The obvious result of pursuing the question you pose Peter is that politicians asking Scottish people to vote them into office must be loyal, in the first instance, to the Scottish people who voted them into power, or they are betraying their trust. This is particularly so if they were elected on a promise to secure Scottish Independence and then change their priorities.
This is why we are focused on Respect for Scottish Sovereignty,RSS, Because if a Scottish Politician, of whatever party accepts that the Scottish People are sovereign, then he/she accepts that there is no higher authority in Scotland than the people collectively.
Therefore, if the Scottish Parliament puts into law the UN ICCPR Covenant, which it has the legal power under the Scotland Act to do, and which it has a duty to do according to the Socttish Human Rights Commission, then it is addressing this issue directly in a positive way.
Once you ensure that the people are empowered to effectively make practical use of Direct Democracy, then you have taken the first irreversible step to independence.
Prompted by your comment, I went back and reread your letter in The National 9 December 2023. I was immediately reminded of the questions that letter raised in my mind. I quote the relevant section.
"The answer is to respect Scottish sovereignty, because this provides us with a legal way forward, which must be supported by every Scottish court which gets its authority from Scottish sovereignty, and which can’t be challenged by any court outwith Scotland."
You say that the sovereignty of the people of Scotland "provides us with a legal way forward". Skipping over the implication that any way forward might be illegal, I am left wondering exactly what is this "way forward"?
Apparently, this unidentified "way forward" is immune from legal challenge. So, it would be great to know what it is. I think you're saying this new 'route to independence' opens up with the passing into Scots law of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). But it is far from clear how this alone changes anything.
Presumably - and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - It is Article 1 of the ICCPR that is supposed to work the magic. Again, I don't see how. It obliges states to recognise the right of self-determination for all peoples. But nobody has denied Scotland's right of self-determination. In fact, the UK government explicitly acknowledged Scotland's right of self-determination when David Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement. So, nothing changes.
The rest of Article 1 applies only to non-self-governing territories. Scotland is not on the UN's list of non-self-governing and trust territories. So, that alters nothing either.
Article 2 obliges states to legislate where necessary to give effect to the rights recognised by the ICCPR. The UK government's response to that would be that they have already done that (Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013) as had the Scottish Government with the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 and the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013. So, both parliaments have at the very least demonstrated a readiness to legislate. Perhaps what you mean by a way forward is a challenge in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the basis that ad hoc legislation cannot be adequate under the terms of the ICCPR. I could see that challenge having an impact, if successful. But what would we gain?
If the UK government was obliged to pass legislation to create a permanent facility for the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination, they would almost certainly do so by means of a kind of Standing Order in Council. A sort of rolling version of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013. But while this might satisfy the ICJ/UN, it wouldn't help Scotland's cause at all. For two reasons.
Firstly, there is no such thing as complete or permanent devolution. Powers that are transferred to Holyrood by Westminster are always partial and always subject to revision or withdrawal.
Secondly, the powers transferred would be limited and conditional. The UK government could attach whatever conditions it wishes to the transfer of powers. The very first thing they would do is limit the frequency of referendums - say, ten years in between them. Or twenty. Whatever they like, really.
Also, the referendums themselves would not be proper constitutional referendums. The British parliament cannot devolve power to end the Union because this would contravene the doctrine of parliamentary (Westminster) sovereignty. The referendum(s) permitted by the new legislation would be consultative and non-self-executing. Like the 2014 referendum, they would not lead to the restoration of Scotland's independence.
Of course, we could go back to court and argue that the new legislation was also inadequate in light of the spirit if not perhaps the letter of ICCPR. So, maybe the UK government tweaks the legislation with purely cosmetic changes. Back to court we go! The UK government could string this out for years, if not decades. What is certain is that they would never give the Scottish Parliament the legislative competence to hold a determinative and self-executing constitutional referendum. NEVER!
The British state cannot give that power because that power is not in its gift. If it were, it wouldn't be the power we need. Real power is never given. Real power is only ever taken. The power to end the Union is very, very real.
The only way the Scottish Parliament can acquire the legislative competence to authorise a proper constitutional referendum is by taking it. Asserting it. That's the way all sovereign power is transferred. It is taken and remains with the taker until it is retaken. That's how England-as-Britain gained the power it holds over Scotland.
Sovereign people don't go to court to 'prove' their sovereignty. Sovereign people act on the basis of their sovereignty and defy the colonising state to stop them. If you are not acting on the basis of being sovereign, you're not sovereign.
The obvious result of pursuing the question you pose Peter is that politicians asking Scottish people to vote them into office must be loyal, in the first instance, to the Scottish people who voted them into power, or they are betraying their trust. This is particularly so if they were elected on a promise to secure Scottish Independence and then change their priorities.
This is why we are focused on Respect for Scottish Sovereignty,RSS, Because if a Scottish Politician, of whatever party accepts that the Scottish People are sovereign, then he/she accepts that there is no higher authority in Scotland than the people collectively.
Therefore, if the Scottish Parliament puts into law the UN ICCPR Covenant, which it has the legal power under the Scotland Act to do, and which it has a duty to do according to the Socttish Human Rights Commission, then it is addressing this issue directly in a positive way.
Once you ensure that the people are empowered to effectively make practical use of Direct Democracy, then you have taken the first irreversible step to independence.
Andy Anderson
Prompted by your comment, I went back and reread your letter in The National 9 December 2023. I was immediately reminded of the questions that letter raised in my mind. I quote the relevant section.
"The answer is to respect Scottish sovereignty, because this provides us with a legal way forward, which must be supported by every Scottish court which gets its authority from Scottish sovereignty, and which can’t be challenged by any court outwith Scotland."
You say that the sovereignty of the people of Scotland "provides us with a legal way forward". Skipping over the implication that any way forward might be illegal, I am left wondering exactly what is this "way forward"?
Apparently, this unidentified "way forward" is immune from legal challenge. So, it would be great to know what it is. I think you're saying this new 'route to independence' opens up with the passing into Scots law of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). But it is far from clear how this alone changes anything.
Presumably - and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - It is Article 1 of the ICCPR that is supposed to work the magic. Again, I don't see how. It obliges states to recognise the right of self-determination for all peoples. But nobody has denied Scotland's right of self-determination. In fact, the UK government explicitly acknowledged Scotland's right of self-determination when David Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement. So, nothing changes.
The rest of Article 1 applies only to non-self-governing territories. Scotland is not on the UN's list of non-self-governing and trust territories. So, that alters nothing either.
Article 2 obliges states to legislate where necessary to give effect to the rights recognised by the ICCPR. The UK government's response to that would be that they have already done that (Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013) as had the Scottish Government with the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 and the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013. So, both parliaments have at the very least demonstrated a readiness to legislate. Perhaps what you mean by a way forward is a challenge in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the basis that ad hoc legislation cannot be adequate under the terms of the ICCPR. I could see that challenge having an impact, if successful. But what would we gain?
If the UK government was obliged to pass legislation to create a permanent facility for the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination, they would almost certainly do so by means of a kind of Standing Order in Council. A sort of rolling version of the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013. But while this might satisfy the ICJ/UN, it wouldn't help Scotland's cause at all. For two reasons.
Firstly, there is no such thing as complete or permanent devolution. Powers that are transferred to Holyrood by Westminster are always partial and always subject to revision or withdrawal.
Secondly, the powers transferred would be limited and conditional. The UK government could attach whatever conditions it wishes to the transfer of powers. The very first thing they would do is limit the frequency of referendums - say, ten years in between them. Or twenty. Whatever they like, really.
Also, the referendums themselves would not be proper constitutional referendums. The British parliament cannot devolve power to end the Union because this would contravene the doctrine of parliamentary (Westminster) sovereignty. The referendum(s) permitted by the new legislation would be consultative and non-self-executing. Like the 2014 referendum, they would not lead to the restoration of Scotland's independence.
Of course, we could go back to court and argue that the new legislation was also inadequate in light of the spirit if not perhaps the letter of ICCPR. So, maybe the UK government tweaks the legislation with purely cosmetic changes. Back to court we go! The UK government could string this out for years, if not decades. What is certain is that they would never give the Scottish Parliament the legislative competence to hold a determinative and self-executing constitutional referendum. NEVER!
The British state cannot give that power because that power is not in its gift. If it were, it wouldn't be the power we need. Real power is never given. Real power is only ever taken. The power to end the Union is very, very real.
The only way the Scottish Parliament can acquire the legislative competence to authorise a proper constitutional referendum is by taking it. Asserting it. That's the way all sovereign power is transferred. It is taken and remains with the taker until it is retaken. That's how England-as-Britain gained the power it holds over Scotland.
Sovereign people don't go to court to 'prove' their sovereignty. Sovereign people act on the basis of their sovereignty and defy the colonising state to stop them. If you are not acting on the basis of being sovereign, you're not sovereign.