"Here is what we know. A majority SNP government will hold a referendum within the term of the next parliament."Richard Walker: This is why Both Votes SNP is best way to ensure independence But we don't know this, Richard. That is a very large part of the problem. In your very next sentence you refer … Continue reading What a mess!
Other than the absence of references to the Section 30 process in her statements and speeches, the indications are that the SNP's 'official' position continues to be that the party is seeking a mandate to first of all petition Boris Johnson for the permission he has repeatedly and unequivocally said he will not grant under any circumstances. The purpose of this being, apparently, to prove to the international community that Boris is not lying when he says this and that the Scottish Government acknowledges Scotland's subordinate status in the Union.
If Nicola Sturgeon is correct and the Section 30 process is the only "legal and constitutional" way to a new independence referendum, does this not mean that all other ways are 'illegal and unconstitutional'. And yet here we have two other very senior figures in the SNP saying, in effect, that what Nicola Sturgeon has identified as the only "legal and constitutional" way isn't in fact "legal and constitutional" at all!
If, as is now asserted, the Scottish Parliament has the competence to authorise a constitutional referendum then it could quite readily be argued that requesting a Section 30 order constitutes contempt of Parliament. Some might say it amounts to treason. Although I would not wish to put it in those terms myself.
It all starts with asserting the competence of the Scottish Parliament in all constitutional matters. If you don't start from here you must ultimately come back to it. Whatever 'Plan' you adopt if it doesn't include asserting the primacy of the Scottish Parliament on the basis of its exclusive democratic legitimacy and the sovereignty of the people of Scotland then it barely qualifies as a plan. At some point, establishing the authority of the Scottish Parliament will have to be tacked on.
Mr Russell is correct about the British government denying the people of Scotland our "basic democratic rights". But it is Section 30 of the Scotland Act which legitimises this denial with authority derived from the Union. He is correct when he observes that this denial of our right of self-determination is "illegal under international law". But Section 30 makes it legal under British law. NICOLA STURGEON SAYS THAT SECTION 30 IS THE ONLY PROCESS WHICH IS "LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL"
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.
But the Section 30 process won't work. It cannot provide for a free and fair exercise of our right of self-determination. We know that with such a high degree of certainty that we'd be fools not to treat it as established fact. The British don't want to allow a referendum at all. So what makes anybody imagine that they'd be willing to go along with a free and fair referendum? It makes no sense!
We will only gain the respect of the international community if we demonstrate a willingness to assert for ourselves the attributes of a normal independent nation.
It is futile to try to explain to British Nationalists such as Douglas Ross and Willie Rennie that the choice of whether and when we exercise our right of self-determination is a matter entirely and exclusively for the people of Scotland.