Why we shouldn’t be taking Chris McEleny’s indyref back-up plan too seriously

Both Plan a and Plan B allow that the British political elite somehow has not only the rightful authority to prohibit the full and proper exercise of our sovereignty but the 'right' to be involved in and largely control the process by which the people of Scotland choose the form of government which best serves our needs, priorities and aspirations.

Are we ready to change gear?

OK! It could be that the previous reluctance to allow this debate was down to a certain excess of zeal on the part of certain officials. It may be that they were a bit over-protective of the party line. It could be that, chastened by criticism of their behaviour, these individuals have relented in a bid to put matters right. That is possible. Isn't it?

It’s the waiting…

Why ask if 'Plan B' might be a panacea anyway? Has anybody claimed that it might have the power to cure all ills? Come to that, has anybody claimed that it might be the "solution to all our indy woes"? Or that it could "break the constitutional stand off and get us swiftly and easily to independence"? Who has described 'Plan B' in such terms? When? Where?