Earlier today an SNP blogger decided to attack Liberate Scotland and our attempts at unifying the Yes movement. His disparaging and divisive article encapsulates all that is wrong with both the SNP and their tribalist followers.
This Thursday we might indeed see the backlash against the SNP if independence supporters continue to boycott the ballot box by staying at home.
This site and TASP has long advocated for our movement to unite. We wholeheartedly support Liberate Scotland its aims and its participants unreservedly.
Sadly, Liberate Scotland receives more attacks from supposed independence supporters than it does from Unionists. Be assured the Union fears Scottish unity more than they fear the SNP.The unionists know as long as the SNP and their followers present themselves as the only independence vehicle available to the voters UKPLC is safe.
Unlike our detractors we say to them you are welcome to join our unity cause. We will not exclude any independence supporting party, organisation or individual.We make only one stipulation you must support without question independence, nothing else. Your politics can be left, right or centre that is of no consequence to us in the quest for independence.Post Liberation the Scottish people will decide their form of governance as is their Claim of Right. No blogger or single party gets to tell Scots what or who they should accept and support on the road to independence. We all need to put our shoulder to the wheel of independence.
If we are serious about taking back Scotland’s independence, then we must be equally serious about working with everyone who shares that goal, regardless of which party they belong to, or what their broader political views may be. Unity is not optional it is essential.
Let’s not forget, during the 2014 referendum, Better Together was a coalition made up of the Tories, Labour, the Lib Dems and yes, even UKIP, the BNP, and Britain First. All these groups, despite their vast differences, put their politics aside to unite under one banner to stop Scotland becoming independent. They were prepared to stand together for the union. If they could do that to deny us our independence, surely we can do the same to win it.
What we’re building now is not about party politics or personal preference. This is not about forming a Scottish Executive under the thumb of Westminster. This is about putting the campaign for independence first, above individual party lines, ideologies, or disagreements.
We must trust the people of Scotland to choose their own government after independence, one that builds the fairer, more just, citizen first nation so many of us envision.
Some concerns have been raised about specific policies or statements from certain parties within the independence movement. Those concerns are valid and deserve discussion, but they should not be confused with the goal of independence itself. Remember: we are campaigning for the power to shape our own future, not to pre define every aspect of it before we’ve even secured that right.
Wouldn’t it be better, after independence, to enshrine a written constitution, a document rooted in Scottish values and democratic principles, that guarantees human rights in law, beyond the reach of political whims or Westminster meddling?
A Scotland where rights are not defended by distant, international bodies alone, but embedded in the fabric of our nation and upheld by a sovereign Scottish legal system accountable to its people?
Debating individual policy positions now is putting the cart before the horse. Let’s get the powers first. Let’s win our independence. Then let’s build the fair, free, progressive Scotland we all want to see with everyone’s voice heard, and every citizen’s rights protected.
The only way to do that is by voting for real independence supporting candidates working together under the umbrella of Liberate Scotland if you want it you must vote for it.
The SNP blogger in question is like one of those maniacal born-again Christians. After leaving the SNP for another party he’s now back in the fundamental fold. The SNP leadership [for want of another word] must now be obeyed at all costs.
“Party before country” is his and his party’s pathetic mantra.
The independence movement must be united.
Yes it must be united. The blogger mentioned obviously got fed up being slapped down by Stu Campbell and now it seems he wants to have a fight with me instead. It won’t work he is not worth the effort and his words are only read by a few.He seems to be jealous if he perceives anyone has more profile than himself. The fact is the picture of my kitten last night on X has a higher profile I wonder if he will attack the kitten next?😁
Good for you. I think avoiding getting caught up in a ‘pissing contest’ with these ‘trolls’, ‘attention seekers’, ‘stalkers’ ‘flame-baiters’ or whatever you might call them is the correct thing to do. Not always easy!
Many other disagree and think it’s necessary to ‘feed the trolls’ which never ends well.
I entirely agree. Let’s build the Popular Front. Strength in numbers isn’t merely a throw-away cliché, it’s an existential necessity if we are ever to see our country and her people liberated from grasping colonialism.
Does Liberate Scotland have a plan for restoring independence? If not, what makes it different from other parties that have no plan? In what way does Liberate Scotland distinguish itself from the nominally pro-independence parties that merely use independence as an electioneering device?
What I see here is a lot of talk about ‘unity’ combined with a less than generous attitude towards those being asked to ‘unite’. I see both the futile obsession with ‘unity’ and the reason it is futile. What you have to understand is that tribalists are totally blind to their own tribalism. From what I read here, Liberate Scotland is just another tribe. The tribalism is the same as will be found in blogs championing the SNP or Alba or any of the nominally pro-independence parties. It’s all tribalism.
Personally, I wish nothing to do with any of this tribal squabbling. And there is yet another reason the obsession with ‘unity’ is futile. There are just too many pro-independence people who shun the tribalism.
What makes Liberate Scotland different from all the other parties and organisations insisting ‘unity’ means getting under the umbrella bearing their logo?
Thank you for your thoughtful and challenging comments regarding Liberate Scotland, and the Manifesto for Independence. Your lifelong dedication to restoring Scotland’s independence, exemplified by your work on the Manifesto for Independence and countless other pro indy parties events marches etc.It is an inspiration to us all. We deeply appreciate your call for a clear, actionable plan to achieve independence and your critique of tribalism within the movement. In the spirit of unity and reconciliation, we invite you to consider joining Liberate Scotland, as our vision aligns closely with your goal of a unified, practical path to independence, as outlined in your #ScottishUDI framework.
You ask how Liberate Scotland distinguishes itself from other pro-independence parties and whether we have a concrete plan for restoring independence. We believe our approach mirrors the essence of your Manifesto for Independence, which calls for pro-independence parties to adopt a unified commitment to repudiate the Section 30 process, assert the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence, and dissolve the Union through a plebiscite election. Liberate Scotland, comprising the Independence for Scotland Party, Sovereignty, and Independents for Independence, is committed to this very strategy. Our single-line manifesto for the 2026 Holyrood election declares it a plebiscite on independence, seeking a 50%+1 vote and seat majority to initiate immediate steps toward dissolving the Union—a process akin to your #ScottishUDI.
You rightly critique the tribalism that fragments the independence movement, noting that unity cannot mean submission to one party’s banner. We agree, and Liberate Scotland is not another tribe but a coalition designed to transcend party loyalties. Unlike parties using independence as an “electioneering device,” our alliance prioritizes a unified constitutional focus, free from extraneous policies, much like your manifesto’s six concise bullet points. We invite all pro-independence supporters, regardless of past affiliations, to join us under the Liberate Scotland banner, echoing your call for a broad-based movement that avoids divisive distractions. Our inclusive approach welcomes figures like Eva Comrie and Denise Somerville,David McHutchon,Colette Walker reflecting the grassroots energy you’ve championed in your writings.
Your concern about unity being futile due to tribalism is valid, but Liberate Scotland offers a solution by uniting diverse voices around a shared goal: taking back our parliament and nation, as you passionately advocate. We are not asking supporters to abandon their principles but to rally behind a clear, actionable plan that aligns with your vision of empowering the Scottish Parliament to exercise Scotland’s right to self-determination.
Peter, your Manifesto for Independence has shown a practical route to independence. We believe Liberate Scotland is the vehicle to bring this vision to life. Join us to ensure that the 2026 election becomes the plebiscite that restores Scotland’s sovereignty. Together, we can take back our nation, united not by tribalism but by a shared commitment to freedom.
With gratitude and hope,
Liberate Scotland
Wow… this sound positive… does this mean all liberate candidates will be signatories to the manifesto and use it as the basis for differetiating the indys from the devolutionists? I hope alba wpuld too then my vote is clear… consituency vote will be liberate list will be alba!
All Liberate Scotland candidates will be standing on a single line manifesto of independence nothing else.
Has ISP confirmed that they will be dropping Freeports, Land reform etc. from their manifesto? Where can I see this confirmation? Where can I see this “single line manifesto”?
https://www.isp.scot/manifesto/
If you are just patient a little longer Peter. A few internal matters are being sorted and very soon you and the public can see everything laid out in a manner that is easy for all to understand. Not just the single line manifesto the implementation list election victory too
Roddy, I look forward to seeing Liberate Scotland’s plan. I would caution, as with Peter, with all due respect, that a devolved government cannot be magically turned into a fully legislatively competent government without constitutional changes. It would lack constitutional authority. Politics alone cannot bring about independence. If devolution itself was incompetent under the Treaty, and it was, its creation was ultra vires by the British establishment, and Scots played a role in that.
The British establishment will use the Treaty to thwart any moves to change Holyrood, and they will use devolved status to do so, too, even though they know full well that devolved status is not constitutional in the first place. I know that most people reading my posts will think I’m a sandwich short of a picnic, but that Treaty will be used against us again. Their entire energy supply rests on having unfettered access to our maritime and terrestrial assets, not to mention their nuclear arsenal on our soil. They are not going to want to lose any of those, and they will not want to pay for them either. Everyone talks about the political solutions, but nobody sees the constitutional trap of the Treaty being misused by the British establishment yet again. It should have been challenged years ago.
Lorna we are well aware of what and what cannot be done at Hokyrood and Westminster. We gave some really smart folk who have been working on the plan and strategy. As I said to Oeter we will do things in our own way deploying our strategy and in our timescales. We are following a very detailed plan one step at a time.
Roddy
Your reponse demonstrates a complete failure to understand the Manifesto for Independence. It is almost as if you hadn’t bothered to read it. I have repeatedly explained why trying to make the 2026 election a de facto referendum on independence is a mistake and something that simply won’t work. There cannot sensibly be a referendum on something which cannot be delivered. Independence cannot be delivered until AFTER the Scottish Parliament has repossessed legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution.
The Scottish Parliament taking back powers in relation to Scotland’s constitution has to be understood as a constitutional battle in itself. a battle that is apart from and prior to the fight to restore independence. Just as the restoration of independence requires a mandate, so too does the Scottish Parliament asserting its legislative competence in the area of the constitution.
Whereas the restoration of independence demands a proper constitutional referendum, the retaking of powers over the constitution can only obtain a popular mandate in a plebiscitary election. But an election cannot function effectively as a referendum unless a binary element is introduced. Elections are not and cannot be binary other than in very particular circumstances which are not going to arise and so need not concern us. The 2026 election cannot just BE a de facto referendum. It must be MADE a de facto referendum by the introduction of that binary element.
For the purposes of Scotland’s cause, the best and probably only way to introduce a binary element to the election is by having ALL the pro-independence parties/candidates stand on an IDENTICAL manifesto commitment on the constitutional issue (Manifesto for Independence). Thus, every vote is either for or not for (against) that precisely stated commitment. This is the binary element that is required.
Any referendum – whether it be a de facto referendum or a proper constitutional referendum – must produce not merely a result, but a decision. That is to say, there must be actions which ensue directly from the outcome without the need for any further democratic input. Obviously, the ensuing actions must be defined as part of the common manifesto commitment. The Manifesto for Independence defines those actions.
Aside from the matter of how the 2026 election can be turned into a democratic event which actually serves scotland’s cause rather than the interests of parties/candidates, there is another and arguably more significant difference between the #ScottishUDI approach and he approach taken by Liberate Scotland as you describe it. Perhaps the only thing we agree on is that making the election work for Scotland’s cause will require a unified approach. You seek to achieve this by drawing all the (nominally) pro-independence parties together under a single umbrella. The problem with the approach is that all the (nominally) pro-independence parties SAY the same. They all SAY they want to pull the entire independence movement together under the one umbrella. and they all want that to be THEIR umbrella.
It should be obvious that this unity as amalgamation is never going to work. Not least because each of the individual parts seeks to exclude one or more of the other parts in one way or another. They may actively exclude by stipuating that some other part is not welcome under the umbrella or passively by accepting that some other part is never going to come under the umbrella. Either way, there is exclusion. Where there is exlusion, there cannot be unity.
Achieving a unified approach by requiring all the parts to amalgamate is as close to being an impossibility as it needs to be. And we need a unified approach.
The way to achieve this unified approach is not by trying to get every part to hold hands with all the other parts, but by getting all the parts to reach out and hold the same thing while remaining discrete parts. This is unity of purpose.
The purpose must be singular, tangible, and immutable. It must be a single, clearly defined thing that cannot be altered by any of the parts or any combination of the parts. This is the purpose of the Manifesto for Independence. It not only defines the actions which must ensue from the result, it provides the common purpose which unites all the parts while allowing them to maintain their individual identities.
Finally, while the approach that you describe is based on getting certain parties/candidates elected – or at least, gaining them votes – the #ScottishUDI approach separates the constitutional issue from party politics. It makes it irrelevant which party/candidate gets the most votes because ALL votes for ANY pro-independence party or candidate will count as a vote for precisely the same Manifesto for Indepedence.
The #ScottishUDI approach is more realistic in that rather than depending on getting votes for particular parties/candidates, it seeks to engage the parties/candidates which are all but certainly going to get the bulk of the votes. Any parliamentary process for progressing Scotland’s cause will require the votes of ALL (nominally) pro-independence parties. Therefore, they ALL have to be brought on board BEFORE the election so that we can be confident that the numbers will work.
In short, the approach you describe is nothing like #ScottishUDI. But it doesn’t matter. Because I am not asking anybody to join anything. I’m not asking anybody to get under my umbrella. I don’t have an umbrella. As far as I am concerned, Liberate Scotland and Alba and the SNP and all the rest can play your silly party-political games until your arses drop off.
What I am asking is that individuals within the independence movement – regardless of any party affiliation – combine for the common purpose of forcing the nominally pro-independence parties to adopt the Manifest for Independence. I ask only that those who seek the restoration of Scotland’s independence take momemt to sign and share the Manifesto for Independence Petition.
If enough of us sign the petition then we will have a big stick to wave at ALL the nominally pro-independence parties/candidates in order to extract from them a concrete undertaking to take action to progress Scotland’s cause in the first year of the new parliament.
Having signed and shared the petition, everybody can go back to campaigning for whatever party or candidate they favour. So long as ALL those parties/candidates have adopted the Manifesto for Independence, it won’t matter which of them gets the votes, Scotland’s cause wins.
https://manifestoforindependence.scot/manifesto-for-independence-petition/
Unlike you Peter we do not professional to have all the answers. As I said be patient and all will be revealed. In coalitions something’s take time to agree
I’ve been patient for more than 60 years. I used up the last of my patience on the SNP. I have never claimed to have ALL the answers. But I have answers. I’ve had no longer than anyone else to come up with these answers. If you didn’t know what Liberate Scotland was for, why did you start it? It you hadn’t already a clear purpose in mind, what was the point?
Contrary to your sarcastic implication, I do not profess to be exceptionally clever. I reckon my intelligence as at best very slightly above average. The question, therefore, is why others of similar or greater intelligence have failed to come up with anything even remotely resembling a plan for restoring Scotland’s independence?
If I can do it, surely anyone can. So, why are we waiting?
Oh we have a very clear plan just not ready for public consumption or to satisfy one person’s impatience. As I said in a coalition you need concensus and agreement those can take a little time. Your timescales are not ours
Roddy mate, the simple fact is anyone that threatens the SNP, Union or Holyrood is working against Independence, what utter bull. Its the same people who said Alba was splitting the Indy vote and causing friction in the movement. The reality is that the Alba Party or any organization actively trying to push forward way in securing Independence is abused or threatened by the SNP and its mob, when it fact the SNP has been given routes to securing Independence by the former FM and Leah Gunn Barrett and the SNP has ignored them all.
Liberate Scotland is precisely what we need and its our vote and well chose who we want to vote for the SNP doesn’t own our votes and never did.
I know you have advocated a united front on the Indy cause and its the SNP who’s refused people are starting to waken up about the SNP and to be honest it isn’t looking good for them next year.
Don’t let them join what is going to be a good next year.
Leah Gunn Barret? Explain please.
Whilst I agree absolutely that we need a united front, whatever our individual beefs are, as per Liberate Scotland, I also agree with Peter A. Bell that UDI will become the only way.
However, I veer away when I read that the Scottish parliament should have legislation competence across the board. Imagine the utter mess we would be in – even worse than the mess we are in at the moment – had they had such a thing already? It presupposes that Holyrood would be different from that which it is, which is incompetent, corrupt and obsessed with niche pre occupations.
The infiltration of the ‘woke’ and the ‘trans’ should tell us that political infiltration of parties and administrations is all too easy when they are seen as a vehicle for change that is inimical to the interests of the vast majority of the population. To block such infiltrations, we are going to have to invoke the law, and that means constitutional and international law, as far as I can see, to back any political movement on independence.
Our greatest enemies have been procrastination and a lack of courage. That is the truth. Now, we are being led away from the most obvious and, probably, best legal route which would converge with the political route to form one route. Holyrood is a devolved administration, but it would, likely, be the seat of government of an independent Scotland, at least, initially. Legal competence, beyond that which it has already, which is limited, cannot be bestowed upon it organically and out of the blue. It must have sovereignty; it must have full legal competence; and it must have political competence bestowed by a majority vote for independence.
You see, I think that the Union has to be dissolved before this can happen. I know I’m an outlier here, but, in the end, I believe we will have to resile the Treaty in order to dissolve the Union, and we need a majority to do that after the evidence that the Treaty has been breached beyond retrieval. We could have done this fifty and more years ago: the SNP, when it was actually the party of independence and/or any interested party could have brought the Treaty to the Scottish Court of Session to be ‘sound’ in law before, then, taking it to the then Lords, now the UKSC. This could have been done any time between the Second World War and now.
Crawford and Boyle could only have brought their report stating that Scotland had been subsumed in 1707 by either saying that the Treaty was not an international treaty and did not exist or that Scotland had agreed to her own extinguishing and to having been subsumed into a Greater England. If the latter, Scotland cannot, now, exist. If the former, the Union cannot exist, and never existed, so everything flowing from the Union cannot exist either because there would be no legal or political authority to make anything legal. Holyrood and devolution cannot exist if there is no legal authority to underpin the Union which has devolved the power to Holyrood.
If the Treaty still is extant, and it must be if the Union continues, otherwise it would be defunct and there could be no Union, it is still unconstitutional to devolve Scotland without, simultaneously, devolving England (as countries, not regions and cities). All these opportunities to challenge on the Treaty have been dismissed by the Scots themselves. The Treaty is still being dismissed, but I’ll stick my head above the parapet and say that, if we ever come close to independence again, the English establishment will trundle out that Treaty – because THEY know it is still extant and what is actually was, and remains, even if the Scots do not.
Crawford and Boyle stated that we were subsumed UNDER THE AUSPICES of the Treaty, and that was the English establishment telling us that we were not going to be the continuator state. No state can be subsumed via a Treaty unless it specifically states that that is its purpose. The Articles of the Treaty themselves absolutely negate that scenario. What actually happened was that Westminster and Whitehall very deliberately sidelined Scotland as a partner AFTER the Treaty, not VIA the Treaty.
Now, the stakes are very much higher. They will use the Treaty again to blast us even if SALVO appeals to the UN on subsumption because they will say that we wanted to be subsumed. They will claim to be the superior country and they will also claim that the Scottish MPs agreed to that when they ratified the Treaty. With Crawford and Boyle, they claimed subsumption of Scotland via the Treaty.
Next time, they will claim subsumption of Scotland via an UNDERSTANDING created by the Treaty – with Scotland’s Commissioners and MPs – that England should be the superior country, making all the decisions, using all the English pre existing institutions, etc., and that the Scots were happy with that inferior role in 1707! How else can you account, they will claim, for the acquiescence of Scotland in its own politically de facto inferior status except by acquiescence? How do you account, they will argue, for the apparently passive acceptance of subsumption?
Tribes cannot thwart Scotland’s liberators…
The blogger in question seems to have a problem with anyone who disagrees with him.
Spends his time slating Alba, Wings and now Barrhead Boy. It used to be famously said that voting SNP was not about government or policy. It was about securing independence. So this allowed us to park our differences.
Now it seems it’s politics and ideology before independence. A bit like dreaming about a car in a fantasy showroom.
The SNP and their disciples seem incapable of concensus. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Your first sentence sums him up perfectly. He is just off of several weeks of squabbling with Stu Campbell and winning second prize every time! As with Stu most of his accusations against me are inventions of his own mind. I am not even a member of any political party let alone leader of a party,it is ludicrous in the extreme. Still when you are in your mid forties and still living at home with mummy as he does I am sure fantasising and inventing wee stories and conspiracy theories passes the time of day. It is his way of seeking attention and relevance, quite sad really. I pity him more than than anything.He wants me to react so he can get some hits to his site, it isn’t going to happen!I will continue to support this coalition and it’s drive to unite the movement. I will leave the naysayers to their pathetic little fantasies.
My question is why did Stu Campbell spend several weeks squabbling with him?
This whole thing seems to have been going on for many years did he not do a series of articles entitled ‘Wings Watch’? I almost typed ‘Wangs Watch’ but I think that was something else but ‘aye dinna ken’ for sure. ‘Wangs Watch’ ‘Wings Watch’ might be all the same but doubt if either of them could tell you the time of day.
I remember the picture of the binoculars trained on the Wings site.
It wasn’t just Stu Campbell he was watching he also had his eye on everyone posting on the Wings site.
Creepy!
Yes I think he got fed up being slapped down by Stu and has now decided he wants to attack me. I refuse to be sucked into any of his nonsense
Stay strong. Don’t get sucked in.
Let him say whatever he likes. Why waste time trying to correct the error of his ways?
My response would be
“Yes dear whatever you say dear! Pass the marmalade!’
The ‘Crawford & Boyle’ bombshell didn’t get a lot of coverage back in 2014. Good to see it being discussed 12 years later.
Derek Bateman wrote a brilliant article entitled ‘An Auld Sang Gang Wrang’. I thought it had disappeared forever glad to see it on ‘Stand Up For Scotland’s’ Facebook. Well done ‘Stand Up for Scotland’
The last paragraph:
‘There is a lesson in here for the Better Together strategists and they just don’t get it. Yes has been telling them since the start and they just don’t get it. The voters are now telling them and they just don’t get it. They need to get their knuckles off the ground and instead of paying lip service to optimism, actually try to find some. Here’s a suggestion. Reject the legal advice. Say it was a mistake. Say the government is not convinced it’s correct and it was insulting to say Scotland ceased to exist. Why? Because to say so is to deny the very thing they’re fighting for – the Union. I talk about what I call principled Unionism which works only if you accept your country is in voluntary partnership with England. Remove that concept and we become, as the lawyers indicate, little more than an adjunct to England. Not even a Unionist who claims to love Scotland can vote for that. The British might lose this Union because they failed to stand up for it.’ Derek Bateman ‘An Auld Sang Gang Wrang’
Maybe now that we’ve established ‘What is a woman’ we could ask ‘What is a Unionist?’.
I think, JoMac, it’s not just Unionists who don’t get it. We all need to understand what Crawford and Boyle meant in 2014, and what it means now. The implications and legal/constitutional ramifications do not stop at the 2014 referendum and continuator status, it goes very much further than that and extinguishes Scotland completely.
The thing, though, is that they used the Treaty point to make that claim. No bilateral, international Treaty can extinguish one of the signatories unless that is explicitly contained within the Treaty itself and agreed upon, legally, by the other party to said Treaty. That is simply not constitutional fact in this case. The Treaty proposes a partnership of equals, not an extinguishing.
If Scotland was subsumed or turned into a colony, and the former is very iffy, the latter more or less the de facto situation, this was done AFTER the Treaty and did not affect the Treaty. That is my argument. The Acxtys could not have altered the Treaty because no secondary legislation can supersede primary legislation unless that primary legislation is resiled (repealed). The Treaty still stands. The Union still stands, but, and this is a huge BUT, if the Treaty still stands, but the Union has been distorted by ONE party to it, it becomes onerous and challengeable, and may be resiled in international law because of breaching of the Articles and subsequent unequal and unequitable treatment of Scotland. We have stood by for over 300 years and let England-as-the-UK wipe its ***e on the Treaty while we did nothing.
“I think, JoMac, it’s not just Unionists who don’t get it. We all need to understand what Crawford and Boyle meant in 2014, and what it means now.”
If that is true could you please write a ‘Crawford & Boyle for Dummies’
Thank you. I’ve been trying to get my head around it since 2013.
I’ve been satisfied with the term colony. Would the term ‘Domestic Abuse’ be more accurate.
I have heard Scotland compared to the ‘wife’ who should damn well know her place.
I need terms that I understand.
Apart from the EU membership what difference is there between 2014 & now vis a vis Crawford & Boyle?
Thank you Lorn I promise I will do my best to understand what you are saying even if it is very difficult. I bet your posts will be appreciated by those who get it, the law that is.
https://tinyurl.com/unh7uy9h
That’s a link to the reproduction of the Derek Bateman article ‘An Auld Sang Gang Wrang’ which I should have posted earlier. I wasn’t sure if links were allowed.
I wasn’t sniping, Roddy, nor was I being disrespectful to anyone. If Liberate Scotland has taken the Treaty into consideration, it will be a first, and I would congratulate you all. I will say no more and await the strategy publication.
I have not taken any offence of anything Lorna.I am just trying to keep a lot of balls in the air at present. If I came over as short, I apologise any annoyance I have is not with you but with the naysayers and knowalls
I have read Derek’s piece before, JoMac, and yes, it sums up very much what Crawford and Boyle were about, albeit they were presumably commissioned by Cameron to bring out that report in England-as-the-UK’s favour.
Professor Robert Black is saying much the same thing: that Scotland was subsumed in 1707. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood him, but, if so, the subsumption, according to C & B, and, possibly, to Professor Black, too, took place at the point of the Treaty agreement, not later.
As I have said, using a Treaty to subsume one party is almost unheard of, and would require clear consent on the part of the party to be subsumed. The Treaty (and the Acts) show no such consent, and the Treaty underpins the UK to this day, allocating it, the state of the UK (emphatically not England) constitutional authority to legislate on our behalf.
Unfortunately for Scotland, England’s constitution allowed more or less unlimited sovereignty to parliament (with no stipulation that this would be the case after the Union, Scotland’s pre Union parliament having limited sovereignty).
Again, it is assumed that certain laws around the Treaty and even the Treaty itself have fallen into desuetude, when this would be utterly unconstitutional and contrary to English law (but not Scots Law, which always allowed for desuetude or falling into disuse), so what are we to make of that if we are to accept that English Law takes precedence in the British parliament?
The problem with subsumption is that the part that has been subsumed no longer exists in law except as part of the whole. It has no legal status except insofar as it is incorporated into the greater part. C & B contended that Scotland was subsumed so we had no legal standing on which to base any challenge to the status quo of the UK as the obvious continuator state – which would, indeed, be the case had we been subsumed. Yes, international law can offer some comfort to a territory seeking to leave a bigger territory, but we would have to fight tooth and nail to get anywhere as Catalunya discovered.
I find the claim of colonial status more persuasive, but will the UN, when we have a Treaty? In both situations – subsumption and colonization – we are effectively repudiating the Treaty and, perhaps, shooting ourselves in the foot. It has long been my opinion – and, God knows, that’s all it is at the end of the day, with wiser heads that mine scrutinizing this stuff – after years of looking into the Treaty and all the speeches and workings around it, the CoR and the political situation – that it would be a gross folly to repudiate it.
It would require to be ‘sound’ in law (basically a real and legal document and still extant). It has never been ‘sound’ in law, and, now, it can be passed from the Scottish Court of Session to the Supreme Court of the UK (the Constitutional and International Court) and on to the UN court after that, if necessary, to be resiled and the Union dissolved thereafter, with all our rights intact to negotiate a fair and equitable disposal and sharing of assets and resources.
Almost all of England’s gas and electricity are taken to England via overland and undersea cables through Scottish land and waters, and much of our own resources are taken to England the same way. Are we to continue with this, without recompense while we lose out on infrastructure and storage, etc., for ourselves? A win through subsumption would mean international law would kick in, as it would in the case of colonization, but we would still be at the mercy of rUK negotiators.
The Treaty affords us far greater protections because, if we won our case for resiling the Treaty, a far more equitable share-out would be necessary and we would have far less chance of being outwitted and undermined by rUK which would try to drive a very hard bargain indeed, using the Treaty. They will try to use it against us, however we leave the Union, especially if it is a political leaving only. `they will do everything they can to thwart us. If we want to have a prosperous Scotland for our grandchildren, we must get the very best deal we can now, because rUK will try to shaft us, as they did in 2013/14 with C & B. Of that we may be absolutely certain.
Not at all, Roddy. I have the greatest respect for you as you know. Also for Peter A. Bell. As I said, I may be very wrong and everything will go swimmingly. I do hope so. I don’t believe either of you is wrong, just that I worry that a political solution will not be enough in itself.
“Oh we have a very clear plan just not ready for public consumption or to satisfy one person’s impatience. As I said in a coalition you need concensus and agreement those can take a little time. Your timescales are not ours”
So, what you’re telling us (presumably, I’m not the only one reading these comments) is that all these parties have ‘united’ under your umbrella without knowing what they are uniting behind. You seem to be implying that they have agreed to drop their manifestos in favour of a “single line” that hasn’t even been written yet.
I haven’t learned much about Liberate Scotland here. But what I have learned neither impresses nor inspires me.
Oh! And by the way, I don’t set the timescale. Circumstances do that. If you don’t even understand that much then what I’ve gleaned here is explained.
This comment facility is dreadful.
Oh those in the umbrella are very aware of absolutely everything. We just do not choose at this time to reveal all that is planned. We are being very methodical and leaving nothing to chance. We leave chest thumping and grand statements to others. As I keep saying gave patience all will be revealed in good time and in a manner that will have the maximum impact.
It’ll be interesting to say the least to see what ‘agreements’ they can come to with the Gillead Fundamentalist Party (Sovereignity).
Not exactly the best tactical move rendering all involved untouchable by association.
To think that could have been avoided if they’d just adopted The Manifesto for Independence instead & not wasted time & energy reinventing the wheel & jumping into bed with far-right Nativist crazies.
I see there’s a ‘super secret plan’ too, getting a feeling of deja vu on that one!
Ah well!
Isn’t it marvellous those who are not involvedin a project are such experts on a subject they know very little about.They have all the answers and yet they have not implemented their genius for the benefit of the masses.Better ypto sit at home pontificating and criticising everyone else while others do the heavy lifting. There are talkers and there are doers, I prefer the latter.
I respect all independence supporters and accept that, aside from agreeing that Scotland must be independent, we may disagree on other issues. A little tolerance by all parties would be good – the public optic of indy supporters taking sideswipes at each other is poor and unlikely to grab the attention of those as yet undecided.
I do not understand why any pro-independence group like Liberate Scotland intends to stand candidates in constituency seats in the 2026 election, knowing that they will probably take vital votes form the SNP, the only pro-independence party with any chance of winning seats. Remember Reform won a by-election by six votes. In FPTP, it doesn’t take much.
It’s a high risk category and if the SNP loses a single seat to Reform or any other unionist party because of the actions of Liberate, you will not be the heroes you crave to be. You will be reviled by the independence movement for all time.
Every seat the SNP loses is down to the SNP and nobody else. For years now the Yes vote has been over 50% latest poll at 60% yet the SNP are at 30-35% it doesn’t take a genius to see the disconnect or work out why there is a disconnect.The SNP left the independence movement not the other way around