A Guest Post by Danial Jack a pro independence ex UK Senior Civil Servant
“Daniel Jack is a retired Scottish public servant and diplomat. He was appointed Scotland’s most senior diplomatic representative in Washington DC from 2013 to 2016.
. Like so many people who have been following the evolution of Salvo and Liberation Scotland, I firmly believe in an independent Scotland. I also believe that the people of Scotland have the right to self-determination. So why is it that the Salvo/Liberation Scotland narrative jars so much? Well so much of it is predicated on the assertion that all politicians and all political structures have failed, that is why we need a new approach. I simply don’t believe that. It’s as if by concentrating on our ancient history we have forgotten our recent past. The independence referendum in 2014 was not a sign of failure. Rather, it was a sign that if you have a political leader of the right calibre, one who is a consummate strategic thinker, like Alex Salmond, even the most constrictive of political frameworks can be made to yield.
Yet the solution being presented to us to get out of this bind, as they would see it, is to place all our hope in the most political and politicised institution on the planet, the United Nations. Politics is the life blood of the UN. Whilst it is not exactly clear to me how this solution would be achieved, it seems to rest on two components, an approach to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague and to the UN Committee on Decolonisation.
The ICJ is the judicial arm of the UN. It acts as the organisation’s ultimate decision making body in matters pertaining to international law. Its rules and governing principles are quite clear.There are two types of cases which can be brought before the Court; contentious and advisory. Contentious cases can be only brought by Member States; advisory cases by UN organs and specialised agencies. So when Salvo said in its recent new release that “we shall seek proper remedy in the International Court”, under the current rules they simply cannot do that. And the rules aren’t going to change.
Perhaps an approach to the UN Committee on Decolonisation offers a better opportunity? Well let me tell you a story, not from over 300 years ago, but 5 years ago. Benny Wenda is the exiled leader of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua. West Papua has a population almost exactly that of Scotland, 5,500,000. I would urge you to read about its troubled history and how its people have been treated, initially under Dutch colonial rule, and subsequently during its incorporation into Indonesia. Mr Wenda has twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and lives with his family in Oxford having been granted political asylum in the UK. Without doubt he is leader of a real liberation movement.
In 2017 Mr Wenda tried to submit a petition containing 1.8 million signatures, to the UN Committee on Decolonisation. Signatures for the petition had been canvassed in secret and the petition itself was smuggled out of West Papua. The petition asked the UN to put West Papua “back on the decolonisation committee agenda”. He was unsuccessful. The reason given by the Committee Chair was quite illuminating. “We are just working on the countries that are part of the list of non-self-governing territories. That list is issued by the General Assembly.” In other words, the Committee cannot add territories to the list, only the General Assembly can do that. In the case of Scotland, that isn’t going to happen. And indeed in the case of anywhere else it isn’t going to happen. Attempts to add territories to the list have failed, having been blocked by various Member States. Mr Wenda’s petition represented almost 33% of the West Papua population. Liberation Scotland would have you believe that a mere 100,000 signatures, 1.8% of the population, is all that is required to secure success. Can you see why I am just a wee bit sceptical?
I am not, by any means, an expert on the UN. But I am one of, at a guess, only a handful of Scots who have represented Scotland before a UN committee. I was, of course, only able to do that because it was in the interests of the UK Government to allow it. Following procedures, following detailed rules of engagement, taking into account precedent and protocol are paramount when dealing with the UN. So also are the wider political considerations. It is naïve to think that any attempt to undermine the position of the UK within the UN arena would succeed. It isn’t going to happen.
As someone else said recently, the route to Scottish Independence is a political one, not, as Salvo/Liberation Scotland would have you believe, a quasi-judicial one. Nor does success lie in casting aside all of the existing democratic structures and starting anew. The majority of the people of Scotland will not support that. No, it lies in getting behind the right people who can and will make a difference. A difference which can be experienced in our everyday lives, not pinning our hopes on overseas committees and institutions which, frankly, are not interested and couldn’t care less. Scotland’s future lies in our own hands, we just need to make the right choices.
(@IRoddy – You have allowed my posts in the past, and I choose very carefully when I do post, may I again therefore leave it to your discretion on this one.)
These are posts which are in the public domain as of yesterday on Peter A Bell’s blog, and arise from the separate initiative (of which you are aware) – The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot.
They also now appear on Iain Lawson’s blog as of this morning with comments from both myself and Sara Salyers (worth reading I suggest.)
(Starts) ” Under the title “The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” an initiative with initial contact with the UN started well over a year ago, and continuines to this day – as Sovereign Scots (at every rally all across Scotland since it started) have signed their individual Declarations which have then been lodged with the UN – and in letters accompanying each batch issued relevant issues have been raised. (Self detrmination, nuclear weapons, territorial integrity and more.)
Link, as an example:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19424544.i-sovereign-scot-declaration-yes-hit-un-aware-project/
That link, as you will see, is itself well over a year old. Since then, there have been changes and developmemts, and a large growth in support.
And to clarify, I do NOT expect the Sec/Gen of the UN (an example of a bureaucracy writ large) to inform all 193 Members of the initiative – that is part of Stage 2 in the intiative, with contacts being established with individual Member States.” (Ends.)
With exceptions, it is I think reasonably established that regaining Scotland’s independence should be both “legal” and “internationally recognised”.
Put simply, I chose to reverse the order and relative importance of those two components.
For Scotland, long long a country in its own right, to be accepted as a State in its own right requires “international recognition” – thus the approach I have adopted by putting that front and central.
International law is an established fact, whether always followed is entirely debatable – many Member States will, at their choosing, simply ignore it. Whether they do so is always determined by self interest. But are there instances of wider interests – climate change is one, but still dominated by self interest.
However in the above comments I mention “nuclear weapons”. No sooner had the UN issued its Declaration on the prohibition of such weapons, when the UK (via Boris) announced its intention to increase its stockpile of such weapons – now think an independent Scotland.
Ask yourself – would there be any interest, geo politically, on a decision by an independent Scotland to seek the removal of such weapons from travel on its roads and from being harboured in its waters? It played its part in 2014, and will remain part of what is involved.
Scotland, and very specifically an independent Scotland, has its part to play in this world of ours – Winnie Ewing (1967) said it as well as I can – “Stop the world – Scotland wants to get on!”
Not a lot to add, as this excellent and pragmatic article makes complete sense to me.
Until such time as a clear majority of Scottish people are seen to want independence, nothing will change. Towns and squares all over Scotland filled with people demanding independence (not single rallies with a few thousand) backed up by overwhelming results in all types of elections including seats and a majority of the vote would be a starter. The one thing we do not want right now is a vote on it – we will lose.
The SNP requires root and branch overhaul and return to a single focus. Perhaps George Robertson was right in saying devolution will kill independence stone dead – it certainly looks like we are stuck around 50%. I think Norway voted over 99% for independence in the first decade of the 20th century. Running one of the UK’s own devolved assemblies has become a big distraction for the SNP leadership.
The UN is not the solution. Ask the Palestinians or Kashmiris what the UN has done for them even though they have the support of international law.
It has to be part of it, Yvonne. We will need international recognition. Independence is always a mix of the political and the legal: first the former, then the latter.
Mr Jack is not entirely right about the ICJ. He’s correct about contentious cases which can only be brought by one member state against another, and then only if both agree. He’s partly right about advisory cases, but has omitted to say that in additon to the specified organs and agencies, the ICJ can also hear a case referred to it by the General Assembly. That was how it managed to hear, for example, the case involving Kosova and that involving the Chagos Islands. If it was to hear a case involving Scotland it would almost certainly be through that latter method.
I actually think Daniel did cover that
That list is issued by the General Assembly.” In other words, the Committee cannot add territories to the list, only the General Assembly can do that. In the case of Scotland, that isn’t going to happen. And indeed in the case of anywhere else it isn’t going to happen. Attempts to add territories to the list have failed, having been blocked by various Member States
You’re talking about the colony list – I’m not. There is a list of about 17 non self-governing teritories which the UN regards as colonies and which it will help towards decolonisation. To be on that list, a territory has to satisfy certain conditions. One is that it must not be integrated with an independent state. That rules Scotland out. It also probably ruled Papua New Guinea out as the UN regards it as an integral part of Indonesia. But if a territory did indeed comply with all the conditions then the General Assembly could presumably require the Decolonisation committee to add it to their list.
The cases I referred to, i.e. Kosova and the Chagos Islands, were nothing to do with the decolonisation programme. Rather. representations were made to the General Assembly which decided that they, like several other cases over the years, were worthy of consideration and referred them accordingly to the ICJ, notwithstanding the fact that both Serbia and the UK objected. So if you can persuade the General Assembly as to the merits of your case, and that it warrants a decision by the IRJ, you might just get one. It’s noteworthy that both the UK and the USA objected to the Chagos case proceeding, but it went ahead all the same and when the IRJ decision in favour of Mauritius and the Chagos Islanders was returned to the General Assembly, it was ratified by 116 votes to 6, a measure perhaps of the seriously diminished clout of the USA and the UK on the world stage.
That, I think, is the route that Salvo hopes to take.
How are the Chagos Islanders getting on?
Salvo have no standing.It will require political buy in
The Chagos Islanders are still without their islands, the UK having ignored the ICJ finding which was non-binding – in which case, you might ask, what was the point of it? However, people won’t forget and I suspect that the UK has even fewer friends in the UN than it had before, which wasn’t many – even good allies abstained in the Chagos vote rather than support the UK. The more countries who realise what Scotland is having to contend with the better. We’re likely to need friends and I suspect that many countries would be queuing up to give England a good slap.
While Salvo is correct in recognising how the UN might be approached, I nevertheless agree that Salvo is unlikely to have sufficient clout on its own to bring a case before the UN even if their case was considered to be a convincing one, and I know that not everyone believes it to be so. I think it would require a united Yes movement and some deft political chicanery to do that, and I’m afraid I think that the UN would require to be convinced that independence is the settled will of the people of Scotland before it would contemplate taking up a case. If it did find in Scotland’s favour and the UK refused to acknowledge it, then I think we’d have to turn to our many friends abroad to support and recognise us when we declare ourselves to be an independent sovereign nation once again, a remedy that is not unfortunately open to the Chagos islanders.
As long as they retain the backing of the equally imperialistic and war mongering USA then they will be safe in the Security Council and in the world. Like Israel the UK is in the world’s bullies gang and will be allowed to trample over democracy and decency at will.
Agreed, DavetTee19, although it was covered in the article. We need to collaborate with other states, too, to solicit their help. We need to utilise the Treaty/CoR (their breaching) as the source of our case. Otherwise, we give up and go on a campaign of gaining more devolution. That, of course, comes right up against the self-interest of the English regions which will try to block us at Westminster, and also comes up against actual England self-interest. It has never been in England’s self-interest to devolve itself and weaken its overall influence over the UK. Too boot, Brexit has made it even more desperate. England wants more and greater national frameworks, while Scotland needs these like a hole in the head.
Lorna, I have some difficulty getting my head round the Treaty/Act business. As I undertand it agreement was reached in principle netween the leaders of Scotland and England to form a Union. As a result of discussions terms were agreed and these terms formed the basis of the Treaties. However, the treaties did not achieve union as they were always dependent on the two Parliaments passing the Acts, the wording of which was very similar to that of the treaties. If either parliament had failed to do so, the treaties would have had no effect.
Basically, therefore, it wasn’t the treaties that achieved union, it was the Acts, which were statutes and therefore became law. These statutes were passed by two domestic parliaments. Whether they were international or domestic in legal terms I do not know, particularly as back in 1707 the concepts of international law were still developing with numerous theories being propounded.
The other problem is how one resiles from a treat if neither party to that treaty exists. The treaty was made between two sovereign states, each of which would shortly thereafter be extinguished. I’m also quite confident that no court, international or domestic, would countence any attempt to resile from a 315 year old treaty after both parties had relied on its terms ever afterwards and which had had, moreover, enormous international consequences. Any attempt by Scotland to unilaterally resile from the treaty and repeal the Act of Union would not be recognised internationally and would fail.
In any event, there’s a much simpler way. The United Kingdom was formed by the Act of Union. The United Kingsdom could therefore pass another act dissolving the union. Such an act would be recognised domestically and internationally. In the event of dispute there is plenty of international law governing matters such as distribution of assets, maritime rights, and so on. Even if matters reached the point where no agreement could be reached and Westminster was unwilling to act, then Scotland could declare UDI without any necessity of annulling any ancient treaties or Acts. That would, however, be a last resort.
Davey: just as accession to the EEC (now EU) via the Treaty of Rome (founding treaty) and others had to be translated into domestic law, so the Treaties of Union had to be translated into domestic law. The UK agreed, in principle, to the Treaty of Rome and accepted membership, but that was just the first step. Acts ratify treaties, not the other way round. Treaties between states are always international in nature.
You are, however, right to say that it was not the parliaments which agreed the treaties in the first instance, but the Crown, as Head of State of both Scotland and England, ergo the Treaties required parliamentary ratification to complete the process, which was done with the Acts of Union. Relying on the Acts could well be so supremely self-defeating as to be beyond belief if we do not remember who has parliamentary sovereignty on its side – England as the UK. Remember the SC of the UK’s recent ruling.
The Treaty requires to be ‘sound’ in law, so that Scotland’s agreement can be seen to be what it is: a political and social union, but not a territorial or maritime union; and that we retained all of the panoply of an independent nation apart from statehood, which we merged with England’s in order to create the UK.
Remember that most of our resources lie under the sea and on the land (and under it, too), so we have to have our original accession stripped of domestic British hegemony. It really worries me when people think the Treaty no longer counts. Many up here may not believe it does, but make no mistake, the British State will know perfectly well that it does and will be relying on ignorance on our part. If we once cede sovereignty from the Treaty to the Act, we are tacitly agreeing that Westminster has the upper hand. How many of our assets and resources do you think we’ll retain in those circumstances?
I have to admit that I wasn’t really sure who agreed the treaties which is why I used the word “leaders”. Who signed them on behalf os Scotland and who was involved in drafting them? I’m not sure that the Crown was involved – indeed, it shouldn’t have been if the Scottish people are sovereign. But there again I’m a long way from being convinced that the Scottish people, by which I mean the majority of the population, were ever sovereign and I’ve never received an explanation as to how, if in Scotland the people rather than parliament were sovereign, Parliament nevertheless entered into the treaty and passed the Act of Union when that was clearly contrary to the will of the supposedly sovereign people.
I’m afraid I’m one of those who don’t think that the Treaty counts for much, probably because I don’t accept that it did not include territorial or maritime matters. As I’ve said before I think that the Union included everything and if I’m right, then presumably the Treaty has minimal if any value in dealing with Scottish independence now. At the end of the day Scottish independence will either be taken or, more likely, negotiated. In either case Scotland is a country whose territories, land and sea, are already internationally defined and recognised, although a Westminster grab of some maritime territory some years ago would, I think, be open to dispute following independence. Happily, there are globally recognised international rules for defining maritime boundaries and if necessary the relevant maritime courts may have to make a decision. Oh, and if Westminster was to demand all the UK assets outwith Scotand, international law is clear that Scotland then need accept no liability whatever for a share of the UK debt. A fresh start untrammelled by debt in return for giving up “assets” that we might neither need nor want and which may be touched by British hegemony seems quite attractive.
This is a useful and accurate assessment of the potential of the United Nations as a legal route to achieving independence. The comments on the likelihood of a UNGA request for an advisory opinion in particular are currently realistic. That is not at all to say that making reference to international law to strengthen arguments is pointless. As the author implies, expression of the democratic will of a people would be the primary goal. Interestingly that reflects just what the UK really argued in the Kosovo ICJ advisory opinion: “ international law does not preclude the creation of States by operation of declarations of independence which properly reflect the will of a people and garner sufficient support to enable the territorial entity in question to function effectively as a State in the international community.”
Also it may be worth looking at this timely blogpost on referendums and sovereignty (with apologies for the Twitter link format) https://twitter.com/susanke07511746/status/1598320689215410180?s=20&t=HWT9HPHCja8-_YWLMVtA3A
“… First, once actually given a genuine opportunity to express their wishes, voters will often enough reject changes in sovereignty and opt for continuity instead, as shown, for instance, by the referendums held in Quebec (1995), Scotland (2014), and New Caledonia (2018/2020/2021)… ”
Susan, in each of those examples, a large immigrant population of Anglophones and Francophones, in the case of New Caledonia, actually voted NO in such numbers as to leave the whole matter up in the air and unsettled. In other words, there was no choosing of the status quo by a majority of the indigenous population, quite the opposite, but the status quo won the day. That is why all three are still in a state of flux. The problem for all countries/regions/provinces attempting to leave a union where a much larger and more numerous neighbour pre dominates is that a pre independence referendum allows their influence to counter-act the very real basis for the independence call.
If pressed, the UN will admit that pre independence referendums are not strictly necessary in international law, whereas ratifying referendums probably are. In the cases of the former Ukrainian republics, including Crimea, independence followed immediately in the eyes of the Russians. Our own attempted referendum bid would have been no more than a referendum asking for a referendum on independence, which might or might not be honoured by Westminster.
Every route now has to be explored and forwarded, including and especially the CoR (which, personally, I believe that Charles ratified only insomuch as it ratifies a Protestant succession – his words stated that). The CoR is, of course, much more than a non-Catholic succession document, but I cannot see it being powerful enough to stand on its on without the Treaty. The Treaty created the Union (not the Acts, as so many appear to think), ergo the Treaty requires to be challenged, but, again, we have to be careful because we did (or others on our behalf did) sign up to the Union. I think we have a strong case based on breaching of the Treaty, but, without the Treaty having been ‘sound’ in law and used as the basis for our independence, we are going nowhere. Nor can we afford to ignore the political route, which must run parallel to the international law route. The SNP is not going to agree any time soon, without immense pressure, to a SE with a United Scotland putting candidates forward from all the independence parties and counting them, if they win, as markers for independence. I actually believe we are closer than we think, but we need to keep the pot boiling.
Excellent comment Lorna one I concur with completely.
Excellent post, Lorna, and one with which, you may be surprised to hear, I largely agree with. One point I would make, however, is that surely the Acts of Union were the statutes that put the Treaties into effect and created the Union? In that event, if anything has to be challenged it would be the statute although in the event of any doubt as to interpretation one would look to the treaties for possible clarification. Having said that, I feel that any attempt to challenge a 315-year-old Act to which the parties have subsequently largely acquiesced and which has played a very substantial part in world history would be a complete non starter. Far better to rely on the modern law of self-determination.
If I am not mistaken Theresa May invoked the Henry VIII laws did she not? Goose and gander!
https://www.ft.com/content/6ebff604-d8e3-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e
That’s such a poor analogy. You are mistaken. Theresa May did not invoke any Henry VIII laws. The powers she proposed would have allowed ministers to amend laws returning to Westminster from Brussels without a parliamentary vote. When there were protests from her own party she backed down. The expression is a reference to King Henry VIII’s supposed preference for legislating directly by proclamation rather than through Parliament. Rather a far cry, don’t you think, from any proposal to amend or void a 315-year old statute which has played such a prominent part in UK and world history.
Davey: domestic law (the Acts) actually ratified the Treaty (international law). Domestic law cannot supersede international law, which is why most countries (civilised ones) choose to align their own legislation with international legal obligations. The Treaty must be resiled in international law. Then, and only then, can the Acts be repealed. If you read both the Treaty and the Acts carefully, they are fairly in accord in any case.
To allow ourselves to be conned into changing the Acts and renegotiating the Union, in effect, would be the height of folly and would not only very likely change the Union even more in England as the UK’s interest, but would also scupper any advantage we would hold, via the Treaty, and in international law, in negotiations for assets, continuing state status (if we wanted it) and all maritime and terrestrial borders and assets and resources therein. It is absolutely crucial that we do not fall for the trick of believing that the Acts created the Union. They ratified the already existing Union which had been established by the Treaty, with the CoR at it core. It would be a failure of monstrous proportions and a total betrayal of our coming generations.
We should nevertheless remember that institutions such as the ICJ and UN C-24 were specifically created in order to bring about peaceful mechanisms and remedies to international political conflict, including the self-determination of ‘peoples’. That such institutions may be dominated or compromised by the actions or influence of the ‘bully’ imperial powers they were intended to eradicate is another matter. The fact is they exist and may be used where politics and democracy fail. Discovering their colonial reality and wretched status is also part of the learning process of any doun-hauden people (some Scots still think we are in ‘a union’!), as is the fact that the remedy rests in thair ain haunds, much as Danial says.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/determinants-of-independence-synopsis-and-strategies/
A reality check.Thank you Daniel Jack. Let’s focus on the politics.There is no smart legal route out of England’s grasp.
I had suspected something of this sort.
The UN Committee on Decolonisation has been rarely invoked in terms of actual sitting in judgment.
They became involved in Timor Leste because the new President of Indonesia, Habibie considered the military occupation a drain on central resources. The Indonesian military regarded continued occupation as a matter of prestige.
They will have been allowed involvement in New Caledonia also because of the cost of maintaining a colony on the other side of the planet in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and because the potential embarrassment of being seen to hold the indigenous Kanak people under colonial occupation.
The supposed burden of subsidising us impecunious Scots doesn’t apply to Westminster and the British establishment and “embarrassment” don’t belong in the same sentence.
Does this mean that the work of Salvo is in vain? Not necessarily.
If we ever attain an Independence movement free from manipulation by Thames House and Foggy Bottom and declare ourselves a sovereign, independent country, any prospective State considering recognising that independence will require as many reasons for justifying their acknowledgment as possible.
From the above, you would then search out the reasons why , certain members block other requests .
Very undemocratic.
Take a look at the English, the Yanks , Israelis they veto
Others for their own benefits.
That of war crimes etc.
🐼🐼🏴🏴
Given my limited punter’s understanding, it seems to me that we need both political and legal actions and arguments to sustain the drive to independence – each to complement the other.
Political action may be strengthened by a sound legal underpinning, it would certainly lend moral authority and resolve to the political actors. Neither the legal nor the political route is exclusive of the other.
I read the article with interest and the other article which led to it. The author responded:
“We now have two ‘insiders’ in Geneva, however and from there a precise roadmap should be possible.”
This sounds a lot like Nicola Sturgeon’s “cunning plan”.
I think Scottish democracy will be better served by being open and following the existing institutions. A political party, abiding by the existing rules, campaigned and got the independence vote to 45% in a referendum. Support seems to now be around 52%. If the SNP is stalling or compromised, it is surely not outside the possibility of another registered political party (Alba) to carry on this work.
What democracy does not need is talk of “insiders” or a cunning plan.
FFS!.let’s awe listen tae the Brit.
Which Brit?
The one who wrote the article Roddy.
I see I thought you were talking about the ones Iain Lawson and Sara appointed to the SNC Board or are those ex British Civil Servants different? When Lawson is smearing he is not smart enough to remember he has 2 of his own. Quite pathetic by you too. Daniel is an active pro indy man. That any of you would believe I would allow a Britnat the time of day is quite disappointing.No wonder so many keep getting conned so easily by snake oil salesmen.
The only ex British civil servant/diplomat I trust is Craig Murray.
I hope you went to Salvo and Iain Lawson’s site to decry their civil servants too? I know Daniel personally I can assure you he is as committed an indepebdence supporter as anyone I know.Those that have decried him because of his previous career are IMHO barrow minded petty minded fools.
The one who wrote the article Roddy.
Im no interested in your petty fuckin sqaubles wi Ian Lawson.Freedom is the only thing I care about,those attacking ideas on how we get it yet claim to be on our side only cause suspicion of their motives,and rightly so in my opinion.You know the old saying ,if it walks and talks like a Brit it probably is.The snp have been infiltrated by the brits,and if you think alba haven’t as well,then ye better gi yer heid a wobble.by yer deeds ye shall be known as the old saying goes.
I see petty squabbles but you coming on here decrying a man you do not know because Iain Lawson smeared him by saying he was a British civil servant plant is not petty or assisting the “petty squabbles?” I see, well that’s me schooled.Incidentally I offered both Sara and Lawson a right of reply, they both declined. Seems Daniel’s article is correct!
An interesting article from Daniel Jack who obviously has the right of self-expression in the same Scotland has a right of self-determination. But I see no harm in exploring all avenues, home and abroad, as long as they create enough of a stooshie to be impossible to ignore. Keep Scotland and the independence movement in the headlights whenever and wherever we can.
Danial Jack adds, “No, it [the route to independence] lies in getting behind the right people who can and will make a difference.”
I think that is the key. We need a strong, articulate, charismatic leader to embolden those who already support independence and give confidence and guidance to those who are unsure. We need a leader who is not feart of the britnat media. Not feart to call out britnat lies and misinformation when it all too often occurs. Not feart that the britnat media might find out about the time he was given a slap on the wrist from the polis for nickin sweeties form Aul Annies’ corner shop in 1967.
Sturgeon remains a sickening disappointment when it comes to leadership. Someone must come out of the shadows to take over the reins. And quick.
Sad to see such a negative approach towards a group working so hard to help the Independence cause. I see little benefit in running down the efforts of others. You may not share the enthusiasm but why throw rocks. I was trained to address all problems with all available options and keep them running until proven not to be viable.
Not only a poor article but a very negative approach to a fellow Indy team
Tell us what part of Daniels article is incorrect? I am sorry the reality is hurting so much. As I trued saying yesterday SALVO is only onevtgreadcof a multi layered approach it is not a magic bullet.There is no shortcut despite what some may try to tell you.
The West, and its “democracies” are owned by companies and lobbyists and your “vote” is the xanax the elites profer up to keep you believing your thoughts matter. Whether or not people here like it or not – under Scottish law- the people are Sovereign. There never was, and never will be, a “transfer” to ANY MP/MSP. Alba, by insisting there is such a transfer is using the english legal lens and riding rough shod over our LAW and History. So. Alba? Needs to embrace Scottish law or be as arrogant as the SNP – crawling on its belly to englands courts. Churchill agreed to de-colonise in 1941 when he met Roosevelt. He *and the brits* agreed to let PEOPLES self determine. Despite pathetic warblings yesterday, we Scots are a unique people. The public does NOT trust “parties”. Why should they? The solution is NOT dependent on english law. It is dependent on the 1707 Treaty and Scottish law. Time ALL politicians embraced that.
Time you read Daniels blog again obviously if you think there is some magical non political route that doesn’t include armed rebellion. Even then eventually the politicians step in and broker the peace terms.
Scotland, at December 2022, is not formally seeking to attain self-governing status from the United Kingdom. But if Scots voted to leave and the UK refused to recognize due process Scotland could turn to the UN and ask it to resolve the political conflict gaining recognition.
But it needs to be recognised that granting nationhood status is not within the purview of the UN. It is decided on by individual nations who often but not always act in unison. It is entirely possible that the EU, Russia, China, etc could recognise Scotland, in which case the UK would struggle to hold its position.
Very true and an excellent point George
May I refer you to this one extract from my original post, (the remainder of that post remains relevant.)
“And to clarify, I do NOT expect the Sec/Gen of the UN (an example of a bureaucracy writ large) to inform all 193 Members of the initiative – that is part of Stage 2 in the intiative, with contacts being established with individual Member States.” (Ends.)
With exceptions, it is I think reasonably established that regaining Scotland’s independence should be both “legal” and “internationally recognised”.
Put simply, I chose to reverse the order and relative importance of those two components.
For Scotland, long long a country in its own right, to be accepted as a State in its own right requires “international recognition” – thus the approach I have adopted by putting that front and central.”
*********************
The “Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” initiative started in April 2021, and has seen and gained growing support at EVERY rally held in Scotland since that date followed then by an “active” engagement via the United Nations (and internationally) since its inception. I deliberately emphasise the word “active”!
In the link I used (from The National July 2021) the concluding pararagraphs are drawn from a UN Resolution. its importance (as one example only) was that it came from the General Assembly at the UN (without dissent) and avoided the veto powers inherent in the Security Council. It was the “active” determinant that gained many countries their freedom from the colonial rule of the UK.
Signed individually (with scanned copies retained before the originals are lodged at the UN) the “Declaration” opening paragraph reads:
” Exercising my Claim Of Right as a Sovereign Scot, I declare: I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Treaty of Union established through the Acts of Union in 1707. ”
The initiative is an open invitation to all who may wish to sign it.
Alba could be seriously embarrassed and the unionist press will have a field day if it allows itself to be associated with people who are not academics, who have no standing or background, but are charlatans and chancers.
That is why I believe a former civil servant, especially one who was employed by Mr Salmond to work for the Scottish government. I would also believe Roddy Dunlop KC: he may not support independence, but I doubt he would besmirch his reputation to publish anything he knew was lies.
Scotland’s main problem at the moment is that we have allowed an underqualified person into a position of great power! Please let us have less of “secret cunning plans” and more of the tried and tested methods. More Margo McDonald and less “insiders in Geneva”, please.
Couldn’t agree more.
It is pretty sqaubles, the pair o ye r like a couple o weans,yer meant tae be oan the same side ffs!. Incidentally don’t agree with everything Ian rights about Russia is evil and put in is the devil incarnate for eg.
Same way I don’t agree with you on everything you write in yer blogs either.
For other independence supporters and bloggers to attack and rubbish sara and salvo, after all ther months o hard work and effort, to help find ways of us ever gainin oor freedom is oot o fuckin order. As for your mate the ex brit civil servant, we’ll you might trust him but it disnae mean that the rest of o us hiv tae. Thir plenty o examples oot ther, o folk who were thought o stand up guy’s, n who turned oot tae be snakes in the fuckin grass. I’m no saying that the guy is, but he could be fir awe we know. By yer deeds ye shall be known as the sayin goes.
As fir the alba party,an some o its members, well they hiv jist went doon in mine n plenty o ithers estimation. It’s no the first time they hiv attacked sara ur salvo is it?. Ye kin take some folks oot the snp, bit mibby no some o the snp attitudes oot some folks it seems.
Or in Iain’s case you can take them out of the Tory Party hmm?
Roddy,I’m no oan here tae defend Ian Lawson,he’s a big boy he kin dae that himself.But I will defend Sara,salvo and ssrg Fae the outrageous attacks Fae so-called Indy supporters.
As is your right. The point though is this Daniel points out the present strategy is not feasible. What should and could have been a reasoned debate about how we use COR as part of our independence strategy was ruined by the antics from Florida! Alas Lawson’s bombastic behaviour, lies smears and mistruths made that impossible. Nice to see he has been schooled today by the other Roddy for his smearing ways.Both Sara and Lawson were offered the right of reply they declined that should tell you all you need to know.
I’m a bit bewildered and mightily depressed by all this. Lord, how the unionists will be rubbing their hands with glee at seeing indy supporters falling out. Look, the independence movement is a broad church. There are a lot different opinions as to the best way forward and it is right that these should be aired and considered as one day, if we want to be successful, we’re going to have to present a united front, however much that may stick in the craw of some. Personally I will extend the hand of friendship to anyone who supports Scottish independence, even those few Tories who fall into that category.
Daniel Jack does not deserve to be vilified. He’s pro-independence but, a bit like me, is concerned about the assertions of some groups that he believes to be unhelpful to the cause. He’s entitled to air that concern, particularly as I’m sure he’s not alone in having it. He has done so politely and given his reasons. If you think he’s wrong, say why – that’s what political discussion is all about. It’s not about merely shouting someone down because you don’t agree with them.
With people like you killing initiatives before they’re even off the ground simply to satisfy your own ego’s and serve your own NARROW beliefs about what can and can’t be done, the UNION is FOREVER SAFE.
Away join Ginger dug and write for the National. I’ll keep fighting on whatever front I can because if that above is truly the case, Scots will within a few hundred years be a curious footnote in history.
Roddy, have you considered standing for the SNP, they’re looking for people with new ideas on how to keep the Neverendum idea and the union going.
How the egotistical love the gullible they are so easy to fool.
One example, Papua – which I know about – as evidence an approach to the UN is futile, is no more than a quick study. There are plenty of examples where UN submission has worked, *but as part of a strategy*.
Listen to those who offer constructive hope, not those that shut down opportunity.
Excellent. I had been looking for that quote from the Kosova opinion, particularly telling as it comes from the UK judge. I think Scotland could indeed function effectively as an independent state – it is unfortunately the will of the people that is not yet there, and I think that the UN would have to be convinced that it was a pretty settled will consistent over a couple of years or so. We’re not going to get that while we continue to squabble among ourselves.
A note of caution Kosovo happened because it suited US. It was another anti-Russian move in their Soviet Union/Commies obsession. UK of course being the US batch agrees with everyone. The quid quo pro will come if we ever get a watertight case for the UN. Two vetoes!
There had been murderous attacks on Kosovans of both Albanian and Serbian origin by each side’s militias, and it had to be stopped. Much of the problem came from armed-by-the-West Albanian militias and armed by Serbia Serbian militias. Ordinary people on both sides were caught in the crossfire and also they were deliberately targeted by the murderous militias. Although the solution for all of the former Yugoslavia is far from perfect, far more a pragmatic one, with territorial disputes still on-going to an extent, the best solution all round was made at the time, Davey, by de facto recognising Kosovo. None of us, I’m sure, wants to see the kind of neighbour against neighbour madness that happened in the Balkans, so we really have to try the international way as well as the domestic political way. It is possible to find a way through all this – very likely a pragmatic one.
why is no one discussing Dissolution rather than Independence?
In international law there can be a huge difference in its obligations and outcomes.
Self reflected prestige is what keeps Westminster going. If that’s undermined as dissolution would do, they’ll negotiate an Independence deal .
It is exactly why we need a Constitutional Convention Graeme. Then our best minds can collectively come up with a strategy.
Another step along the way- there is still so much to learn. We need to know all the pitfalls and difficulties that lie ahead- and we must deal with them. Scotland has to move on to independence as soon as possible- even while there is so much upheaval elsewhere. I think Westminster is in the process of collapse.
Lodged in the HQ of the United Nations, are Declarations signed individually by Sovereign Scots, and collected at EVERY rally held in Scotland since the initiative started, each has as its opening paragraph, these words:
“Exercising my Claim Of Right as a Sovereign Scot, I declare:
I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Treaty of Union established through the Acts of Union in 1707.”
No Scot who seeks to regain the independence of their country should harbour any scintilla of doubt that they are sovereign, and must ACT accordingly!
The “Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” is an open invitation to all those who wish to participate.
Three views/comments
Daniel Jack: ” …. the most political and politicised institution on the planet, the United Nations. Politics is the life blood of the UN.”
Me: ” … the UN (an example of a bureaucracy writ large)”
Roddy: ” … Two vetoes!”
All are 100% relevant, but please consider this extract from my earlier post:
“In the link I used (from The National July 2021) the concluding pararagraphs are drawn from a UN Resolution. its importance (as one example only) was that it came from the General Assembly at the UN (without dissent) and avoided the veto powers inherent in the Security Council. It was the “active” determinant that gained many countries their freedom from the colonial rule of the UK.”
That Resolution happened when countries facing the same desire as we in Scotland have – independence – organised themselves “wholly politically” to deliberately avoid the veto powers held by those in the Security Council – those countries succeeded and each in due course gained their independence.
Therefore – one further extract drawn from my earlier posts:
” … that is part of Stage 2 in the intiative, with contacts being established with individual Member States.”
First and foremost is contact with those very Member States who found their solution, AND their independence.
Who better to understand Scotland’s desire to do likewise, and from whom to gain support?
That Stage 2 is underway, with contacts of that type already being established.
*******************************************
(I have posted far more than I originally intended – this will be my last contribution – thanks, Roddy, for allowing the posts to appear.)
***************************************
Details of the initiative are appearing and being shared across a number of F/Book sites, but if anyone wants to follow the initiative from its inception, and specifically as it progresses, use this link:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100070340354557
Dissolution sound fine so why don’t we do it.
The UK’s economy is quite frankly in a state of chaos. Another year or two of this and the ecio-socio landscape will have changed.
Thinking particularly of the do called middle classes, what future for them.
Taking the older one first, the ones who were most predisposed to Better Together how do they sit going forward.
Think then about pensioner with decent pension pot, or pensioner with decent savings, or pensioner in receipt of occupational pension.
Think they’re going to be well off in a few years with 20% plus inflation eating their nest. Will they be down and dirty with the state supported plebeans who they thought they were much better than, the ones on state pension and top up benefits.
Or what of aspiring classes working making their way. What does the landscape look like for them. Mortgage repayments up, food up, heating through the roof, and potentially for some, negative equity if house prices fall.
My goodness another group enjoying the Nirvana of being held in the grip of England’s warm bosom of success. All good there too. A Brexit Bonanza perchance.
But the victory flag has to go up for those at the bottom end of the income pile, and a pile soon to be increased with new entrants.
As this two week snap of very cold weather starts to really bite are we hearing in the background refrains of Land of Hope and Glory as folks across the country turn up their very very expensive heating. Yes Scotland has a surfeit of gas, oil, hydro and wind energy, but isn’t it great who benefits from it.
Mein Gott, what a fabulous set of country folk we have to have voted for this economic and social heaven on earth.
Maybe I comment with an eye of jaundiced cynicism but does anyone think the mass of Jocko would ever want to get off its butt to dissolve the union.
That is our real challenge. And a challenge that we all need to get behind. Brothers in Arms so to speak, one and all.
In the meantime, at the very present, let’s all turn up the heating and dance. Wake up is coming