I want to begin this article with a statement from Michael Gove.
Asked in an interview with the Daily Telegraph whether there was “any circumstance” in which Johnson would approve a referendum before a May 2024 election, Gove said: “I don’t think so.”
Asked whether his position was that “there will be no referendum before the 2024 election”, he replied: “I can’t see it.”
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/23/gove-rules-out-scottish-independence-vote-before-election?__twitter_impression=true
This site and many other pro independence sites tried warning everybody this was the likely response of an English Tory Government to a tiny SNP victory in May. Hence why so many of us were promoting a super-Indy majority. The SNP and their hardcore support assured everyone Boris Johnson would cave in and grant a Section 30. Indeed, the Nicola fan club attacked and maligned the pro independence media for foretelling this inevitable outcome.We are not expecting any apologies for once again being proved accurate!
What we need is an alternative strategy for independence. This article is an attempt to start a debate in how we move the cause of Scottish independence forward.
Last weekend I had the pleasure of interviewing Prof.Alf Baird.Our discussion was focused on Scots Sovereignty and voting franchise in any future Independence vote. Alf believes that any future referendum, if the SNP ever gets round to it, will be lost if we merely repeat the franchise and tactics of 2014. The Prof is of the opinion that as Scots are acknowledged by both Holyrood and Westminster as sovereign then their will supercedes any English Parliamentary sovereignty. He also opines that the only thing keeping Scotland inside the Union is The Treaty of Union itself. His view is that taking these two facts together Scotland could use its elected representatives, MPs, MSPs and Councilors to end the said Treaty of Union. Alf is of the opinion that the Treaty no longer works in Scotland’s best interests so it is time to withdraw from the 1707 Treaty. This, of course, will take political will. Alf believes there is no need for a referendum. We can dissolve the Treaty and ask for confirmation of the people later. Our sovereignty lies with our elected representatives. We do not elect English, Welsh or Northern Irish MPs, therefore why should they have any say in Scotland’s constitutional position? Our elected representatives can take that decision for Scotland!
Here is the full interview for those that may have missed it.
This action would undoubtedly be contested by the imperial English Parliament at Westminster. That though creates several bear traps for our English imperial masters. The TOU quite clearly states that Scots Law remains separate and intact. They would most likely not want to question Scottish Sovereignty in a Scottish sovereign courtroom. It is inconceivable that a Scottish Court would deny the people’s sovereignty, not least because the only reason Scots law still exists today is because of that same treaty.
By taking the case to the Supreme Court in London, a Union construct it is then open to challenge by the Scottish Government as the Imperial power cannot decide matters like this in their own institutions, using their own laws and courts.
Should Westminster try to use this method and deem the ending of the TOU by the Scottish elected Parliamentarians as illegal it then has to admit to the world that Scotland in their eyes is an English colony. They would have to air their view that Scotland is not a separate nation of sovereign people inside a voluntary treaty. Then they would have to suggest that Scotland is indeed an English colony, subsumed into the Greater England in 1707.This opens up big problems for England and gives our independence movement other avenues to explore. It also means there is no union and therefore no ‘unionists’.
Since the birth of the United Nations, more than 80 former colonies comprising some 750 million people have gained independence using the good services of the UN. In most instances the Imperial power has not been willing participants. England will be no different when it comes to releasing its grip on Scottish natural resources and assets.
When we bring in The UN, Westminster and England are on very shaky ground. Under the terms of the UN decolonisation process, the governing nation cannot be involved in any plebiscite, nor can it fund or interfere in any way. Defacto the UN would run any confirmatory referendum on Scottish Independence. The BBC, STV/ITV and the rest of the English media would not be allowed to participate unhindered as they did in 2014. The UK Electoral Commission would not be in overall charge, the UN would be solely in charge. We would have international observers from the UN supervising the plebiscite and count, eliminating any chance of electoral fraud by either side. The BBC actions of 2014 which were deplorable could not be repeated. Impartiality will be the name of the game. There could be no funding from England or any other nation. The world would be there to ensure a fair and legal election.
https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en
With no outside funding or media interference this would lessen any Better Together Campaign to a whimper.
The other point Alf made quite forcibly was on the franchise we should use for any confirmatory plebiscite. I also now agree to this point. It should only be those born in Scotland or of Scottish parental descent that are allowed to vote in any self-determination independence plebiscite. This should be extended to the global Scottish diaspora. In 2014 53% of Scottish born voters voted YES. It was those born outwith Scotland that tipped the balance in favour of the status quo.Here is an article from The Times confirming that fact.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/majority-of-scottish-born-voters-said-yes-z7v2mmhc8nt
An example of a UN supervised self-determination vote is the 2020 New Caledonia one.
That referendum was held using a special electoral roll. Potential voters needed to be registered on the general electoral roll, and also meet one of the following secondary criteria:
1. Was on the electoral roll for the 1998 referendum on the Nouméa Accord;
2. Qualified to be on the electoral roll for the 1998 referendum, but were not enrolled;
3. Failed to meet the requirements to be on the 1998 electoral roll solely due to absence related to family, medical or professional reasons;
4. Having civil customary status or born in New Caledonia and has their material interests in the territory;
5. At least one parent was born in New Caledonia and have their material interests in the territory;
6. At least 20 years of continuous residence in New Caledonia by 31 December 2014;
7. Born before 1 January 1989 and have had their residence in New Caledonia between 1988 and 1998.
8. Born after 31 December 1988 and reached voting age before the referendum, with at least one parent who was on the electoral roll (or qualified to do so) for the 1998 referendum.
These conditions for New Caledonia could be used as a starting point for any future Scottish confirmatory referendum/plebiscite.
What I am attempting here is to begin a debate on alternative routes to Scottish independence. To those that suggest this is blood and soil Nationalism I would say this, in 2016 the UK Government franchise for Brexit excluded EU Nationals from having a vote. In most other nations around the world diaspora are entitled to vote in their homelands. Because we don’t do something at present, doesn’t mean we cannot do it in the future. I believe it is time to mobilise the global Scottish diaspora not just Scots living in other parts of the UK.
The fact of the matter remains that if in 2014 we had a Scots born/parental franchise as I am now suggesting we would already be independent, still in the EU and probably have had far fewer Covid deaths as, we could have controlled and closed our borders as we saw fit.We would be in charge of all the levers of power to help the nation recover from the pandemic. Under the present SNP plan we are dependent on Boris Johnson and his English Crime Syndicate to aid Scottish recovery. It is not a very good plan Nicola!
This is my attempt at an alternative route to independence.
Discuss!
Many Facebook sites are increasingly censoring bloggers like myself who are sometimes critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts.
This route seems to be viable. Not only Alf Baird, the esteemed academic, but Craig Murray, the esteemed former ambassador, have recommended it as this is how Independence is normally achieved under the auspices of the UN.
Right now, and since 2014, the Scottish Government have been – to put it in its best light – passive on advancing The Cause. By going down the UN path the emphasis is on Scotland’s elected representatives to act. However, we need another government as it is very clear that this particular SNP government is unable or unwilling or both to proactively pursue anything to do with securing the restoration of Scotland’s full self-government.
So we are going to somehow change the leadership group of the SNP or elect another pro-Independence party as government representatives before taking the case to the UN in order to a) remove the country from the Union and b) hold the confirmatory plebiscite.
Way to go!
Well said Roddy I agree 100%, I never understood why we allowed foreign nationals a vote in 2014, particularly English nationals whose vote is so obviously gonna be tainted with the interests of their own country in a way no other nationality is, it doesn’t make them bad people it’s just human nature and the 72% who voted against proves that point.
I think Alf’s right I think we stand a good chance of losing another referendum if we use the same franchise as last time, not only would it be stupid it would be reckless and irresponsible, we can’t afford to lose a second vote.
This is a debate we need to have including the whole yes movement and agree on a fixed plan going forward, and let our political leaders know in no uncertain terms that this is what we want them to do and get it done
I listened to Alf & thought it was one of the most informative Prisms, so much of what he said made sense plus I have felt myself for years that we should never have gone the route of A referendum as NO way in hell would the BRITS allow us to win that. I have always felt that a treaty broken was reason enough for the other party in that treaty to walk away. And by God this treaty has been broken on so many occasions.
Plus No country has gained their independence through a referendum. No country has ever voted against it’s own INDEPENDENCE. We are good at firsts, but not coming first..
It is true had only Indigenous Scots been allowed to vote then we possibly could have won that referendum, but I personally doubt that, as again My belief is the U.K. Government “controlling” that referendum would never have allowed a win of freedom..
I know that many Europeans who lived & worked here, voted NO, but they did so for fear of losing their homes here, being put out of the country.. I have heard so often that if they got the chance to vote again it would be a YES to Independence.
There was it had been said around 500,000 English people living in Scotland at the time of the referendum, and we know we had a great group of English for Yes, who marched with us. But it is said by the time of another referendum there will be closer to a million ENGLISH living in Scotland.. And in all honesty I believe that will be the biggest threat to any referendum. Because most English also feel British..
I would not want to just dismiss people from other countries who have made Scotland their home.. But I DO believe their should be a required period of residency before they can vote in this country.
If someone has come here, worked and paid their taxes & raised their families here, for a period of at least 10yrs possibly 20yrs, then this is their home.
But I say again, a referendum is never going to get Scotland Independence, not in my opinion. We must dissolve this union, walk away from the treaty. And have the guts to do so..
I am listening to these arguments, and will continue to listen, but I already have doubts.
Proposing to involve the worldwide Scots diaspora in the franchise risks conceding the narrower argument of some in Westminster that Scots living in England, Wales and NI should have the right to vote in the next indyref – their argument being that Scots (and non-Scots) across the UK, like it or not, will all be impacted in some material way by Scottish independence.
But involving Scots beyond these islands is different, because (mostly) they have no stake, other than an emotional one, in the outcome.
So there is a risk that the world diaspora argument could help underwrite a Unionist ambition to extend the franchise across the UK; even, some argue, to the extent of giving everyone a vote, irrespective of UK country of birth because, again, everyone will be directly affected by indy (arguably even to the extent of a complete disintegration of the UK).
So, we should be careful what we wish for.
But I will continue to listen to the arguments for and against, and look forward to Alf’s weekly essay.
I have never supported a second indyref and have always made that clear. I am not sure about locking non-Scots out of the vote, though, although I do appreciate that a universal vote is not necessary, and, indeed, is relatively rare – as rare as countries gaining their independence by means of a referendum, in fact. The 2014 result certainly justifies it, and I, too, believe that another vote along the same lines would end in the same result – NO, which is but one reason I have never supported the proposition, not even the first indyref, albeit I worked for it. Alf’s approach will soon become the norm for independence-supporting people in Scotland, because of the heavy-handed Westminster approach to all things Scottish.
I have always been of the opinion that the Treaty has to be resiled by Scotland, leaving it up to England, or rUK, to bring a contrary action in the International court (it would have that right) and placing the ball firmly in their court, so to speak. That the SNP has not done so in the 14 years it has been the party of government in Scotland is utterly remarkable. That at least a few in the SNP’s higher echelons are probably Unionist/serve the British State – or gradualist to the point of being as good as Unionist – should come as no surprise.
The Treaty, as Alf says, is the fundamental glue that holds the UK together. If taking it to the UN does nothing else, it would signal our desire (election after election, mandate after mandate) to leave the UK, our inability to find a way out of the UK that is not perennially blocked by Westminster, and always – and this is crucial – in England’s interest and the colonialist – if not, ethnic and anti Scottish – nature of indyref 1’s result, followed by Brexit where, again, two thirds of those voting Leave had been previous NO voters, so the link is established two-fold, and the rapid influx of rUK residents shows the three-fold part of the result, although this was already well underway by 2014, and is set to increase even more rapidly as Brexit sets in south of the border, and would, by implication, make it harder and harder to leave the UK. We already qualify for independence on several levels.
If we don’t leave soon, and are frustrated again, whether by blocking or by a negative second vote, it will seal our fate as a dead nation state, incapable of resurrection or as a nation that has no way to go except, eventually, into direct conflict with our big neighbour, and, possibly, partition – so close to treacherous Tory and British hearts – with generations of unrest and, perhaps, bloodshed, to follow. The Unionists might want to ponder the better part of valour – or, in this case, the utter stupidity of their position and cast their jaundiced eyes over the water to NI and Ireland.
I listened to alfy and liked what I WAS HEARING, but like many other so called experts they tell a good story ,if it was as easy as they say it should be ,why has it not happened before now,the snp and their supporters have been looking for ways to get scotlands rightful independence, alex salmond brought us to the cusp of victory in the 2014 referendum but for some cheating by westminster, and the better together group of vichy scots, finishing by the biggest lie the VOW that some scottish voters fell for, there has to be a better way for scotland to claim their independence.
I don’t believe that Alf even suggested it was going to be easy, John. He is very far from being stupid, so he will know perfectly well how difficult it will be – not let because of the intransigence of Westminster. You should read his book, ‘Doun-Hauden’, which is an eye-opener – but only if you keep an open mind and are willing to see things from a different perspective: Scotland’s; not the UK’s; not England’s.
I don’t know anyone who is supportive of independence who ever thought it was going to be easy. The problem for all of us is that Westminster makes it far more difficult than it need be. Imagine a NI – and I know this will infuriate NI Unionists – that had been left to settle its differences with Ireland proper from 1916 to the 20s, and Irish independence. Had the British State kept its neb out of Ireland and allowed the situation to resolve itself, I doubt that the Troubles would ever have happened. It would have been difficult for both sides, but the overwhelming force of Ireland, led by Michael Collins (had he lived, go course) would have brought the Unionists to a compromise and enabled Ireland to move forward as a country. Protestants in Ireland proper never experienced the removal of civil rights and human rights that Catholics in the North did. De Valera had much to answer for in making the Northern Protests and even those still in Ireland proper worried people along sectarian lines, so conservative was his Catholicism and his attitude to separation of State and Church.
We cannot change the past, but we ought at least to be able to learn from it, but, sometimes, I think that Unionist Scots are falling into the same kind of traps that the Irish Protestants did – by not understanding that the very thing that they feared was only being advanced by their intransigence, but, more crucially, by an utterly, nakedly self-interested British State, which, in the end, is England and its elite. Ireland, to an extent, was/is also the back door to Europe and the Baltic/Crimean/Russian influence area, with all that that situation means for British (actually, English) defence and world standing, but Scotland is far more so. The problem for us is that the young men in the Foreign Office, generally the products of elite public schools and Oxbridge, are fighting the wrong fight )or, perhaps, there isn’t one that has not been manufactured?) and, while Russia is scarcely an ally, neither is it the bogeyman, and at least some of the current tensions within the Russian ambit could be resolved with negotiation and diplomacy. That, however, is not the British way, and we are doomed to spin round and round on the treadmill of stupid perceived self-interest forever and a day – unless, of course, we escape with independence.
I listened to your show and considered what was said very viable. This clarifies the predominance of matters I may have missed but getting this message out and understood is the difficulty.
It is, why I wrote the blog.
A great podcast and looks the right way forward. Certainly preferable to a referendum which would undoubtedly be subjected to interference by a British State whose Integrity should always be in doubt. Especially when they are currently not short of serial liars.
Great video Roddy!
People can read the _whole_ article on the internet archive, including the percentage figures, without being restricted by the times’ paywall blocking.
short link:
http://archive.today/Xvdmc
long link:
http://archive.today/2020.02.25-233117/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/majority-of-scottish-born-voters-said-yes-z7v2mmhc8nt
The backlash to a discussion about resetting the franchise for Scottish Independence has already begun. Remarkable when you consider Alf’s excellent presentation was only last Sunday.
Much has been written about the sensible notion of limiting the franchise to Scots nationals, and long term residents (with conditions) so i’ll simply add this.
For those foreign nationals living in Scotland who like living here, and want to stay, AND have Scotland’s interest at heart, a franchise that excludes you will protect you. To explain.
There are close to a million English settlers in Scotland. Of those, likely no more than 100,000 are pro Scottish independence. The rest, as is evident in the press and social media, seem intent on transplanting Little England to Scotland, subsuming Scottish culture, language, etc…
Any vote that includes this group is inherently unfair to Scottish people, who by weight of sheer settler numbers are already disadvantaged in their aspirations for their own country. And it is, OUR country. If there were a similiar vote in England, for english indy, you can bet the franchise would exclude Scots, Welsh, Irish, and anyone else who wasn’t an english national, indeed, that’s the significant premise of brexit. As white an anglo-saxon England as possible.
And yet Scots are expected to embrace all because we’re somehow, not. Not entitled to vote on our own future, without english permission. Not allowed to foster and nourish our own culture because it’s sold as anti-english, and so on..
300 years has not only embedded a sense of uncertainty in many Scots, it’s also enriched the sense of entitlement in England, and even some supporters of Scottish Independence still think of us as somehow part of an English identity, and mentality. We’re not. We don’t think of ourselves as people conditional on the mental, social and physical structure of englishness, as some sort of filter we need to put ourselves through to be considered as somehow acceptable, not only in the UK, but across the world.
The next decision we make, whether it’s a referendum (which is WM’s preferred platform, as they can manipulate it easily, and with many decades of dirty manipulation experience), or a statement which says we leave the Treaty of Union, which is entirely Scotland’s choice, and neatly sidesteps the english establishment’s machinations. They’ll fight dirty, illegally, and without conscience for the impact on both Scots and English, but we’ll be independent. We can fight our corner far more powerfully from a position as an equal, not a nation that is fighting to get the boot of colonialism off its neck, whilst trying to build infrastructure of its own.
In the event of a successful withdrawal from the Treaty, those foreign settlers who meet the criteria for residency are immediately registered as residents. No Home Office to destroy lives, or make people’s lives as difficult as possible just for the fun of it. (a notably english bureaucratic bloodsport, which has been transplanted in Scotland via organizations like the DWP).
A Scottish internal authority with Scotland’s civic mentality, mindful of the emotional stress and impact of status uncertainty is a far better organization to empathically reassure and help settle those who wish to stay.
A Scottish franchise ensures the best chance of a good outcome for foreign nationals who want to be Scottish, and continue to make an important contribution to Scottish society. They will not be left out of the decision making process out of spite, or truculence. Quite the opposite. They can support Scottish independence, even without a vote, with the assurance they’ll benefit on the other side of the vote, in a Scotland that will not see them as “foreigners” to be derided, or shipped off to their own country, quite possibly losing their homes and livelyhoods in the process, something that happens to foreigners every day in England, now they no longer have the protection of the EU’s institutions.
A Scottish franchise ensures that Scots can secure their language, culture, and future without conditions imposed by a foreign government who’s intent has always been profoundly less than honourable.
We will not forget. Events in Glasgow recently show the civic spirit Scots wish to have in their communities, with the prevention of two asylum seekers being deported by the deeply amoral Home Office. It will be the same for foreign settlers who are resident in Scotland at the time of independence. We will protect you, and build our infrastructures with the same civic nationalism that is inclusive. That’s who Scots are when the english establishment are not trying to crush any empathy, or civic community in our Scottish society.
So to all those foreign settlers who are disturbed by the idea of not being able to vote in a Scottish franchise, or find themselves in a suddenly independent Scotland not sure what happens next, have no fear. You’ll be just as accepted then as you are now. And without the derision and sneering brutality of the english establishment when the paperwork is to be settled.
Scotland needs to decide its own future. Scots, like most folk in their own countries around the world, have the right to determine their own destiny without conditions imposed by foreign influence of any sort. And like the Irish, Spanish, and many others around the world, we should do that as nationals of our country on a constitutional issue like independence.
Once Scotland is independent, we can then, collectively, build a far better country than we have now, with Scotland’s rich resources working for all Scotland’s folk, and not a tiny cabal of establishment mafia in another country.
I ask those folk who have settled in Scotland from foreign countries not see a “Scottish” vote or decision as exclusion, but an ends to a means to will give you a far better future than the one we’re all having to tolerate now.
Excellent post, Alex, and Roddy has explained that he, living in Catalunya/Catalonia was not allowed the franchise for their referendum, and why. Roddy is reasonable and fair-minded, though, and accepted that they had the right, in international law, to not extend to him the right to vote on constitutional matters. The problem arises, of course, when the state is a confederation of smaller, former states, as both here and in Catalunya/Catalonia. Why? Because these are not recognized immediately as colonies, even though they patently are. Scots, Welsh and NI did vote on Brexit. The question is: would they be allowed to vote on England’s independence? I think not, because, although it would affect us, their right to decide the future of their country takes precedence. As does Scotland’s. Scottish Unionists have yet to grasp that fact. Does that mean that English, Welsh and NI in Scotland would be sent home? No, that would break international law. They will have the choice to stay. The opposite case would pertain in England. The lack of understanding around international legal rights and obligations is woeful in the UK.
Listening to people like Jim Sillars and Alf Baird is so refreshing but equally depressing as it shows that the New-SNP are fast asleep at the wheel with a belly load of sleeping potion (deliberate or not is another issue). It was like looking at the passion of the Scottish team. I know sod all about football but anyone could see how hard those guys tried, they put their heart and soul into it. Then compare with the Somnambulistic Near-living Petrified party. The worst thing is knowing that there is nothing you can do to wake them up.
The treaty has been broken by England so of course we should assert our independence. It is shocking to think that inertia has become the norm with the NewSNP and it is insane that what Jim and Alf are saying is not mainstream SNP thought. Nothing they say is radical, it is common sense. We need NewMedia to keep the flame alive because Scots could very well fall into a disgruntled acceptance of the post brexit apocalypse (sorry i do not think that is fearmongering) under this zombie army leadership.
As far as the referendum goes. Great to have debate but that will be a confirmatory referendum/plebiscite, i hope.
I could become Irish if i wanted, my maternal grandparents were Irish. There have been a flood of applications from UK people wanting Irish citizenship and a EU passport. It is taking years to process so that is one drawback of having a vote by one or two generations of ancestry, the bureaucracy is complicated.
The other problem is i want a plebiscite that we can win. I am not so bothered about fighting dirty because the gloves are now off, Fucko the Clown will use any method to keep the union. We can’t fight by his rules but i am worried that a world wide vote could backfire. I am worried that a lot of International Scots are also unionists. We have to win. Personally i don’t care how we win as long as it is monitored by International witnesses but there is the problem of perception. If Sturgeon thought SNP1Alba2 was rigging the vote imagine what unionists like her will make of a vote which changes the rules.
For all its faults using the ‘franchise’ from 2014 has the advantage that no one can criticise it, with any success, because it has been tried and tested and only yesterday Salmond was repeating that.
Great to have the debate though.
P.S. We are called decisive and hate mongers for pointing out the NewSNP betrayal and showing that the super-majority rejection was a disaster for Independence. We are attacking a failed strategy. If people identify with that strategy then it is their problem that they can’t take the heat. I voted SNP1 and they dare to call us hateful and decisive!
This type of discussion is exactly th3 type of debate that has been stifled for far too long.
This fixation with a referendum, and only a referendum granted by the Westminster majority and under their rules, if allowed at all, is a deliberate mechanism to stifle perfectly legal routes to independence, and routes that would be copper bottom accepted by the UN and international law.
Thatcher herself said have if the majority of Scots MPs voted for independenc3vthen Scotland would have it. But now that international orthodoxy, and previously SNP policy is gone replaced by the line that only a referendum sanctioned by Westminster government and to whatever rules they set, is the only legal method.
Meanwhile the big Parliament usurps the powers of the devolved Parliament , controls the purse strings, controls the media and uses the deep state to fight a clandestine dirty war against independence.
Read about what when on in Northern Ireland and how the deep state and not so deep state colluded. Look at what is going on today in Scotland.
Similarities – and then some.
Because people have been afraid and stunned into silence or fawning acquiescence/virtue-signalling vacuousness, in much the same way as in the trans non-debate. Fear of being perceived to be a bigot is what is used to silence – gaslighting based on lies, I other words. There is nothing anti English or racist about stating the unvarnished truth about the precariousness of our situation and precisely WHY it is so precarious.
The SNP leadership insists only a referendum will do yet has done NOTHING in the last six years to get us anywhere nearer to having a second referendum, nor campaigning to win it
When Chris McEleny was shouted down and boo-ed at Conference for daring to suggest their were other options, it was clear the leadership were not interested in any other route – they even admit that Johnson’s government aren’t likely to grant their fabled S30 Gold standard so why do people insist on indulging their fantasy ?
Oh but wait a minute – these same people are the ones I see on Twitter just now, in complete acceptance of the “Oh the indyref money was just resting in our account…..except it was so relaxed it slipped off the books and into someone’s pocket” mince and pledging to donate another £600k because, well, what’s fraud and stealing amongst a few friends
As for who gets to vote, it’s a tricky one – I remember getting caught in the middle of a very heated, and quite nasty, debate on Wings a few years back and being pulled from the baying crowd by the good Rev himself because some people decided my Yes vote wasn’t welcome anymore. My crime ? I was born in England, of Scottish parentage.
Now you don’t need to be part of the gender critical debate to understand the lack of choice which is attached to one’s birthplace, and I also get the large numbers of non-Scots who voted No, but no-one in that particular crowd was interested in how long I had lived in Scotland (a long time – all my adult life apart from two years at University and a good bit of my younger days too)
So, whatever way you start dividing up the franchise, someone, somewhere is going to be mighty upset – born here ? I’m out. Parent(s) Scottish ? I’m in. Scottish Taxpayer ? I’m in……….etc etc etc
But one thing is for sure – if we are waiting for the Queen of Covid to make a move, we’ve certainly got plenty of time to work it out
Prof Alf Baird is correct.
I’ve always believed in the route of ending the union treaty.
The section 30 and a referendum is a misnomer.
I also believe, people make change , not politicians.
It really is time to drive them towards ending the treaty of union.
The treaty is also corrupt it had no respect for citizens.
Onwards and upwards.
🐼🐼
Within the world of supporting independence this all makes sense.
For those opposing, it will be called cynical gerrymandering – limiting the vote to people who are likely to vote yes.
What about the undecided? Wouldn’t it make sense to win people over with facts, information and debate rather than ignoring them and excluding many of them?
If this strategy was carried out and failed the result would be that most undecided would be converted to definite No voters.
The problem is not the democratic route, the problem is the Sturgeon clique who have withdrawn the SNP from the Yes movement.
I also think another referendum is not required and it could be risky. The alternative, however will require a clear majority of scots to be in favour of independence. If it remains around 50:50 on the day (for scots-born), this would lead to absolute mayhem.Sorry to say this, but the unionist, scots-born Brit-scots and fearties have to be reduced to 40% or less before we should embark on this journey. I don’t think that’s impossible, but we ain’t there yet. I am disappointed that the SNP politiciansd are doing nothing to further the cause – they just seem to be content, sitting on their backsides and passing contentious laws. Too comfy an existence IMO – those fat paychecks can be persuasive. As a result, they pass contentious civic laws to look tough but when it comes to the constitution, they are cowards. If they aren’t inspired to fight (really fight) for independence, then I am no onger inspired to vote for them.
For many years niw I have been saying much the same as this, although perhaps not so eloquently., Ever since I read the act of union many years ago I have held the opinion that it actually offers Scotland the opportunity to withdraw if it finds that the union does not benefit it, in fact, if my memory serves me well I seem to remember that it specifically states that very thing.
This sounds like something everyone can get behind and one thing is sure and that is if anyone does not support this then it will be blindingly obvious that they are servents of the union.
In this respect, I would be interested to hear what Nicola Sturgeon has to say about it
Luigi: I think that taking our case to the UN would force the situation, and the Unionists of all hues would have to decide which way to jump. You are right to be worried about the 50:50 split because, as long as the Unionists believe that Westminster will continue to back them, they will do nothing to change. It is amazing how quickly people can realize on which side their bread is buttered when they are forced to do so. It a gamble, of course, but it would force the hand of the UKG and Unionists to choose. This inertia has to be broken somehow. A ratifying referendum after resiling the Treaty is perfectly legitimate and normal. The Tories won and Brexited because that was their policy, and, although many didn’t ant it, they did not question the right of the Tories to carry out their policies. Independence is the SNP’s, so they, too, have the legitimacy to do it – more so, with the Treaty, too, and because being an independent country is normal.
No ethnic nationalism!
It is not ethnic Nationalism. Name one nation in the world that allows foreign nationals to vote on Constitutional matters?
Good. If the current SNP leadership are the roadblock to even establishing if Scotland has the right to make a choice on becoming independent, then force their hand. The S30 is clearly a time wasting nonsense that only suits the current SNP & Westminster. It would be good have the alternatives made explicit and become a real focus. Without clarifying how independence could even just be determined, the campaign for independence will remain stuck in neutral. Since international recognition of independence would be critical, two area’s seem worthy of this as a start, namely the position of the UN in supporting various methods along with specific examples of helping countries to determine their independence and how other, now independent countries, went about gaining the decision to become independent, with or without external help (eg UN). These, along with any other relevent processes, need to be expanded on. It’s currently about the right to establish whether Scotland could choose whether to become independent or not, not independence itself. That can only follow on from creating a way to make a decision on it.
Independence is not solely about democracy, but the right to have a decision on it whenever circumstances show that it should, is most definately solely about democracy. The right to be able to decide is the battle to be fought right now. That’s where the focus needs to be. The pro’s and con’s of independence are open to a wide ranging set of position’s and views, but arguing against the mere opportunity to make a decision on independence is a very difficult position to take, especially internationally.
Arguing the pro’s and con’s of independence should take a back seat until the democratic choice situation has been resolved. Without the former, the latter is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
No it’s not sad you well know.
Roddy, I see the cult followers are having a melt down lol about the bloggers being/encouraging blood and soil nationalism pish. It’s clearly obvious that none of them have read the blog or watched the video.
But as soon as some English settler spits the dummy, there awe giving it your wan o us pish,and your entitled tae vote here.
Will they be saying that to the thousands of English Tory British citizens who are and have been moving here for the good life, and tae get away fae awe they white and coloured foreigners invading their green and pleasant land?
Sadly most of them will bring their English/British Tory attitudes with them, to infect the locals.
I expect many more thousands of settlers to come, now it’s a lot harder and expensive for them to settle in Europe.