has forgotten how to participate actively in history and no longer even asks to do so” (Albert Memmi).
LikeLiked by 5 people
The thing about the Section 30, is if the resulting referendum leads to a YES vote, but the UK does NOT honour that result, then you have to look at 88 in the UKSC LA referral (very faulty) judgement where it relies on the Canadian Supreme Court judgement on Quebec in relation to self-determination and the INTERNAL right to self-determination:
“In all three situations, the people in question are entitled to a right to external self-determination because they have been denied the ability to exert internally their right to self-determination.“
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2022-0098-judgment.pdf
Which makes the Section 30 (or equivalent permanent change) a trap for the UK Government, not for Scotland. And unfortunately they know it. Ignore the result of a referendum – and they will have denied that right to self-determination. And it’s quite obvious they expect it to be a YES vote.
That UKSC judgement, by the way, is the real reason considering Scotland as a colony has more purchase. The UKSC denied the duly elected Scottish Government the right to hold a referendum on – self-determination.
LikeLike
The Scottish Government has never proposed a referendum on self-determination. Although Yousaf is probably stupid enough to suggest it. A referendum on self-determination makes no sense. We already have the right of self-determination. What is being obstructed is the ability to exercise that right. And only because the Scottish Government accept the authority of the British government to prevent us exercising our right of self-determination. An authority which the British state CANNOT possess.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Up above, Spear o’ Annandale said:
“We have to remember where the Section 30 Order originated. It comes from the Scotland Act 1998 that created the Scottish Executive, later renamed as a Parliament to make it appear more powerful and in control. The Scotland Act was designed to prevent independence, not as a staging post to that end – it is the end!”
In 1997 the people of Scotland voted, foolishly imo, for devolution and Scotland is now infantilised both legally and psychologically. Westminster is the parent and Holyrood the child.
I see people banging on about history; 843, 1320, 1707, etc. Yet Scotland is currently suffering from events following votes in 1997 and 2014.
Devolution was designed specifically to stop independence. Unionists said so at the time, as perhaps did some of the more astute nationalists.
We have a devolved parliament – not an independent parliament in waiting – and our parliament is full of devolutionists, none more so than the governing SNP, a party that has supported devolution since the 1970s.
I suspect that unless we address 1997 and 2014 and the consequences of these votes, there’ll be little more than lip service paid to independence.
LikeLike
In 1979 support for devolution was just 51.5%, in 1997 that had risen to 74.6%, and via the SSAS, quite quickly rose to over 89%, with only 8% or so wanting to abolish Holyrood. Since 1997 there have been 6 elections where people have voted for the Government in Holyrood.
“or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development“
Clearly devolution does give the People of Scotland meaningful access to government – our own. As well as 48 MPs or whatever the number is, to reserved matters at Westminster. Oh, the Speaker totally dissed that access by the SNP on their lawful motion.
STEEERRRIKE 2
Strike 1 being the UKSC LA reference, the Infernal Market Act, and the increasing interference by the UK Governor-General of Scotland and his minions – with that very Devolution voted for in 6 successive elections and supported by over 90% of the people of Scotland.
From that UKSC:
“87. The strong presumption in favour of interpreting our domestic law in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations in international law is well established. [etc]
88. … or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development.
89. In our view these observations apply with equal force to the position of
Scotland and the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom. etc.“
It’s stacking up, and without Devolution we’d have had NO Scottish Elections, NO Scottish Parliament, NO referendum, NO initial exercise of our self-determination in 2014 (similar to 1979), and NO chance of a 1997 but for Independence, as popular support would not have been officially recorded.
LikeLike
yesindyref2, can I ask you a few questions.
LikeLike
a. No, I think devolution inevitably leads to Independence, as would devo-max and federalism. The asymmetric nature where the big 85% gets to call the shots at the top level is bound to fail, and the Union would only be safe with devolution IN England. Which the regions didn’t want. The EU gets on because even German, France and Italy don’t get to call the shots without compromise and wheeling and dealing.
b. No. In the real world it’s made it possible; before it wasn’t.
c. No. But there are conflicts between any leader and the comfortably Londonised MPs (same happened to Labour). And the special interests that corrupted the SNP and makes decisions which the leaders can not change. The MSPs mostly live in fear of them and are therefore made impotent.
d. Don’t vote for any of them – spoil the ballot sheet in a clear fashion which shows the reason for not voting is Independence – and the lack of any courage from the SNP. Which unfortunately goes down to branch level. The branches should sack the lot of them and build back up, including encouraging raising participation from 5% to as near 50% as they can get. Like putting Independence on the fucking monthly agenda.
LikeLike
My opinion:
a) Devolution was designed to stop independence. The Trojan horse wasn’t even disguised – it was openly paraded as a trap. To pretend otherwise after 25 years is fanciful, especially with SNP supporters having suffered nearly 10 years of humiliation, being fooled by devolutionists feeding at the devo-trough, both here and down there.
b) Devolution has stopped independence. Additionally support for indy is now divided and shambolic.
c) The SNP are devolutionists. It’s indisputable. It’s amazing that anyone could think anything else and even more amazing that some believe the Party will ever give up fooling its own supporters.
d) It’s good to end on a note of agreement. I like Peter’s #EndTheUnion repurpose your vote idea and think it could make a valuable point. However, referring back to my answer to b) above, some divisive egotist has stolen Peter’s idea in an entirely self-serving attempt at a rebranding exercise. He’s looking for personal glory and is shamelessly prepared to add to the shambles all of indy is enduring.
LikeLike
There’s quite a few think like that. I’ve got a good memory for btl posters in other places, and I’ve seen some of them change away from the SNP. Still support Indy, but not the present shower of no-hopers. They’re sick of GRR and HCA and DRS and cobblers and all and want the SNP to back to indy, including a de facto GE referendum. There’s still of course the loyal defenders at all costs but there’s less of them and perhaps they’re getting a bit more shrill – and inventive!
The SNP have still got time before the GE to reform – and get the votes. “Make Scotland Tory Free” – who gives a shhhh you know what. Make Scotland Westminster Free. Now you’re talking.
LikeLiked by 2 people