This week’s show is solely about Independence abd the routes to that goal.
Prof. Alf Baird, Sara Saylers, Geoff Bush of SSRG Group share their knoekedge with us.
Webcom Radio is Now Playing: The Sick Man Of Europe - Obsolete Webcom Radio is Now Playing: The Sick Man Of Europe - ObsoleteThis week’s show is solely about Independence abd the routes to that goal.
Prof. Alf Baird, Sara Saylers, Geoff Bush of SSRG Group share their knoekedge with us.
Jeezo, was that really an hour? Lol. It felt like 10 minutes.
Nevermind politely observing the UK political timetable, the Constitutional shortchanging of Scotland could be brought to ahead very quickly by a Constitutional Test Case, for example, formally disputing Scotland’s Brexit as an unlawful act of colonial subjugation.
Joanna Cherry came within inches of doing this already, by holding PM Johnston’s prorogation of Parliament to account, and enforcing through respect for the Scottish Constitutional doctrine that Parliament served the people and thus, could not remove itself from their scrutiny. That is an example of Scottish doctrine being dominant and binding on a UK Prime Minister, while wholly incompatible with the English doctrine of a sovereign Parliament. Yet NOTHING, no purchase whatsoever, was made of this Constitutional triumph of Scottish doctrine backed by a judgement from the European Court.
Another route, but which adopts a similar strategy might be a test case to impeach Sturgeon’s “Government” for it’s acquiescence to Brexit, which was contrary to the emphatic democratic will of the sovereign people. By what authority did she decide to do that?
There are multiple routes, both progressive and retrospective, which could be used as a vehicle for Scottish Constitutional Sovereignty to assert itself. We could, and arguably should, be using all of them.
A big problem for Scotland is our dismal failure to recognise Constitutional opportunities which are all around us, and a depressing failure to ruthlessly exploit and capitalise on the seminal victories we do win.
As a nation, we need to be much more streetwise and proactive in our application of Constitutional principle. The more we do it, the better we’ll get at doing it.
Hello Breeks
Actually replying to your other post but it has no reply button.
“The problem with GERS, irrespective of who approves of their figures, is that the Treasury will not release the raw data of the whole UK’s economic performance.”
Oh really?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/regionalaccounts
Fill your boots with data. And of course the OBR is there to be an independent check on what the Treasury does and says, and the OECD keeps an eye on national statistics too. Along with investment banks, research firms, etc etc.
“GERS has been guilty in the past of cooking the books, for example treating Scotland’s Oil as a UK resource and only attributing an Independent Scotland with a per capita 8.5% share, rather than a 96% share. Revenue from Scotland’s oil has also been designated ex-regio or something.”
This was originally true but since 2007 the geographic share has been included. An SNP decision and a correct one.
BTW the “extra regio” thing pre-dated North Sea oil; it was introduced to account for the previous production of gas from the southern end of the North Sea. It was felt that assigning all that activity to Norfolk or East Anglia was silly since it was a national, UK-level project. Same logic for oil and gas further north.
“the GERS figures also presume that Scotland would simply adopt the UK economic policy to the letter, when in truth, the economy of an Independent Scotland is likely to be radically different.”
No, they don’t; it’s not a forecast, just a record of where things are now. And they show the country running a very large deficit with public spending outrunning tax revenue by a long way.
That’s not a great place to start; year 1 of independence would require a combination of tax rises, spending cuts and government borrowing (at high rates, since it would be a regime with no track record).
And “radically different” – how and why? It would be the same people and companies doing the same things as before. What would Tesco and McDonalds be doing differently?
Well here’s the thing if the Union is so great surely the GERS is a terrible inditement of 315 years of London Rule? If Scotland is a financial basket case it is because if London/English mismanagement. Can you give us the GERS figures for England?
It wasn’t the OBR or ONS which blew the lid on McCrone Report, a scandal kept secret from the Scottish Population for decades while the UK Government plundered Scotland’s wealth. Nor was it them who exposed the rip off in transmission charges which disadvantage Scotland’s energy producers by a factor of 10.
We all know the Tories definition of “independent organisation” is invariably some Tory Think Tank who’s function is to seed the popular narrative and pet media with Tory ideas and philosophy, and allow such input to be portrayed as “independent analysis” when it’s no such thing.
Westminster and it’s Treasury have lied repeatedly, exploited and plundered Scotland for generations, yet still expect to dictate the narrative despite being a pickpocket caught with their hand on Scotland’s wallet.
India’s Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said 200 years of British rule had reduced India from one of richest countries in the world to the poorest one. It’s what the British Government does, it thieves, it plunders, and that’s what it’s currently doing to Scotland.
Another cracker, Roddy. Agree with so much of that: we should be looking at every tool at our disposal and weighing up each one of its relative merits with a view to using them all if need be, as both Geoff and Sara stated. The one thing I would say, though, is that the Treaty is the underpinning document of the Union – it created the UK – and it will have to be utilized at some point. Another thing is that the threat of action – of using these constitutional tools – could be enough to bring the UK to the negotiating table because I believe – and I could be wrong, of course – is that the Westminster government and its arms of state already know that the Treaty has been misinterpreted, and the Union, therefore, fatally flawed. What makes me think that is the Crawford and Boyle Report. Rather than being the coup de grace that would have demolished a YES vote, the commissioning of it, and the potential use of it, gave the game away that England knows full well that it is acting ultra vires and knows its position is weak. It will try to bluff it out, but it bloody well knows. The least attractive option must be a S30 referendum, or any referendum. Too easily dismissed as advisory and not binding.
Good contributions from Geoff and Sara, and Alf laid it out in bare terms: we have to make it absolutely plain to those in Scotland right now that we will not tolerate another stymying of our independence and our right to exist as a state and nation in the future. He spelled out that we will have to replace the foot draggers and those without enthusiasm for independence, and institute an allegiance to Scotland oath, and citizenship based on allegiance to Scotland, not to the state we will have left. That is laying your cards on the table and those not happy with the situation have the option to remain with the former state if they choose – which would, of course, entail a physical move if they finally could not accept Scottish independence and sovereignty. I do not mean to be harsh, but rUK people in Scotland, and, indeed, Scottish Unionists need to stop putting identity and ideology ahead of the best way forward for the Scottish people, as a whole. If they can’t, what does that say about their commitment to Scotland? Citizenship for those who want to be part of our future, whatever their origins.
So, back to “tell the Brits to git aff”, then? That worked well last time somebody said it.
60 countries told the Brits to ‘git aff’ and they did they had no choice.Chased out of country after country and despised because of their behaviour.Scotland will be independent, it is only a natter of how and when,not if. England needs to stand on its own two feet something it has never done before in its entire history.
When was the last time somebody said it? Wasn’t it one of the Caribbean countries just recently?
No, it was John Swinney at an SNP conference while he was leader.
You seem to be suggesting that you tell the >50% of the country who do not want independence that, after you’ve pulled some “constitutional” finagle to declare it without a referendum, you’re going to force them to “swear allegiance” or get out.
That doesn’t sound like a productive political strategy.
Nor is it what is being suggested.
Nothing like misinterpreting what people are saying, is there, Sparks. What I said, and it may have been on another blog or another thread was that Scotland has the inalienable right to have its independence. It is not in the gift of Unionists to continue to tie us into a Union half the population does not want. Be my guest and keep the other 50% shackled to a failing state that cares little to nothing for our wellbeing – but don’t start blubbering when it all blows up in your face. The Unionists are welcome to come to the table and suggest a solution that does not involve endless incarceration in a Union that many simply do not want.
The English establishment has behaved atrociously towards Scotland, and continues to get away with it. Constitutional tools are not some finagle, as you put it. They are perfectly democratic and legitimate. It is pure, unadulterated propaganda to even suggest that they are not. You want another PRE independence referendum, if you want anything, because you want it to fail. A PRE independence referendum is supremely unnecessary – those constitutional tools that you sneer at are necessary, and a post independence ratifying/confirmatory referendum is probably also necessary. You do know that the UN frowns upon those who are not indigenous people interfering in the legitimate independence of a country? The very least that you would need to be consideration not an interference would be a long-term residency and a stake in Scotland’s future – and not as a second home for the hols or as a forever corner of England.
Scottish Unionists are in the minority, by the way, and can only prevail with the help of rUK/other residents in Scotland, so please don’t lecture us about democracy. Everyone who accepts citizenship of a country swears allegiance to that country. Didn’t you know that? As for getting out, if you stay in a country and were not born there, you have absolutely no right to impose your thinking – which might even be racist – on to others who don’t share your thinking. The reflection of that would be if a Scot went to live in England and did everything he or she could to stymie the interests of English people and try to make England Scottish against their will and inclination. I believe in independence for England, too. You really are trying to put the very worst connotations on what is being said. If everyone behaved as you would want them to behave, we’d still be mired in the Empire. It is the arrogant mindset that thinks everyone else has to toe the line that grates.
Another hard-hitter, Roddy. Thanks, to all! On the question of getting the constitutional facts out to the people: who can forget those really incredibly well attended Yes public meetings in the run-up to 2014? Their success surprised many a cynic, and helped to educate and inform a great many people back then. It has been suggested that the rise and success of Fianna Fáil, for example, would never have been achieved without the utilization of the motor-car, which allowed its leadership and activists access to the many rural towns and communities outside of Dublin. Getting out and making your case directly to the public on their own turf, while by-passing the MSM, can pay handsome political dividends, it would seem.
Just because the gutless and dissembling Sturgeon party decided that a majority of seats in a Plebiscite election no longer represents a Sovereign result for Scottish Independence does not mean that we have to accept that!
Sturgeon is the betrayer and cannot and must not be allowed to decide our fate by re-interpreting the results to suit her unionist interpretation and masters.
The SNP’s constitution and the English parliament accepted a majority of seats…right up until the SNP decided otherwise, as it should be in a parliamentary ‘representative democracy’..bogus as that institution is, but at face value can be utilised by that majority of seats. Every rotten Tory/Lab gov has been elected on a minority of votes since the 1950s.
We have, as Alf says, had a mandate every G.E. since 2015 to take our country out of the failed UK dictatorship.
For dictatorship is what is. An elective dictatorship, where an ethnic group, the English hold down the Celtic minorities purely by numbers of seats. Northern Ireland’s parliament in Stormont was designed to keep a Protestant Unionist majority in permanent rule over the Catholic population, and did so for over 50 years.
We’ve had that rule for over 300 years and ongoing.
Sarah’s idea of Conventions was tried with Kenyon Wright; convention and Scotland United etc, and failed because they were talking shops of liberals and take too long to organise. More importantly, who is elected and who elects?
Far better is as Alf suggests unifying all nationalist groups and direct action now. Time is running out. The Poll tax and the ‘YES’ movement in 2014 demonstrated that working class people can be motivated and mobilised to bring action on to the streets and parliaments.
The current attack on working class Scots’ living standards by the Tories is the chance to focus the way out for Scotland out of this mess. We need straight forward messages based on our democratic right to democratic rule over ourselves and resources. The AUOB marches should be directed against the failed SNP leadership as collaborators with the Better together coalition of unionist English based parties. We must target the Scottish ‘parliament’ and ‘out’ them as the traitors and oppressors that they are. For how else can these imposters be characterised than as betrayers of the ordinary Scottish people?
Roddy said we need a slogan on the side of a bus. How about ‘Scotland raises £200 billion in revenue every year,,but Westminster gives us back only £30 billion…Better Together? ( figure for first figure taken from deleted BBC Economic correspondent’ s broadcast).
How can Scotland “raise £200 billion in revenue” when, ACCORDING TO THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, its total GDP is only £163 billion?
https://www.gov.scot/publications/gdp-key-statistics/
Sparks….are you hard of thinking? The Barnet gives us back £30 billion of our OWN MONEY!
And if you want to believe the dumb unionist supporting SNP ‘SG’ figures , then we are being robbed of £133 billion. They also believe the GERS fabrication c/o Lord Lang, the tory aristoct=rat.
Does that make you happy?
Er, no. You are confusing GDP (how much money a conntry makes) with public revenue (how much of that the government takes as taxes).
UK example:
https://obr.uk/download/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2022/
Page 75: UK 2020-21 GDP ~£2200 bn.
Page 95: UK 2020-21 tax take: £710 bn.
On a pure population basis, we might expect Scotland’s figures to be around 8% of those, i.e. £176 bn GDP and £57 bn taxes.
I already showed you:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/gdp-key-statistics/
Which gives Scottish GDP of £163 bn, which is pretty close.
Now for tax take we simply have no choice but to use:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/
…which says (Table 1.1) that the Scotland raises taxes (including geographic share of North Sea) of £62.8 bn. Again, pretty close to the population share, so it all looks reasonable, and it’s on the upside so good!
But… Table 3.1 says total public spending in Scotland was £99.2 bn.
So what’s actually happening is that the current level of public spending in Scotland is supported by £62.8bn if Scottish taxes and £36.4 bn of support from the rest of the UK.
Clearly 2020-21 was a unusual and horrid year, and lot of that £36.4bn was being borrowed by the UK government. But the situation is not as you described it.
I know the history of GERS but it is produced by civil servants who have been under the supervision of SNP ministers since 2007. It hasn’t changed much. Surely if the books were being cooked they would have been caught by now.
And remember the 2014 independence White Paper:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/6/
“GERS is the authoritative publication on Scotland’s public finances. “
Signed off by one A. Salmond.
Well, I’m not an economist, but when Nations with a mere fraction of Scotland’s resources can thrive as Independent Nations, I believe Scotland will thrive too.
The problem with GERS, irrespective of who approves of their figures, is that the Treasury will not release the raw data of the whole UK’s economic performance. There’s an obvious question why not, unless they’ve something to hide.
We know there very well could be things hidden, because GERS was set up specifically to allow manipulation of the figures specifically to undermine the Scottish Nationalists as confirmed in leaked correspondence from Ian Laing, the Architect of GERS.
Furthermore, GERS has been guilty in the past of cooking the books, for example treating Scotland’s Oil as a UK resource and only attributing an Independent Scotland with a per capita 8.5% share, rather than a 96% share. Revenue from Scotland’s oil has also been designated ex-regio or something. I forget the actual word, but Scotland’s oil was treated as a resource independent of Scotland… to hide the revenue and downgrade Scotland’s prosperity.
Now I don’t care about pedantic distinctions about the price per barrel etc. GERS might be the only the figures the Treasury allows on the table, but GERS figures are compromised by their history of dishonest and dishonourable manipulation. The UK Government has repeatedly shown bad faith in the past, and who knows what other deceptions would be revealed from seeing the raw economic data which the Treasury wants kept hidden?
And lastly, the GERS figures also presume that Scotland would simply adopt the UK economic policy to the letter, when in truth, the economy of an Independent Scotland is likely to be radically different. So what is there to compare?
I’ll just trust the odds of 5.6 million people finding their way to live comfortably and sustainably with the natural resources of our Nation. Whether we end up richer, or poorer, we will be living within our means. I’ll take it. That’s how it should be.
We will also know for certain whether Scotland is indeed an economic basket case as we’re repeatedly told, or whether Independence rids Scotland of a grotesque and insatiable parasite.
cacrerolazo anyone ?? ??
“”Now we have our own mechanism in the Scottish Parliament, but we do not need to have a Parliament. Even if the Parliament did not exist, if the Scottish people streamed out on to the streets of our towns, cities and villages to say with a clear voice on megaphones, on marches and online that they wanted an independent Scotland again, that would be a declaration of independence. No challenge from the Palace of Westminster, the corridors of the United Nations, this place or any courts could gainsay that. The Scottish people would say that they done it, and they done it their way.””
Christine Grahame. Scottish National Party @ CLAIM OF RIGHT MEETING – JANUARY 26TH 2012
A FU**ING D E C A D E AGO YE’S WERE TOLD WE NEED NOT A PARLIAMENT !!!!!!!
JUST THE PEOPLE TO GET OFF THEIR KNEES AND GRASP STATUS/STANDING & TAKE INDEPENDENCE FOR THEM SELF
AUTONOMY OF SELF
DOMINION OF SELF AND INDEPENDENT OF ALL ELSE IS SOVEREIGN
SUBSERVIENT TO NONE OTHER
SELF IS AND CAN ONLY EVER BE SINGULAR
DITCH THE TITLE/NAME IT BELONGS TO THE CROWN CORPORATION
YER EITHER A MAN OR WOMAN A SOVEREIGN BEING
YER NEVER A BOND/TRUST/DOCUMENT/NAME
HOW CAN YOU BE TWO THINGS ?? ??
The people are BORN sovereign
If they give it away/delegate/surrender it to be REpresented they no longer retain it & they no longer present them SELF
HOW CAN YOU HOLD THAT WHICH YOU GAVE AWAY ?? ??
A Populo Populi et Polpuli
Nam familia est bonam
Simul et nos unum sumus
Non sum oblitus
Quid tam tuum quam tu quid tam non tuum quam tu
Libera animam meam et cor tuum ??
Libertas omnium
Quando Jus Domini Regis Et Subditi Concurrunt, Jus Regis Praeferri Debet
By grasping the meaning of the very last statement above the rest all falls into place NATURALLY and as it should be…….
For the good of the people
For the good of the family
For the good of the children
For love of country
What belongs to you so much as your self and what belongs to you so little as your self ??
Free your soul and heart
Freedom from tyranny
When the right of the sovereign and that of a subject conflict, the right of the sovereign is to be preferred
The last maxim above, combined with others, especially REX NON POTEST PECCARE (the king can do no wrong) were among the sovereign’s most powerful legal tools for centuries.
A cracking discussion from BHB and the panel, plus plenty ideas in the comments. To add my thoughts to the mix, I was struck by Sara’s talk of mobilising the people and somehow getting through to them the idea that the people of Scotland are sovereign.
I think there may be an opportunity for that in the very real anger and, for many, despair at the massive rise in the cost of energy. If this could be linked to the fact that the reason is Westminster control so that, despite the fact that Scotland is a country rich in energy, it is mismanaged in London by the perverse and unfair system they have devised. Once enough people learn that we, as a people, are actually sovereign and do not have to accept this, I think that could potentially trigger a popular movement against the Westminster government.
Other policies, such as the austerity and real poverty caused by its decisions, along with the treatment of refugees and the effects of leaving the EU, which Scotland did not vote for and are causing enormous problems paricularly in our food industry, would add to a wider realisation that we are being misgoverned.
This could lead to the further realisation that the current Scottish government is not doing enough to progress our self-determination since there is alreadya legal and constitutional way that we could leave the Union without having to ask permission as the SNP seems to insist.
I hope this is not too fanciful, but I think there is an opportunity at this time of persuading people who are deeply concerned about the future, that we do not have to accept either what London tells us, or the procrastination of our representatives in Holyrood and Westmister to do anything to remedy the situation.
There are elections coming up, is there time to get the message out that we do not need to accept the situation we are in as part of a disfunctional Union?
Another great prism Roddy with plenty of positivity and ideas , I believe the YES movement needs a leader to gather all the diverse groupings together and get them to work together , NOT affiliated to any political party but OWNING the YES movement , just think if we had had a leader of the YES movement THE power they would hold over independence parties would ensure the INDEPENDENCE accelerator was firmly pressed to the floor and would have EXPOSED Sturgeon’s complete and utter failure to educate and encourage people to vote for indy and her stupidity ??? in constantly pursuing the sect 30 route
Spot on, Sara. This is what I have been trying to get across for years. Making folk understand what sovereignty is and that Scotland has its own constitution which includes its ancient laws and customs in perpetuity is one of the biggest challenges. The other is repairing the wounded psyche which the cringe is a reflection of. Scotland also needs a source that puts news, articles and various other aspects into the correct terminology. Scots including their representatives have a terrible tendency to use English establishment narratives and to then view Scotland through an English establishment lens instead of seeing the truth with Scotland as legally an equal partner with equal authority to the treaty. Take the use of Westminster/UK government yet there is no government of GB in the treaty and as equals England imposing an English government as “UK/Westminster” is actually a violation of the terms. The terms did not say Scotland is an equal partner with equal authority only if it has equal number of MPs, population or votes. It states Scotland is an equal partner with equal authority due to Scotland being a sovereign nation state and signatory to the treaty.
Nail on head, Gayle/Sara. It is now the only way forward. It should not be too difficult to have copies of all our constitutional tools reproduced and distributed around Scotland. Perhaps having talks and question and answer sessions in local halls? It is in understanding how we have been so badly served by our elected representatives of all parties in regard to our Scottish constitution and our actual place in the Union that needs to be put across. England has been acting ultra vires towards us for over 300 years. That is not misinformation or fiction. It is fact, and it can be proved through the production of these documents, and all the workings around them. One day, our descendants are going to ask: why the hell didn’t they challenge?
Absolutely, Lorna. The hall meetings sounds like a great idea. We utilised halls and other spaces during indyref to futilely counter the English government and its establishment’s arguments on topics that were secondary and to a large extent pointless when we should have been addressing Scotland’s sovereignty, what it is, where it stems from (the fact it predates the formation of Scotland itself being part of the ancient laws and customs), what the DoA actually was – a declaration of war not independence in order to prevent the English establishment from colonising Scotland, what Scotland’s true legal status is within the treaty and the fundamental rights it has and most importantly how the Scottish government and its establishment has point blank refused to exercise Scotland’s sovereignty while capitulating to the English government and its establishment. No Scot should ever have the words “it’s reserved” come out of their mouth or even enter their head. I’m sure there are a number of knowledgeable activists who would be able to help put the hall meetings into practise, to have leaflets printed with what sovereignty is and the legal status of Scotland. I would add on to those the fact Scots need to stop using English establishment terminology including the term UK for numerous reasons which would take too much space to put on a reply thread. Maybe Sara, Roddy, Alba (though not ones who see Scotland as subservient to England) and others could feel out whether this would be a viable option.
One of the best.