So salvo.scot and liberation.scot were working with JPTI to present Scotland's case for being added to the list of NSGTs via the C-24 (28 of them), ultimately via a UN General Assembly, with a case being presented by Craig Murray, an ex-ambassador of the UK. But according the news JPTI ended the contract - or vice versa.
Sadly it's not only not easy (well, virtually impossible) seeing any "official" reports of what was going on, there's nothing on either website to shed any light on this. And there are people have in our little way been spreading the word about this NSGT thing; it even hit btl on WGD of all places, and still does though I was ultimately banned for saying there was no such thing as a "judicial rapist" (there isn't).
Worse than that, there's an article on Bella where the author totally confuses liberate scotland and liberation scotland - something which happens in quite a few places. But NOBODY is correcting them, well, some try, but for instance one of my polite and matter of fact corrections elsewhere never appeared for some weird reason.
We're not all glued to social (sic) media or have time to watch pods float by on the gentle tide of time passing at the speed of paint drying on a cold day, and some of us can still speed read a long article in a minute or so, yet there's not even "press releases" on the websites which the occasional industrious journo could trawl through and exclaim "Ah, here's a tomato for my next paid for sandwich".
What people searching vainly for more information might find, on the other hand, is the likes of this, which mentions the apparently one person band JPTI:
yesindyref2. I would suggest that you go to the liberation.scot website and sign up.
If you were a member then you would have received the explanatory email on wednesday afternoon.
(Release repeated also on their facebook group and twitter)
Though, Yes there web presence is a dilapidated disgrace.
IIRC someone was appointed at the AGM to take care of it.
Clearly they have as yet made no discernible improvement. :-(
Oh FFS. You made me waste a few of my precious minutes on this earth looking at Mike Smalls 'output'.
I am not going to even waste my time writing something nasty or descriptive about him or it.
He has only 'reported' on one side.
The reply to the JPTi statement is also available. He has clearly no idea of what it contains.
His accusations of various sorts are straw men drawn from imagination.
He doesn't get it.
He is like some 1990s version of Citizen Wolfie Smith from the Radical Socialist Republic of South London, in 2020s Scotland.
He hasn't had the memo yet. The Sturgeon era is over. Identity politics and inclusiveness and learning to compromise with the Administering Power is not going to bring freedom from English control.
Alf, are you going to set him straight?
I don't imagine that many 'ordinary people' pay much of any attention to him, but misrepresentaion is misrepresantation. :-(
I avoid newsletters completely and emails as much as possible :-) Website articles aren't just useful to read myself, I can post them for others to look. Links to Facebook and twitter are mostly frowned on, basically because they're difficult if you're not a member yourself.
I remember years ago the idea was that Bella's audience wasn't restricted to Indy supporters, so it was a good way to gently move people onboard. No idea if that's still true, I never read it now and rarely did before. And the previous tie-up with the National was an offputter from the National as well. Too much flowery ta(u)ts!
Compromising with the administering power, on the other hand, is what would be expected if Scotland got onto the NSGT list. And vice versa. The UN isn't a world government nor does it have its own army. Nor does it have the right to send any delegation onto a member's territory without its permission. But it can exert political power - perhaps at times along the lines of a dripping tap wearing a furrow in your sink!
The likely result of even looking like making it onto the NSGT list is Peter's favourite - a Section 30 to head that off to save face. Actually making it onto the list would likely cause a more permanent change to the Scotland Act to write self-determination into statute, or at the least, the right to a referendum.
What we'd get by the way is something like this, just remove any references to Spain as I don't think anyone else lays claim to Scotland at the moment:
People say the UN is toothless, but given enough time and incentive, things move on as per recent news for Gibraltar and even Chagos. One of the main problems for the UK is having to appear to support democracy - a weakness as it were, that allows continual exploration.
Jings, one last I need to stop reading; the irony of these two statements:
"The multitude of tiny parties, projects and campaigns that best express these tendencies (many of which contain the very same handful of people) have some things in common: ..."
and
"As Connor Beaton, a member of the Republican Socialist Platform has put it ..."
Ummm, if this is week 46, shouldn't it be the turn of Socialist Republican Platform 9 ¾?
The main page for that constitution committee is here, and note that "official reports of meetings" don't yet cover the last meeting (presumably will next week):
It doesn't even say when the next meeting of "Options for a legal mechanism for triggering any independence referendum" will be held, but from this page and Angus Robertson's correspondence, it appears he's due to appear in December:
It looks like submissions are not being sought right now, but there is a submission from "Respect Scottish Sovereignty" (https://respectscottishsovereignty.scot/) about ICCPR and PE2135, and perhaps the clerk would accept any more submissions even now. If you're not in it, you can't win it. Nor in a lot of ways, can you whinge about it. Perhaps too, Angus Robertson's unsatisfactory reply so far to that is because he's appearing in December. Time will tell, and feet to the fire!
"The lack of legal regulation of Scottish independence means that there is no prescribed set of trigger conditions for a second independence referendum, such as a threshold level of popular support, and no minimum time period which must have elapsed. A referendum is also not a legal requirement for independence; some other mechanism, such as a “plebiscitary election”, could in theory be used instead as an indication of public support."
Which is a usable reference to use against those who proclaim that there's no such thing as a "de facto referendum". Again, this is the view of one expert, though others may well agree.
Later she says and I quote this for my own purpose (after it she says "This argument seems entirely speculative, though, ..."):
"This aspect of the decision [UKSC LA Reference] has been criticised in an opinion commissioned by Alba from Professor Robert McCorquodale, who argues that the right to external self-determination is not entirely precluded in situations where a territory enjoys internal self-determination, and that international law may have moved on since 1998. He suggests that it might be possible to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on Scotland’s right to self-determination, and that it could be argued that the different treatment of Scotland and Northern Ireland in respect of provision for secession referendums amounts to a form of systemic mistreatment of the people of Scotland within the UK, justifying external self-determination."
Right. Tierney totally accepts the UKSC judgement, McHarg does as well. But McCorquodale disagrees, and others have disagreed though I can't be bothered checking out who again. And this is what I referred to earlier - judgements are made on laws, arguments and precedents and create precedents, but can also change for a later case effectively creating a new and changed precedent.
And THAT for me means more and more different cases should have, and should be, sent to the UKSC to fully exercise them in making it all fit together in changing times. And particularly, they should involve human and civil rights, where it seems Scots law and UK law, differ.
In short, the National article was greatly incomplete and meekly submissive to the NON conscensual view that there was no legal or constitutional recourse remaining, only political. I disagree. And I disagree strongly.
Onywise, debates are ongoing which is a good thing; it raises the public awareness. And while in 2024 "Vote Labour to get rid of the Tories" seemed a good idea to many including some of mine, nowadays many wouldn't vote Labour if they were the only party on the ballot and it was compulsory to vote. And as for Farage and his merry crew, it's only politicians and activists who care it seems to me. So I'm about to get pretty bored until around April, perhaps leaving this last (extracted) word from Tomkins:
"The constitutional position in the United Kingdom can be distinguished from all these cases. nlike in the US, there is no rule of law here which provides that the union (or unions) which make up the United Kingdom are “indissoluble”. As pointed out above, the sovereignty of the Scottish people and the sovereignty of the people of Northern Ireland are recognised in statute ...
... There is no constitutional rule here which vests sovereignty in only one place. Whilst there is the “sovereignty” of Parliament, in the Diceyan sense that an Act of Parliament may make or unmake any law whatever, there is also the sovereignty of the Scottish and Northern Irish people, as we have seen. Sovereignty is shared in the UK, even if it is not in Spain. ...
No one in the UK thought that, had there been a “yes” vote in 2014, it would have triggered nothing but talks about independence. Had there been a “yes” vote, it would have triggered independence. Of course there would have been negotiations (just as there were after the 2016 EU referendum), but those negotiations would have been about how to deliver independence, not about whether independence should be delivered.
This is why I have said that the UK’s approach to secession (i.e., to constitutional paths to independence) is permissive. It is markedly more permissive than the US and Spain, and significantly more permissive even than Canada. As matters stand, the constitutional path to independence is easier for Scotland to follow than it would be for any of Texas, Catalonia or Quebec."
I always enjoyed his Notes from North Britain during the Indy Ref even while often (not always) disagreeing. They were from the heart with humour and I respect genuineness. Not sure if this is the whole thing or a rebirth of it:
Oh yeah, nearly forgot. Note this carefully: "the sovereignty of the Scottish people and the sovereignty of the people of Northern Ireland are recognised in statute". A very sound opinion.
I forgot "recognised in statute" appears to be this: "The Northern Ireland Act 1998, s. 1 provides that Northern Ireland shall not cease to remain part of the United Kingdom “without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll”. The Scotland Act 1998, s. 63A provides that “the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum”."
and add this:
"Scotland’s constitutional future (“independence” or “remaining in the UK”) is a question for the people of Scotland to decide. This seems equally clear whether we look to political sources of the constitution (such as the Edinburgh Agreement) or legal sources (such as the legislation I have cited)."
It is just one expert's opinion - even if he did, at the time, campaign for a NO vote.
It has never been the case that the British state denied Scotland's right of self-determination. That is not a legally defensible position. The British state's strategy is summed up in the phrase, "Now is not the time!". They do not deny our right of self-determination. They merely assert the authority to control our access to the means and opportunity to exercise that right. The Section 30 process which is so dear to your heart is one of the mechanisms of control.
"Adam Tomkins..., Stephen Tierney... and Aileen McHarg..., appeared in front of MSPs for over 90 minutes as part of the probe. [committee’s inquiry into legal mechanisms for indyref2]
It appears to me the wrong questions were asked, or to be precise, the right questions were NOT asked. Well, never mind. Anyways, as a point of interest, Tomkins who was a Conservative MSP and a potential leader of the Scottish Conservative, who stood down in 2021. claimed to have voted Labour in the last election in disgust at Liz Truss and who could blame him. He's written some very interesting thoughtful articles, and is not exactly an establishment figure. His interest is in human rights, which could explain that. He in particular could have been asked some very interesting questions - if the SNP on the committee had done any homework at all. I know some of his answers, and they would have been a distinct advance on the usual turgid guff.
And McHarg should have been pushed on her views of the UKSC judgement, and how next one could change completely in the way judgments follow - and don't follow - precedents, particularly when it comes to issues of the Scottish Constitution. Which of course the UKSC isn't actually qualified to judge on, hence why it avoids it. She was allowed to stay in her comfort zone.
The Committee should engage some expert but controversial, questioners. Like many people part of the Indy movement who get no mainstream notice or recognition.
I can understand that your feelings, post convention may be tinged with a touch of disillusionment and despondency at the lack of support from other speakers in terms of actual viable routes to independence. My advice, for what it's worth is stay strong, and stay the course. If you changed one person's way of thinking about how to achieve our independence, then your presence was a success. Each individual who went home with a lunchbox containing food for thought, will likely talk to or influence others. Never forget that every landslide starts with a solitary rock.
It is my belief that you opened the eyes of many more than just one person regarding the way forward. You made an impact, of that there is no doubt. The eruption of applause when you explained that power is never given, was ample evidence of that. It would have been very helpful for your case and for ours, if you had the chance for even a short Q&A session but time is always of the essence at events like these.
I would like to think that there would have been some form of SNP representation in attendance at such an important event to report back to party HQ. I sadly doubt however that the leadership of the party will give due cognizance to any view or strategy that differs to their own. I feel like using some mouthwash, after calling the current SNP efforts a strategy. It certainly isn't that.
The way forward from here, is not going to be easy for those of us who want to see an effective and coherent plan implemented. The indolence of the SNP leadership is, at the very best, disappointing and unhelpful. I can only hope that the dissension within the party grows, triggering a leadership change, but I do not see that happening before next year's election.
This puts us in an extremely difficult position, where we may need the SNP to get their proverbial arses tanned in next year's Holyrood election in the hope that a whipping may perhaps elicit a change in attitude. Unfortunately for those of us wanting to see progress, history tells us that the SNP got their arses severely tanned in the last General Election and it changed their attitude not one jot. Will a second bashing in succession next year make a difference? I honestly don't know.
The major problem I envisage if the SNP gets pasted, is who steps in to fill the void? Reform? Labour? I do not see any other party with enough of a presence that can pick up the available seats. That could effectively lead to a Unionist coalition running Holyrood and Scotland. That thought fills me with a sense of dread that causes parts of me to shrivel up in terror. These are worrying times indeed.
In an ideal world Alf that would be great, and I'd be quite happy to see them pick up everything. Sadly we don't live in an ideal world as shown in recent by-election results. The Fountainbridge / Craiglockhart by-election result in June this year saw two Unionist parties in first and second. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Constituency by-election also in June, saw Unionist parties in first and third. If that doesn't worry you, Alf, it should. Every election in the UK is seeing huge swings to the Fascist right, or Reform as they prefer to be called. There is nothing I can see that is likely to change that trend at present. Labour are currently haemorrhaging votes and members due to their diabolical performance in government. Sadly many of these votes in Scotland are drifting towards Reform. Farage and his crowd as PM and as perhaps Deputy FM in Scotland is a distinct possibility if the SNP vote collapses.
Yes, I get all that Alan. My point was merely to say that Liberate Scotland alliance candidates will represent an opportunity for pro-independence voters in many constituencies and all regional Lists 'who fill the void' (I would argue) created by Peter's 'nominally' independence parties.
I have yet to be persuaded that Liberate Scotland has any substance at all. I see a name. I see a logo. I see slick slogans and stirring rhetoric. I can get that from any of the nominally pro-independence parties. What is different about Liberate Scotland?
This is different: "We will use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence, uniting pro independence candidates across Scotland under a single purpose, to end the Union and begin the rebirth of a free Scottish state."
I appreciate that you would like to see 'a plan'. However, an elected majority in favour of such candidates could not be disputed.
"We will use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence".
On something as momentous as striking out for independent statehood the decision to do so must surely be unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal.
An election, that many (most?) of the population consider to be on multiple issues does not provide the necessary conclusive and decisive outcome.
If the mandate for full self-government is not indisputable and remains open to question there will be bitterness and division if a substantial portion of the population feel that they have had separation from Westminster forced on them without them having a fair say-so in a ratifying referendum.
They all say that. Or very similar rhetoric. How's that project going, anyway? How much progress has been made on achieving this 'unity'? About as much as any sensible person would expect, from what I can see. Which is none! Or not enough to matter.
It was a doomed project from the outset. The sort of 'unity' they adopted as their not-so-unique selling point simply isn't going to happen. Not so long as politics is politics and people are people. And, little as it is, that is all they have. There's a reason they aren't making any impression on the polls. They have nothing to make an impression with.
Very much like Alba Party, Liberate Scotland was launched as an attempt to exploit dissatisfaction with the SNP. Only in Liberate Scotland's case, they were seeking to exploit dissatisfaction with Alba as well. The name was chosen in a transparently cynical attempt to cash in on the popularity of Liberation Scotland. From the outset, they tried to associate themselves with Liberation Scotland despite the fact that, as a political party, Liberation Scotland wanted nothing to do with them. In the early days, they exploited Sara Salyers's name quite brazenly. People notice these things. Unless they'd rather not see them, of course.
The individual behind Liberate Scotland is even more of a Marmite character than myself. They were always going to deter at least as many people as they attracted. As with Alba, the initial strategy deployed by Liberate Scotland was to viciously attack anybody who so much as hinted that they might not be quite the miraculous invention they sought to portray. Questions about their offering to voters were met with a torrent of personal abuse. It's not much different now. But the people who ask the awkward questions have given up and moved on to more productive tasks.
An exchange with anyone claiming to know what Liberate Scotland is all about reveals one thing - they are clueless. They have no 'plan' because they have no idea how things work in the real world. All their 'thinking' amounts to is the notion that once enough of them are elected, they can just do anything they want. Literally! All very Trumpian!
We've seen it all before, Alf. How many new brooms have presented themselves as the new broom that will sweep away all the detritus of the past eleven years and clear a path to independence? Either in the form of a new party or a new leader of an existing party? How many have failed to live up to the hype? and yet people continue to jump on the same bandwagon no matter many times it rolls past with a fresh paint job or a new driver.
These clowns suppose all it takes to be a Farage-style disruptor is some bold rhetoric. They don't realise that the rhetoric needs to be both bold and cleverly contrived to address the target 'market'. It is not enough to claim that they aim to "end the Union and begin the rebirth of a free Scottish state". We've been hearing such claims since the Union was no more than the stuff of jealous, avaricious, covetous Britannia's dreams. More so since the SNP demonstrated that 'independence' could be a powerful electioneering device.
Such bold rhetoric is an appeal to what we might call the nationalist heart. In the same vein, the 'vision' thing can be thought of as the stomach. That heart can only pump so fast and hard. The stomach can become stuffed with 'visions' After that, what is required is an appeal to the mind. Once your campaign has captured all the support that can be captured with proud language and delicious tomorrow-jam, the only potential support that remains is that which needs to be persuaded that independence can actually happen. The support that needs to se a credible plan for restoring independence.
The plan is what makes the disruptor Scotland's cause needs. Shower the campaign with rousing rhetoric and glittering visions as you might, it all just washes over or streams past a target 'market' replete with such confections but hungry for a practical plan that persuades them this can be done.
The #ScottishUDI strategy is that plan. Liberate Scotland could have crashed into the polls had it adopted this strategy. They declined to do so for the pettiest of reasons. Now, they appear to want to convince people that they have a 'plan' that is like #ScottishUDI on steroids. But that plan breaks if you try to make it more 'muscular' by pretending that the rules won't apply to you when you're elected. Trying to look 'tougher' by arrogantly dismissing things like parliamentary procedure and the checks and balances that safeguard democracy won't persuade anybody who is looking for a credible plan.
The notion that "an elected majority in favour of such candidates could not be disputed" rings about as true as John Swinney's claim that a Section 30 order 'demand' from a SNP majority government could not be refused. Or Kenny MacAskill's insistence that a majority in a plebiscite election could not be dismissed. There is no such thing as an adequate mandate if you are allowing the British state to judge whether it is adequate. To get a popular mandate you must act as if the mandate is pending your action. Show the 'market' a plan of action that is credible because it cuts Westminster out of the process altogether, and that 'market' will give you the mandate. Build it, and they will come!
This is what I've been * arguing * about with Peter for a few months now, ie that getting more genuine pro-Independence people into Holyrood next year must be better than getting another load of Unionists in; agree - with P & yourself - it would be even better if these genuine candidates were all onboard with P's plan of action, not sure why they're not, but maybe they'll do so as the SE approaches. My thinking is that given the virtual impossibility - as things stand - of anything positive emerging from SE26 via the legacy Parties, getting as many bona fide Independistas as possible in situ could be considered a victory; a *small* victory, maybe, but at this stage in game it's maybe the best we could hope for
The support from your audience, with little input from the media, indicates that your ideas have gained a real weight and substance amongst those who might be considered as ;influencers' within the movement. Your time and the trouble taken at the misnamed conference wasn't wasted.
An astute and accurate synthesis of the conference, Peter, and the curious avoidance of focus on its main expressed purpose, yourself excepted.
Which reminded me of Frantz Fanon's analyses that once the dominant national party elite ('who fear the tanks and planes of the oppressor') become 'co-opted by colonialism', the movement then splits into two main groups which he termed as the 'legal tendency' and the 'illegal tendency' (this was 1950s prior to the UN resolutions on decolonization).
It has yet to sink into the mindset of the former that liberation of the people is never possible under the oppressive law of the colonizer.
..... which does of course also bring us in these modern post-decolonization times to Salvo/Liberation Scotland and hence Craig Murray's intervention, an initiative many will agree is complementary to such as your own.
TBH, P , the stated theme of the event never really registered with me, but now that you mention it, and in light of the speakers chosen and topics covered ,it does seem a bit of a misnomer. Also maybe something of an opportunity missed.
I don't want to bad-mouth any of the speakers, they all gave their time and commitment on behalf of our shared ambition and each contributed something in their own way. But.......
I did notice a bit of sighing and mumbling when Ms McHarg came out with her " the Law says......" stuff; as you rightly say......she was only saying what she is " conditioned " to say and was not wrong per se, just that I felt like shouting " aye but the Law is not handed down from Heaven or carved in immutable stone; laws are manmade, and what man makes can be unmade " . To be fair, it's quite likely Aileen would agree with that and she was only talking about how things stand presently.
Alex Neil also elicited a bit of discreet groaning ( well, hands-up, it was probably me doing the groaning ). Again, no offence intended, but his unimaginative, man-in-the-flat-cap view is precisely the type of perspective that has contributed to the stasis of our Movement. When he started with the kinda dismissive, none-of-that -fancy-talk-here opening statement...." all this talk about the Constitution is useless..... ( I'm paraphrasing but that was the essence of it ) " I knew nothing of any real substance would follow.
What gets me is the dogged persisitence in oppositional thinking that permeates the Independence demographic. As if you can't focus on the quotidian, eg people's concerns with ever-increasing domestic energy costs, housing, inflation etc AND the Constitutional issues; how to persuade more people of the benefits/necessity of Independence AND support what Salvo/Liberation are attempting; being focused on our own country's affairs AND paying attention to global events - in the end, I don't think the two can be separated, what happens on the global stage will impact on the domestic one.
Overall though, I think the event was a good thing; well organised and managed and, as someone more-or-less a complete novice re attending such events, it was for me a pleasure and an encouragement to be part of a gathering of like-minded people, united in the desire to see our country regain it's liberating autonomy.
TBQH Peter and Robert , Alex Neil is ,was and will always be a politician , a politician from a political party where the members are conditioned to think PARTY first everything else just waits , THAT is why I value Liberate Scotland so highly , individuals FIGHTING for THEIR COUNTRY not some political party desperate to hold on to power to benefit them and theirs financially and personally , and ruled over by some arrogant dictator who determines and forces through the policies and agenda at the top of their interests , as we have seen for the last 11 years and previous
I view Liberate Scotland as the first step to DIRECT DEMOCRACY where important policies and agenda are voted on by the people who suffer or benefit most from those policies , and that is certainly NOT ANY of the existing political parties , if other small countries can run referendums of the people to determine their views NOTHING should stop Scotland from doing the same
I am beyond sick and fed up of politicians thinking they OWN us , THEY are EMPLOYEES paid by US to do a job of work , which for the last decades they have ALL failed miserably at , time for Scotland to LEAD the ENLIGHTENMENT again
Aye, RT, without dwelling on Alex Neil too much, he seems, despite his manifest, principled opposition to the Post-Salmond SNP, to be an example of that * stuck *, resistant-to-change mindset within the Independence Movement that seems to think if we just keep doing the same thing we've been doing, somehow it will, eventually, get the right result. It still surprises me that people like Alex, whom can be accurately described as veterans of the Independence project seem to not evolved an inch in their thinking: and that they can't see that a radically different approach/perspective is required. Urgently.
Direct Democracy is definitely the idea/l; and should be the priority of any Independent Scotland Gov. As you say, with the current mob/generation we've got the complete opposite of that, ie Politicians/Political Parties abandoning the main thrust of what they campaigned/were elected on; instead. imposing a load of shite they didn't campaign/get elected on. A trend that seems to be growing more entrenched with every Government. Not just in Scotland, of course. seems like every Western * Democracy * is going the same way.
The EU in particular is big on this new form of * Democracy * where, if you don't like, ie are electorally intimidated by, an existing or new opposition Party, just ban them, anathamatize them or inflict crippling Lawfare on them: and claim your doing for the public's own good - of course :)
Listening to the contributions, Peter, it did appear that yours was the sole effort to really get to grips with how we actually navigate our way to self-determination, the point where the people of Scotland make their choice.
However, there were moments in your talk where you elicited some cheers, notably when you stated:
"Those powers were taken from us. We must take them back. Power is never given. Power is only taken. That which is given is not power, but an affirmation of the power of the giver."
In addition you mentioned yesterday on your podcast that you had plenty of folk from the floor approaching you to discuss the subject at the end of the convention, so much so that you risked missing your bus hame!
So I wouldn't get too downhearted. You did well and are to be congratulated on your efforts and impact.
What you have failed to grasp Peter (because you are focussed on the goal) is that these routes to independence are just that...routes...that we can amble along and gossip about the weather and what we can't and can't do..oh and you can't do that as well... unless the stinking foreign english give you permission.....and you have the temerity to actually say..here is the way to DO it. shame on you Peter.... you deserve to go insane.( with the rest of the Scottish nation)
These routes are taken out and discussed and examined from all angles and then put back in the box till next time. YOU are the fly in the ointment..you are actually offering the Scottish nation a way to take our freedom back. I don't know what you are thinking! Get back in your box!
My only suggestion is next time you bring the heavies with you..those that want freedom for Scotland and will be prepared to stand up and snarl.....here I am and I bet there are plenty other Scots in the schiltron....Don't do it alone....bring the other tartan nutjobs wi' ye....I prophesy it will waken them up from their comfortable 300 year old snooze.
So salvo.scot and liberation.scot were working with JPTI to present Scotland's case for being added to the list of NSGTs via the C-24 (28 of them), ultimately via a UN General Assembly, with a case being presented by Craig Murray, an ex-ambassador of the UK. But according the news JPTI ended the contract - or vice versa.
Sadly it's not only not easy (well, virtually impossible) seeing any "official" reports of what was going on, there's nothing on either website to shed any light on this. And there are people have in our little way been spreading the word about this NSGT thing; it even hit btl on WGD of all places, and still does though I was ultimately banned for saying there was no such thing as a "judicial rapist" (there isn't).
Worse than that, there's an article on Bella where the author totally confuses liberate scotland and liberation scotland - something which happens in quite a few places. But NOBODY is correcting them, well, some try, but for instance one of my polite and matter of fact corrections elsewhere never appeared for some weird reason.
We're not all glued to social (sic) media or have time to watch pods float by on the gentle tide of time passing at the speed of paint drying on a cold day, and some of us can still speed read a long article in a minute or so, yet there's not even "press releases" on the websites which the occasional industrious journo could trawl through and exclaim "Ah, here's a tomato for my next paid for sandwich".
What people searching vainly for more information might find, on the other hand, is the likes of this, which mentions the apparently one person band JPTI:
https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120386974/kremlin-secret-op-uses-human-rights-activists-to-undermine-estonian-chancellor-of-justice-and-tarnish-estonia-s-global-reputation
and be left pondering - do I still give a flying fuck what's actually going on here?
Oh aye https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2025/11/15/liberation-and-the-jtpi-fallout/
yesindyref2. I would suggest that you go to the liberation.scot website and sign up.
If you were a member then you would have received the explanatory email on wednesday afternoon.
(Release repeated also on their facebook group and twitter)
Though, Yes there web presence is a dilapidated disgrace.
IIRC someone was appointed at the AGM to take care of it.
Clearly they have as yet made no discernible improvement. :-(
Oh FFS. You made me waste a few of my precious minutes on this earth looking at Mike Smalls 'output'.
I am not going to even waste my time writing something nasty or descriptive about him or it.
He has only 'reported' on one side.
The reply to the JPTi statement is also available. He has clearly no idea of what it contains.
His accusations of various sorts are straw men drawn from imagination.
He doesn't get it.
He is like some 1990s version of Citizen Wolfie Smith from the Radical Socialist Republic of South London, in 2020s Scotland.
He hasn't had the memo yet. The Sturgeon era is over. Identity politics and inclusiveness and learning to compromise with the Administering Power is not going to bring freedom from English control.
Alf, are you going to set him straight?
I don't imagine that many 'ordinary people' pay much of any attention to him, but misrepresentaion is misrepresantation. :-(
I avoid newsletters completely and emails as much as possible :-) Website articles aren't just useful to read myself, I can post them for others to look. Links to Facebook and twitter are mostly frowned on, basically because they're difficult if you're not a member yourself.
I remember years ago the idea was that Bella's audience wasn't restricted to Indy supporters, so it was a good way to gently move people onboard. No idea if that's still true, I never read it now and rarely did before. And the previous tie-up with the National was an offputter from the National as well. Too much flowery ta(u)ts!
Compromising with the administering power, on the other hand, is what would be expected if Scotland got onto the NSGT list. And vice versa. The UN isn't a world government nor does it have its own army. Nor does it have the right to send any delegation onto a member's territory without its permission. But it can exert political power - perhaps at times along the lines of a dripping tap wearing a furrow in your sink!
The likely result of even looking like making it onto the NSGT list is Peter's favourite - a Section 30 to head that off to save face. Actually making it onto the list would likely cause a more permanent change to the Scotland Act to write self-determination into statute, or at the least, the right to a referendum.
What we'd get by the way is something like this, just remove any references to Spain as I don't think anyone else lays claim to Scotland at the moment:
https://docs.un.org/en/A/C.4/80/L.3
People say the UN is toothless, but given enough time and incentive, things move on as per recent news for Gibraltar and even Chagos. One of the main problems for the UK is having to appear to support democracy - a weakness as it were, that allows continual exploration.
Jings, one last I need to stop reading; the irony of these two statements:
"The multitude of tiny parties, projects and campaigns that best express these tendencies (many of which contain the very same handful of people) have some things in common: ..."
and
"As Connor Beaton, a member of the Republican Socialist Platform has put it ..."
Ummm, if this is week 46, shouldn't it be the turn of Socialist Republican Platform 9 ¾?
The main page for that constitution committee is here, and note that "official reports of meetings" don't yet cover the last meeting (presumably will next week):
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee
It doesn't even say when the next meeting of "Options for a legal mechanism for triggering any independence referendum" will be held, but from this page and Angus Robertson's correspondence, it appears he's due to appear in December:
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee/business-items/options-for-a-legal-mechanism-for-triggering-any-independence-referendum
It looks like submissions are not being sought right now, but there is a submission from "Respect Scottish Sovereignty" (https://respectscottishsovereignty.scot/) about ICCPR and PE2135, and perhaps the clerk would accept any more submissions even now. If you're not in it, you can't win it. Nor in a lot of ways, can you whinge about it. Perhaps too, Angus Robertson's unsatisfactory reply so far to that is because he's appearing in December. Time will tell, and feet to the fire!
Sorry it's me again, did get to sleep but once something's on my mind I'm doomed to act.
There's this link:
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee/business-items/options-for-a-legal-mechanism-for-triggering-any-independence-referendum
from which:
https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee/correspondence/2025/aileen-mcharg-legal-mechanism-for-triggering-any-independence-referendum.pdf
"The lack of legal regulation of Scottish independence means that there is no prescribed set of trigger conditions for a second independence referendum, such as a threshold level of popular support, and no minimum time period which must have elapsed. A referendum is also not a legal requirement for independence; some other mechanism, such as a “plebiscitary election”, could in theory be used instead as an indication of public support."
Which is a usable reference to use against those who proclaim that there's no such thing as a "de facto referendum". Again, this is the view of one expert, though others may well agree.
Later she says and I quote this for my own purpose (after it she says "This argument seems entirely speculative, though, ..."):
"This aspect of the decision [UKSC LA Reference] has been criticised in an opinion commissioned by Alba from Professor Robert McCorquodale, who argues that the right to external self-determination is not entirely precluded in situations where a territory enjoys internal self-determination, and that international law may have moved on since 1998. He suggests that it might be possible to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on Scotland’s right to self-determination, and that it could be argued that the different treatment of Scotland and Northern Ireland in respect of provision for secession referendums amounts to a form of systemic mistreatment of the people of Scotland within the UK, justifying external self-determination."
Right. Tierney totally accepts the UKSC judgement, McHarg does as well. But McCorquodale disagrees, and others have disagreed though I can't be bothered checking out who again. And this is what I referred to earlier - judgements are made on laws, arguments and precedents and create precedents, but can also change for a later case effectively creating a new and changed precedent.
And THAT for me means more and more different cases should have, and should be, sent to the UKSC to fully exercise them in making it all fit together in changing times. And particularly, they should involve human and civil rights, where it seems Scots law and UK law, differ.
In short, the National article was greatly incomplete and meekly submissive to the NON conscensual view that there was no legal or constitutional recourse remaining, only political. I disagree. And I disagree strongly.
Zzzzzzzz
Onywise, debates are ongoing which is a good thing; it raises the public awareness. And while in 2024 "Vote Labour to get rid of the Tories" seemed a good idea to many including some of mine, nowadays many wouldn't vote Labour if they were the only party on the ballot and it was compulsory to vote. And as for Farage and his merry crew, it's only politicians and activists who care it seems to me. So I'm about to get pretty bored until around April, perhaps leaving this last (extracted) word from Tomkins:
"The constitutional position in the United Kingdom can be distinguished from all these cases. nlike in the US, there is no rule of law here which provides that the union (or unions) which make up the United Kingdom are “indissoluble”. As pointed out above, the sovereignty of the Scottish people and the sovereignty of the people of Northern Ireland are recognised in statute ...
... There is no constitutional rule here which vests sovereignty in only one place. Whilst there is the “sovereignty” of Parliament, in the Diceyan sense that an Act of Parliament may make or unmake any law whatever, there is also the sovereignty of the Scottish and Northern Irish people, as we have seen. Sovereignty is shared in the UK, even if it is not in Spain. ...
No one in the UK thought that, had there been a “yes” vote in 2014, it would have triggered nothing but talks about independence. Had there been a “yes” vote, it would have triggered independence. Of course there would have been negotiations (just as there were after the 2016 EU referendum), but those negotiations would have been about how to deliver independence, not about whether independence should be delivered.
This is why I have said that the UK’s approach to secession (i.e., to constitutional paths to independence) is permissive. It is markedly more permissive than the US and Spain, and significantly more permissive even than Canada. As matters stand, the constitutional path to independence is easier for Scotland to follow than it would be for any of Texas, Catalonia or Quebec."
https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee/correspondence/2025/adam-tomkins-legal-mechanism-for-triggering-any-independence-referendum.pdf
I always enjoyed his Notes from North Britain during the Indy Ref even while often (not always) disagreeing. They were from the heart with humour and I respect genuineness. Not sure if this is the whole thing or a rebirth of it:
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/about-me/
Oh yeah, nearly forgot. Note this carefully: "the sovereignty of the Scottish people and the sovereignty of the people of Northern Ireland are recognised in statute". A very sound opinion.
I forgot "recognised in statute" appears to be this: "The Northern Ireland Act 1998, s. 1 provides that Northern Ireland shall not cease to remain part of the United Kingdom “without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll”. The Scotland Act 1998, s. 63A provides that “the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum”."
and add this:
"Scotland’s constitutional future (“independence” or “remaining in the UK”) is a question for the people of Scotland to decide. This seems equally clear whether we look to political sources of the constitution (such as the Edinburgh Agreement) or legal sources (such as the legislation I have cited)."
It is just one expert's opinion - even if he did, at the time, campaign for a NO vote.
It has never been the case that the British state denied Scotland's right of self-determination. That is not a legally defensible position. The British state's strategy is summed up in the phrase, "Now is not the time!". They do not deny our right of self-determination. They merely assert the authority to control our access to the means and opportunity to exercise that right. The Section 30 process which is so dear to your heart is one of the mechanisms of control.
Eh? Total non sequitur. That was all quoting Tomkins.
"Adam Tomkins..., Stephen Tierney... and Aileen McHarg..., appeared in front of MSPs for over 90 minutes as part of the probe. [committee’s inquiry into legal mechanisms for indyref2]
https://archive.is/SibCw
It appears to me the wrong questions were asked, or to be precise, the right questions were NOT asked. Well, never mind. Anyways, as a point of interest, Tomkins who was a Conservative MSP and a potential leader of the Scottish Conservative, who stood down in 2021. claimed to have voted Labour in the last election in disgust at Liz Truss and who could blame him. He's written some very interesting thoughtful articles, and is not exactly an establishment figure. His interest is in human rights, which could explain that. He in particular could have been asked some very interesting questions - if the SNP on the committee had done any homework at all. I know some of his answers, and they would have been a distinct advance on the usual turgid guff.
And McHarg should have been pushed on her views of the UKSC judgement, and how next one could change completely in the way judgments follow - and don't follow - precedents, particularly when it comes to issues of the Scottish Constitution. Which of course the UKSC isn't actually qualified to judge on, hence why it avoids it. She was allowed to stay in her comfort zone.
The Committee should engage some expert but controversial, questioners. Like many people part of the Indy movement who get no mainstream notice or recognition.
I can understand that your feelings, post convention may be tinged with a touch of disillusionment and despondency at the lack of support from other speakers in terms of actual viable routes to independence. My advice, for what it's worth is stay strong, and stay the course. If you changed one person's way of thinking about how to achieve our independence, then your presence was a success. Each individual who went home with a lunchbox containing food for thought, will likely talk to or influence others. Never forget that every landslide starts with a solitary rock.
It is my belief that you opened the eyes of many more than just one person regarding the way forward. You made an impact, of that there is no doubt. The eruption of applause when you explained that power is never given, was ample evidence of that. It would have been very helpful for your case and for ours, if you had the chance for even a short Q&A session but time is always of the essence at events like these.
I would like to think that there would have been some form of SNP representation in attendance at such an important event to report back to party HQ. I sadly doubt however that the leadership of the party will give due cognizance to any view or strategy that differs to their own. I feel like using some mouthwash, after calling the current SNP efforts a strategy. It certainly isn't that.
The way forward from here, is not going to be easy for those of us who want to see an effective and coherent plan implemented. The indolence of the SNP leadership is, at the very best, disappointing and unhelpful. I can only hope that the dissension within the party grows, triggering a leadership change, but I do not see that happening before next year's election.
This puts us in an extremely difficult position, where we may need the SNP to get their proverbial arses tanned in next year's Holyrood election in the hope that a whipping may perhaps elicit a change in attitude. Unfortunately for those of us wanting to see progress, history tells us that the SNP got their arses severely tanned in the last General Election and it changed their attitude not one jot. Will a second bashing in succession next year make a difference? I honestly don't know.
The major problem I envisage if the SNP gets pasted, is who steps in to fill the void? Reform? Labour? I do not see any other party with enough of a presence that can pick up the available seats. That could effectively lead to a Unionist coalition running Holyrood and Scotland. That thought fills me with a sense of dread that causes parts of me to shrivel up in terror. These are worrying times indeed.
"who steps in to fill the void?"
The only people and parties worth voting for at Holyrood 2026 who will "use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence", are:
https://liberatescot.scot/what-we-fight-for/
Won't get fooled again.
In an ideal world Alf that would be great, and I'd be quite happy to see them pick up everything. Sadly we don't live in an ideal world as shown in recent by-election results. The Fountainbridge / Craiglockhart by-election result in June this year saw two Unionist parties in first and second. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Constituency by-election also in June, saw Unionist parties in first and third. If that doesn't worry you, Alf, it should. Every election in the UK is seeing huge swings to the Fascist right, or Reform as they prefer to be called. There is nothing I can see that is likely to change that trend at present. Labour are currently haemorrhaging votes and members due to their diabolical performance in government. Sadly many of these votes in Scotland are drifting towards Reform. Farage and his crowd as PM and as perhaps Deputy FM in Scotland is a distinct possibility if the SNP vote collapses.
Yes, I get all that Alan. My point was merely to say that Liberate Scotland alliance candidates will represent an opportunity for pro-independence voters in many constituencies and all regional Lists 'who fill the void' (I would argue) created by Peter's 'nominally' independence parties.
I have yet to be persuaded that Liberate Scotland has any substance at all. I see a name. I see a logo. I see slick slogans and stirring rhetoric. I can get that from any of the nominally pro-independence parties. What is different about Liberate Scotland?
This is different: "We will use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence, uniting pro independence candidates across Scotland under a single purpose, to end the Union and begin the rebirth of a free Scottish state."
I appreciate that you would like to see 'a plan'. However, an elected majority in favour of such candidates could not be disputed.
"We will use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence".
On something as momentous as striking out for independent statehood the decision to do so must surely be unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal.
An election, that many (most?) of the population consider to be on multiple issues does not provide the necessary conclusive and decisive outcome.
If the mandate for full self-government is not indisputable and remains open to question there will be bitterness and division if a substantial portion of the population feel that they have had separation from Westminster forced on them without them having a fair say-so in a ratifying referendum.
We don't want that.
They all say that. Or very similar rhetoric. How's that project going, anyway? How much progress has been made on achieving this 'unity'? About as much as any sensible person would expect, from what I can see. Which is none! Or not enough to matter.
It was a doomed project from the outset. The sort of 'unity' they adopted as their not-so-unique selling point simply isn't going to happen. Not so long as politics is politics and people are people. And, little as it is, that is all they have. There's a reason they aren't making any impression on the polls. They have nothing to make an impression with.
Very much like Alba Party, Liberate Scotland was launched as an attempt to exploit dissatisfaction with the SNP. Only in Liberate Scotland's case, they were seeking to exploit dissatisfaction with Alba as well. The name was chosen in a transparently cynical attempt to cash in on the popularity of Liberation Scotland. From the outset, they tried to associate themselves with Liberation Scotland despite the fact that, as a political party, Liberation Scotland wanted nothing to do with them. In the early days, they exploited Sara Salyers's name quite brazenly. People notice these things. Unless they'd rather not see them, of course.
The individual behind Liberate Scotland is even more of a Marmite character than myself. They were always going to deter at least as many people as they attracted. As with Alba, the initial strategy deployed by Liberate Scotland was to viciously attack anybody who so much as hinted that they might not be quite the miraculous invention they sought to portray. Questions about their offering to voters were met with a torrent of personal abuse. It's not much different now. But the people who ask the awkward questions have given up and moved on to more productive tasks.
An exchange with anyone claiming to know what Liberate Scotland is all about reveals one thing - they are clueless. They have no 'plan' because they have no idea how things work in the real world. All their 'thinking' amounts to is the notion that once enough of them are elected, they can just do anything they want. Literally! All very Trumpian!
We've seen it all before, Alf. How many new brooms have presented themselves as the new broom that will sweep away all the detritus of the past eleven years and clear a path to independence? Either in the form of a new party or a new leader of an existing party? How many have failed to live up to the hype? and yet people continue to jump on the same bandwagon no matter many times it rolls past with a fresh paint job or a new driver.
These clowns suppose all it takes to be a Farage-style disruptor is some bold rhetoric. They don't realise that the rhetoric needs to be both bold and cleverly contrived to address the target 'market'. It is not enough to claim that they aim to "end the Union and begin the rebirth of a free Scottish state". We've been hearing such claims since the Union was no more than the stuff of jealous, avaricious, covetous Britannia's dreams. More so since the SNP demonstrated that 'independence' could be a powerful electioneering device.
Such bold rhetoric is an appeal to what we might call the nationalist heart. In the same vein, the 'vision' thing can be thought of as the stomach. That heart can only pump so fast and hard. The stomach can become stuffed with 'visions' After that, what is required is an appeal to the mind. Once your campaign has captured all the support that can be captured with proud language and delicious tomorrow-jam, the only potential support that remains is that which needs to be persuaded that independence can actually happen. The support that needs to se a credible plan for restoring independence.
The plan is what makes the disruptor Scotland's cause needs. Shower the campaign with rousing rhetoric and glittering visions as you might, it all just washes over or streams past a target 'market' replete with such confections but hungry for a practical plan that persuades them this can be done.
The #ScottishUDI strategy is that plan. Liberate Scotland could have crashed into the polls had it adopted this strategy. They declined to do so for the pettiest of reasons. Now, they appear to want to convince people that they have a 'plan' that is like #ScottishUDI on steroids. But that plan breaks if you try to make it more 'muscular' by pretending that the rules won't apply to you when you're elected. Trying to look 'tougher' by arrogantly dismissing things like parliamentary procedure and the checks and balances that safeguard democracy won't persuade anybody who is looking for a credible plan.
The notion that "an elected majority in favour of such candidates could not be disputed" rings about as true as John Swinney's claim that a Section 30 order 'demand' from a SNP majority government could not be refused. Or Kenny MacAskill's insistence that a majority in a plebiscite election could not be dismissed. There is no such thing as an adequate mandate if you are allowing the British state to judge whether it is adequate. To get a popular mandate you must act as if the mandate is pending your action. Show the 'market' a plan of action that is credible because it cuts Westminster out of the process altogether, and that 'market' will give you the mandate. Build it, and they will come!
This is what I've been * arguing * about with Peter for a few months now, ie that getting more genuine pro-Independence people into Holyrood next year must be better than getting another load of Unionists in; agree - with P & yourself - it would be even better if these genuine candidates were all onboard with P's plan of action, not sure why they're not, but maybe they'll do so as the SE approaches. My thinking is that given the virtual impossibility - as things stand - of anything positive emerging from SE26 via the legacy Parties, getting as many bona fide Independistas as possible in situ could be considered a victory; a *small* victory, maybe, but at this stage in game it's maybe the best we could hope for
The support from your audience, with little input from the media, indicates that your ideas have gained a real weight and substance amongst those who might be considered as ;influencers' within the movement. Your time and the trouble taken at the misnamed conference wasn't wasted.
An astute and accurate synthesis of the conference, Peter, and the curious avoidance of focus on its main expressed purpose, yourself excepted.
Which reminded me of Frantz Fanon's analyses that once the dominant national party elite ('who fear the tanks and planes of the oppressor') become 'co-opted by colonialism', the movement then splits into two main groups which he termed as the 'legal tendency' and the 'illegal tendency' (this was 1950s prior to the UN resolutions on decolonization).
It has yet to sink into the mindset of the former that liberation of the people is never possible under the oppressive law of the colonizer.
..... which does of course also bring us in these modern post-decolonization times to Salvo/Liberation Scotland and hence Craig Murray's intervention, an initiative many will agree is complementary to such as your own.
TBH, P , the stated theme of the event never really registered with me, but now that you mention it, and in light of the speakers chosen and topics covered ,it does seem a bit of a misnomer. Also maybe something of an opportunity missed.
I don't want to bad-mouth any of the speakers, they all gave their time and commitment on behalf of our shared ambition and each contributed something in their own way. But.......
I did notice a bit of sighing and mumbling when Ms McHarg came out with her " the Law says......" stuff; as you rightly say......she was only saying what she is " conditioned " to say and was not wrong per se, just that I felt like shouting " aye but the Law is not handed down from Heaven or carved in immutable stone; laws are manmade, and what man makes can be unmade " . To be fair, it's quite likely Aileen would agree with that and she was only talking about how things stand presently.
Alex Neil also elicited a bit of discreet groaning ( well, hands-up, it was probably me doing the groaning ). Again, no offence intended, but his unimaginative, man-in-the-flat-cap view is precisely the type of perspective that has contributed to the stasis of our Movement. When he started with the kinda dismissive, none-of-that -fancy-talk-here opening statement...." all this talk about the Constitution is useless..... ( I'm paraphrasing but that was the essence of it ) " I knew nothing of any real substance would follow.
What gets me is the dogged persisitence in oppositional thinking that permeates the Independence demographic. As if you can't focus on the quotidian, eg people's concerns with ever-increasing domestic energy costs, housing, inflation etc AND the Constitutional issues; how to persuade more people of the benefits/necessity of Independence AND support what Salvo/Liberation are attempting; being focused on our own country's affairs AND paying attention to global events - in the end, I don't think the two can be separated, what happens on the global stage will impact on the domestic one.
Overall though, I think the event was a good thing; well organised and managed and, as someone more-or-less a complete novice re attending such events, it was for me a pleasure and an encouragement to be part of a gathering of like-minded people, united in the desire to see our country regain it's liberating autonomy.
TBQH Peter and Robert , Alex Neil is ,was and will always be a politician , a politician from a political party where the members are conditioned to think PARTY first everything else just waits , THAT is why I value Liberate Scotland so highly , individuals FIGHTING for THEIR COUNTRY not some political party desperate to hold on to power to benefit them and theirs financially and personally , and ruled over by some arrogant dictator who determines and forces through the policies and agenda at the top of their interests , as we have seen for the last 11 years and previous
I view Liberate Scotland as the first step to DIRECT DEMOCRACY where important policies and agenda are voted on by the people who suffer or benefit most from those policies , and that is certainly NOT ANY of the existing political parties , if other small countries can run referendums of the people to determine their views NOTHING should stop Scotland from doing the same
I am beyond sick and fed up of politicians thinking they OWN us , THEY are EMPLOYEES paid by US to do a job of work , which for the last decades they have ALL failed miserably at , time for Scotland to LEAD the ENLIGHTENMENT again
Aye, RT, without dwelling on Alex Neil too much, he seems, despite his manifest, principled opposition to the Post-Salmond SNP, to be an example of that * stuck *, resistant-to-change mindset within the Independence Movement that seems to think if we just keep doing the same thing we've been doing, somehow it will, eventually, get the right result. It still surprises me that people like Alex, whom can be accurately described as veterans of the Independence project seem to not evolved an inch in their thinking: and that they can't see that a radically different approach/perspective is required. Urgently.
Direct Democracy is definitely the idea/l; and should be the priority of any Independent Scotland Gov. As you say, with the current mob/generation we've got the complete opposite of that, ie Politicians/Political Parties abandoning the main thrust of what they campaigned/were elected on; instead. imposing a load of shite they didn't campaign/get elected on. A trend that seems to be growing more entrenched with every Government. Not just in Scotland, of course. seems like every Western * Democracy * is going the same way.
The EU in particular is big on this new form of * Democracy * where, if you don't like, ie are electorally intimidated by, an existing or new opposition Party, just ban them, anathamatize them or inflict crippling Lawfare on them: and claim your doing for the public's own good - of course :)
Listening to the contributions, Peter, it did appear that yours was the sole effort to really get to grips with how we actually navigate our way to self-determination, the point where the people of Scotland make their choice.
However, there were moments in your talk where you elicited some cheers, notably when you stated:
"Those powers were taken from us. We must take them back. Power is never given. Power is only taken. That which is given is not power, but an affirmation of the power of the giver."
In addition you mentioned yesterday on your podcast that you had plenty of folk from the floor approaching you to discuss the subject at the end of the convention, so much so that you risked missing your bus hame!
So I wouldn't get too downhearted. You did well and are to be congratulated on your efforts and impact.
What you have failed to grasp Peter (because you are focussed on the goal) is that these routes to independence are just that...routes...that we can amble along and gossip about the weather and what we can't and can't do..oh and you can't do that as well... unless the stinking foreign english give you permission.....and you have the temerity to actually say..here is the way to DO it. shame on you Peter.... you deserve to go insane.( with the rest of the Scottish nation)
These routes are taken out and discussed and examined from all angles and then put back in the box till next time. YOU are the fly in the ointment..you are actually offering the Scottish nation a way to take our freedom back. I don't know what you are thinking! Get back in your box!
My only suggestion is next time you bring the heavies with you..those that want freedom for Scotland and will be prepared to stand up and snarl.....here I am and I bet there are plenty other Scots in the schiltron....Don't do it alone....bring the other tartan nutjobs wi' ye....I prophesy it will waken them up from their comfortable 300 year old snooze.
For OUR Scotland and her patriotic weans...