But the need for a more radical independence agenda, a far more competent administration with integrity and probity, and a strategy which can deliver independence remain essential.
One of the reasons for setting up New Scotland Party (NSP) as a limited company was to avoid a situation in which individual could be personally liable.
The UK is apparently considering sending Duncan to the Middle East. About time. HMS Duncan is a very effective air defence destroyer (Type 45), capable of tracking and firing on multiple targets, and with missiles, drones and hostile aircraft flying all over the place is sorely needed to help defend the likes of Cyprus, though it's actually possible there's now already a Type 45 around there. It would be a defensive role.
No, the Duncan doesn't fire big guns or 16 inch shells.
"Neither the SNP nor Alba Party has started by reframing the issue. They are not even framing the issue with independence as the goal."
A key problems also appears to be that neither national party leadership really knows what independence means, which is decolonisation, and liberation from oppression, with one key mechanism - UDI. Which confirms their rudimentary understanding and that of the people still.
Which then brings us back to your linkage of these three key elements, Peter: UDI, Decolonisation and Liberation - as the most urgent matters for any colonised people:
On the positive side, despite their apparent absence in polling, the Alliance to Liberate Scotland will be offering their solution in May's election which is heavily influenced by, if not based on 'the new thinking'. And Liberation Scotland/Salvo still maintain focus on the complementary UN Decolonization process.
This also reflects Fanon's predicted rupture in the independence movement between 'legal' and 'illegal' tendencies, the former dependent on the domestic law and everlasting goodness of the imperial power plus 'rudimentary understanding', the latter on international law and a more considered appraisal of the colonial condition.
"On the positive side, despite their apparent absence in polling, the Alliance to Liberate Scotland will be offering their solution in May's election which is heavily influenced by, if not based on 'the new thinking'. And Liberation Scotland/Salvo still maintain focus on the complementary UN Decolonization process."
I believe "the Alliance to Liberate Scotland" is the new name for 'Liberate Scotland'. If so, what they lack of a clear and credible process for restoring independence. Their message appears to be 'we'll just do it'. That's not good enough. It seems they hope to sweep aside parliamentary procedure. Or they simply don't know enough about parliamentary procedure to be able to describe a process.
The #ScottishUDI strategy isn't a pick 'n' mix menu. It all works as complete mechanism. Remove a component, and you break the machinery.
Meanwhile this from the Herald is half the point, though it misses anything about self-determination and complete denial of any internal route to a referendum.
Thank you for comment neth. I believe the stanza for 2026 said....bees ( drones ?)...7 mths great war. ...fires and more...intrigued you are more interested in that than Scotland's freedom...Maybe Nostradamus prophesied Scotlands independence...must go and look. ye never know!
Thanks Catherine - I was fascinated by Nostradamus as a callow youth - a long time ago now - so yes was interested as a "blast from the past" type thing.
But I can assure you that I am more interested in the decolonisation and liberation of Scotland than any of his ancient scribblings!
I didn't comment on the main topic since others, more knowledgeable and more succinct than me had already done so
You cheered me up....used my favourite words...'liberation of Scotland.'..(Nostradamus obviously never heard of us.)..but I would like the world to hear again from us...the Scots....as a free and self governing nation...sounds like you do too.
I'm not crying over the demise of Alba, given their ineffectual policies, as Peter describes.
Will the Liberation Alliance be any better, with their 'Independence, nothing less' slogan?
They claim they will force the Scottish government (if enough of them are elected to have any influence on that body) to declare UDI on the grounds that a majority of Scots electors have voted for this.
Is that enough for other countries to recognise Scotland as a Sovereign Nation?
I have repeatedly asked Alba supporters how they would go about restoring Scotland's independence. I've yet to get a sensible answer. Mostly, it's along the lines of 'just do it!'. They seem to have no idea how the Scottish Parliament works.
The AtLS claim they will pressurise/force the SNP to do something. But whenever you ask what that is or how that may happen an answer is not forthcoming.
Perhaps that is because they know that even if they got a handful of candidates elected - an outcome that is vanishingly unlikely given that they are not even registering in opinion polling - they would be ignored by Swinney and his motley crew.
MSPs are paid by the SPCB - the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, which is a cross-party group of five MSPs, chaired by the Presiding Officer, which manages the budget, staffing, and expenses of the Scottish Parliament. They are not paid by Britain.
"... advocating an illegal path to independence". Nope. It's not illegal, there is no specific law against it. Just the UK so-called principle of the "Sovereignty of Parliament" which in the event of secession would be a contradiction of the word "secession"!
"I'm guessing that a few of them, the ring leaders, will be suspended from the Scottish parliament ..." - why would the SPCB controlled by the Scottish Parliament, do that? The UDI-ists, the secessionists, would clearly have to be in an overall majority to do it. Hence they would control the Scottish Parliament.
I was hoping to avoid this. We are a devolved nation with a devolved parliament. Nicola Sturgeon, a self-confessed devolutionist, admitted that she ran a Scottish government case to prove in the Supreme Court that our devolved parliament has no powers over independence.
Our devolved politicians are devolved. You can argue until you're blue in the face that Scotland is this or that. The reality is that we voted for devolution in 1997. We voted against independence in 2014. These votes, and Nicola Sturgeon's successful attempt to cement devolution in place by deliberately fighting a losing case, prove that we are where we are; we are a devolved nation with a devolved parliament.
If you want devolved MSPs to go to jail, fair enough, but I'll bet that not a single one will break the law, regardless of whether it's Scottish law or British law, devolution will hold Scotland back.
Devolution was a disaster in 1997. It's been a disaster in every year since. The SNP wanted it and their leader, John Swinney, is very obviously happy with it. Try arguing with that!
It gets my goat when it is being said by someone who is otherwise acting like they are knowledgeable and authoritative.
Someone who truly IS thoughtful and knowledgeable should, in my not so humble opinion, be avoiding saying this very thing.
For multiple reasons.
Firstly it is wrong. Dead wrong. You yourself have described how The Scotland Act describes a devolved reserved powers model under Westminster Sovereignty.
WE (Scotland) are NOT a "devolved nation"
WE are a Nation. A Nation with a long and distinct cultural and constitutional history.
We have a defined territory.
We are a people who deserve the right to express our will for self determination.
And secondly because it plays right into the hand of the "We cannae dae it!" doomsayers and the bullshit bingo balderdash of the British Better Together brigade.
We CAN do it.
FFS man, why do you want to go around contributing to their false narrative propaganda message?
Hae a wee think tae yersel.
The current British arrangement was put in place by the British Ruling Elite to suit the long term ends of the British Ruling Elite.
As Peter sometimes phrases it, Our Parliament is in chains and WE need to strike off those chains.
One might say that 'Our' PARLIAMENT is a devolved parliament, and people would understand that as a shorthand for what I wrote above, and you clearly know to be the case.
There can be no justification for a true Scottish Nationalist to continue saying 'Scotland is a devolved Nation' when they know that is WRONG and they might instead be usefully commenting and thus contributing to educating people that the devolved powers model of The Scotland Act needs to be overturned by us, the people, to reclaim our Scottish not British sovereignty.
Of course if you do not believe that, then by all means do explain to us what is the alternative understanding?
My understanding is that we voted for devolution in 1997. I didn't, obviously. Those who did now appear desperate to rephrase the matter. I can understand why. Devolution is an obstacle to independence. No amount of rephrasing is going to help, unfortunately.
In fact, dressing the situation up, making it look or sound better, is a problem. What advantage is there in fooling people!? None that I can see. We are where we are. We voted for devolution in 1997. Now we are devolved.
I can well understand why you don't like it. I don't like it. It's a fact though.
I can well understand why you don't like it. I don't like it. It's a fact though."
You did it again. 'It' is most definitely NOT a fact though!
"We" are not Devolved.
'We' are the People of Scotland.
The Nation of Scotland is us the people in this realm, this territory.
Just as Scotland is NOT devolved, so We are NOT devolved.
You have already accepted that the Scotland Act created a devolved parliament.
Now I am left wondering why it is that you cannot see that that description, which is apt for that institution, is entirely inappropriate for US (the people) and our Nation (Scotland)
We are the People. We are the Nation.
The Parliament is a devolved parliament.
What possible reason would you have to say that this is not so?
Apart from anything else there never has been any legal authority or mechanism to subvert the sovereignty of The People of Scotland by making 'us' 'devolved' i.e. below, or under the Sovereignty of the English Crown.
Even if you subscribe to the idea that the Scottish parliament signed up to a Union with England to create the British Parliament there still is no mechanism there that can give away 'our' sovereignty.
The old Scottish Parliament existed to serve the community of this Realm and The People were both theoretically and practically sovereign _over_ it. The Scottish Parliament never was Sovereign over us and no mechanism ever existed either for it to exercise sovereignty over us, or to give that sovereignty away.
It is the 'child' institution of Westminster that is devolved from Westminster.
Not our Nation, not us the People, not our Sovereignty.
I've made no comment on all the stuff you're talking about. I'm simply saying that we voted for devolution in 1997. It is a fact. We also voted independence down in 2014.
Nicola Sturgeon then made the gullible fools promises. She promised a second referendum on various dates before going to the Supreme Court for a ruling, a ruling she now celebrates as it put independence supporters in their place (or words to that effect). Watch her on The Rest Is Politics.
That is where we are now.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. You can dress it up anyway you like. However, the sooner we grasp the facts, the better, especially the fact that John Swinney is a disaster for Scotland. Surely, you can't dress that up!
I'm sorry. I suggest your disappointment should be aimed at Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney, the protected witnesses who allegedly conspired against Alex Salmond, and all the SNP devolutionists.
You might even extend your disappointment to the SNP voters; the ones who knowingly approve of devolution and the ones who are fooled by it.
Language matters. The way we talk about things shapes the way we think about them.
Devolution is obviously well past its use-by date. But it's what we've got. We can't just wish it away, as some seem to imagine. Devolution must be ended. That is synonymous with ending the Union and with liberating Scotland.
However you phrase it, there will be a fight. That fight has take place as far as possible within the existing constitutional settlement up to the point where the Union is ended and the devolved Scottish Parliament becomes the true Parliament of Scotland.
We know there is no route to a proper constitutional referendum and independence through the legal and constitutional framework which has evolved under the imperative to preserve the Union. We there must come a point at which compliance becomes defiance. We know there is no way to have a proper constitutional referendum while our Parliament remains bound by the chains of devolution. We know that if we want to break the Union, we must break one or more of the rules which protect the Union.
The way we talk about the constitutional issue matters. To my mind, the liberation struggle is best served, not by abolishing the Scottish Parliament but by freeing it from the chains of devolution. We should shape our thinking by discussing the Scottish Parliament as something that was stolen from us in 1707 then returned to us in chains in 1999.
It's 'Scotland's oil!' This is a campaign slogan that worked. I am persuaded that 'It's Scotland's parliament' would work even better.
We get to choose which rule we break to be able to end the Union if we wish. I am persuaded that the best rule to break would be the one which prevents the democratically elected parliament legislating for a proper constitutional referendum.
The best way to conduct our fight is as a human rights issue. The situation where the British state dictates when and how we exercise our right of self-determination is in breach of international law. If they can dictate the when and how, they can dictate if. That is not acceptable.
74.6% of us voted for Devolution in 1997, and some of us campaigned for the first devolution referendum in 1979. I had to argue then with SNP members who said it wasn't Independence, and shop stewards who swallowed the Tory line that it was a bad bill and the Tories would give them a better one. Yeah, that happened.
And in the 90s the SNP were still reluctant to go for devolution - it was Labour and the LibDems who dragged them on board. Devolution has been a good thing for Scotland, and less than 9% of voters here would want to abolish Holyrood.
If you are claiming the MSPs would go to jail (prison), name the exact Law whether UK or Scots, and the charges. And who would charge, arrest and indeed, prosecute them. The UK has no federal police, unlike e.g. Spain.
As I understand it, you are advocating an illegal path to independence. If MSPs "grasp the thistle" I'm guessing that a few of them, the ring leaders, will be suspended from the Scottish parliament, initially losing their passes, and eventually losing their wages.
Good point. I think Alba are unlikely to have any MSPs. Currently, they appear to be missing £70,000 and seem to be in dispute with each other over what to do about it.
My point wasn't limited to Alba, of course, I'm saying that any illegal attempt to use the Scottish parliament could result in MSPs being suspended, and eventually sacked.
Alba could lose whatever little credibility they have left.
It's unlikely to matter given that someone is being accused of stealing £70,000. The SNP appears to have lost £600,000 with only one man being accused of crimes. Frankly, it's ridiculous! Are we really expected to believe that two political parties have only one culprit each!? Is no one wondering how that is even possible!? Aren't organisations supposed to have treasurers, finance committees, further scrutiny from NEC members, and multiple signatories?
Even if Alba stand candidates they'll be list MSPs. I know there are people who take the Scottish parliament for more than it actually is, but the reality is that it's a devolved parliament. A devolved parliament that took a case to the Supreme Court and proved it has no legal powers over independence. If Alba, the SNP and the Greens or whoever did win a majority in favour of independence, it'd be about as effective as Anas Sarwar was when he called for Keir Starmer to resign.
Devolved parliaments don't have the power or the influence that many people like to think. Someone on here was moaning that John Swinney wasn't consulted on defence. He accepts that he's as important as an English mayor! Did no one see Alex Salmond's last ever Tweet showing a picture of Swinney standing alongside English mayors and the like. It was very revealing, as was Anas Sarwar's failed intervention. Starmer wasn't even mildly annoyed.
Meantime back at the ranch WW3 is getting nicely underway. ( Nostradamus prophesied this)
Unfortunately Scotland has absolutely NO SAY or control as our 'colonial masters' ( hostile foreign english) have just agreed to allow two 'british bases' to be used by the attacking americans and our RAF planes are on ' the defensive ' and 'attacking ' drones aimed at our allies. I can just hear the Iranians..'don't attack 'british bases' cos they are not attacking us'....ay right..Cyprus has just been hit this morning.....I'm now waiting for subs to be involved and bang goes Faslane..and Central Scotland with it.
Nah the politicians that represent Scotland have one goal....to win seats in the Scottish Parliament..finito! While living in La La Land..
Do you think if the Scots took a baseball bat and pas de Basque'd their way to Holy Wullie's podium and explained the Scottish UDI Strategy to him..he would change his ideas....no thought not.
Once again you are spot on Peter......but the ijits in Holyrood are NOT LISTENING.
This is in the National now for those that don't read SGP:
"Alba members told of 'insurmountable' six-digit sum rebels would need to shoulder"
https://archive.is/GqsDN
"THE group seeking to take over the Alba Party would have to shoulder liabilities worth nearly £200,000, members were warned."
I believe that, for some reason, that's personally take on.
Very sad.
One of the reasons for setting up New Scotland Party (NSP) as a limited company was to avoid a situation in which individual could be personally liable.
Good God it's unincorporated - and so is the SNP. Madness.
One of the first ways the Forces of the State will come after people is through some sort of financial pressure or irregularities.
The other if concocted sex scandals, or confected allegations of bullying women.
Just ask The SNP about any of those, ... or Craig Murray. ;-(
Well, Alba's potential liabilities it seems are none of the above.
OT
The UK is apparently considering sending Duncan to the Middle East. About time. HMS Duncan is a very effective air defence destroyer (Type 45), capable of tracking and firing on multiple targets, and with missiles, drones and hostile aircraft flying all over the place is sorely needed to help defend the likes of Cyprus, though it's actually possible there's now already a Type 45 around there. It would be a defensive role.
No, the Duncan doesn't fire big guns or 16 inch shells.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2026/february/26/20260226-hms-duncan-faces-onslaught-as-they-defend-national-infrastructure
It was between Dragon and Duncan, and it's Dragon that's going.
"Neither the SNP nor Alba Party has started by reframing the issue. They are not even framing the issue with independence as the goal."
A key problems also appears to be that neither national party leadership really knows what independence means, which is decolonisation, and liberation from oppression, with one key mechanism - UDI. Which confirms their rudimentary understanding and that of the people still.
Which then brings us back to your linkage of these three key elements, Peter: UDI, Decolonisation and Liberation - as the most urgent matters for any colonised people:
https://peterabell.wordpress.com/2023/08/27/the-new-thinking/
On the positive side, despite their apparent absence in polling, the Alliance to Liberate Scotland will be offering their solution in May's election which is heavily influenced by, if not based on 'the new thinking'. And Liberation Scotland/Salvo still maintain focus on the complementary UN Decolonization process.
This also reflects Fanon's predicted rupture in the independence movement between 'legal' and 'illegal' tendencies, the former dependent on the domestic law and everlasting goodness of the imperial power plus 'rudimentary understanding', the latter on international law and a more considered appraisal of the colonial condition.
"On the positive side, despite their apparent absence in polling, the Alliance to Liberate Scotland will be offering their solution in May's election which is heavily influenced by, if not based on 'the new thinking'. And Liberation Scotland/Salvo still maintain focus on the complementary UN Decolonization process."
I believe "the Alliance to Liberate Scotland" is the new name for 'Liberate Scotland'. If so, what they lack of a clear and credible process for restoring independence. Their message appears to be 'we'll just do it'. That's not good enough. It seems they hope to sweep aside parliamentary procedure. Or they simply don't know enough about parliamentary procedure to be able to describe a process.
The #ScottishUDI strategy isn't a pick 'n' mix menu. It all works as complete mechanism. Remove a component, and you break the machinery.
Meanwhile this from the Herald is half the point, though it misses anything about self-determination and complete denial of any internal route to a referendum.
https://archive.is/dfZRG
"NEIL MACKAY - Keir Starmer refuses to negotiate on indy. That makes me happy"
Thank you for comment neth. I believe the stanza for 2026 said....bees ( drones ?)...7 mths great war. ...fires and more...intrigued you are more interested in that than Scotland's freedom...Maybe Nostradamus prophesied Scotlands independence...must go and look. ye never know!
For OUR Scotland and her weans
Thanks Catherine - I was fascinated by Nostradamus as a callow youth - a long time ago now - so yes was interested as a "blast from the past" type thing.
But I can assure you that I am more interested in the decolonisation and liberation of Scotland than any of his ancient scribblings!
I didn't comment on the main topic since others, more knowledgeable and more succinct than me had already done so
Neth
You cheered me up....used my favourite words...'liberation of Scotland.'..(Nostradamus obviously never heard of us.)..but I would like the world to hear again from us...the Scots....as a free and self governing nation...sounds like you do too.
For OUR Scotland and her weans.
"Kenny MacAskill’s idea of radical is actually so conservative it once was SNP policy."
I can think of no stronger condemnation of Scotland's would be political freedom fighters.
I'm not crying over the demise of Alba, given their ineffectual policies, as Peter describes.
Will the Liberation Alliance be any better, with their 'Independence, nothing less' slogan?
They claim they will force the Scottish government (if enough of them are elected to have any influence on that body) to declare UDI on the grounds that a majority of Scots electors have voted for this.
Is that enough for other countries to recognise Scotland as a Sovereign Nation?
I have repeatedly asked Alba supporters how they would go about restoring Scotland's independence. I've yet to get a sensible answer. Mostly, it's along the lines of 'just do it!'. They seem to have no idea how the Scottish Parliament works.
The AtLS claim they will pressurise/force the SNP to do something. But whenever you ask what that is or how that may happen an answer is not forthcoming.
Perhaps that is because they know that even if they got a handful of candidates elected - an outcome that is vanishingly unlikely given that they are not even registering in opinion polling - they would be ignored by Swinney and his motley crew.
"Is there anybody in Alba Party who will grasp the thistle?"
No, there isn't. Why? Well, the first thing that springs to mind is money.
It's apt at the moment, given the £70,000 allegedly stolen from Alba.
How can working MSPs employed and paid by Britain afford to go against their employer and almost certainly lose their wages?
"working MSPs employed and paid by Britain"
MSPs are paid by the SPCB - the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, which is a cross-party group of five MSPs, chaired by the Presiding Officer, which manages the budget, staffing, and expenses of the Scottish Parliament. They are not paid by Britain.
"... advocating an illegal path to independence". Nope. It's not illegal, there is no specific law against it. Just the UK so-called principle of the "Sovereignty of Parliament" which in the event of secession would be a contradiction of the word "secession"!
"I'm guessing that a few of them, the ring leaders, will be suspended from the Scottish parliament ..." - why would the SPCB controlled by the Scottish Parliament, do that? The UDI-ists, the secessionists, would clearly have to be in an overall majority to do it. Hence they would control the Scottish Parliament.
Sorry for cutting in.
I was hoping to avoid this. We are a devolved nation with a devolved parliament. Nicola Sturgeon, a self-confessed devolutionist, admitted that she ran a Scottish government case to prove in the Supreme Court that our devolved parliament has no powers over independence.
Our devolved politicians are devolved. You can argue until you're blue in the face that Scotland is this or that. The reality is that we voted for devolution in 1997. We voted against independence in 2014. These votes, and Nicola Sturgeon's successful attempt to cement devolution in place by deliberately fighting a losing case, prove that we are where we are; we are a devolved nation with a devolved parliament.
If you want devolved MSPs to go to jail, fair enough, but I'll bet that not a single one will break the law, regardless of whether it's Scottish law or British law, devolution will hold Scotland back.
Devolution was a disaster in 1997. It's been a disaster in every year since. The SNP wanted it and their leader, John Swinney, is very obviously happy with it. Try arguing with that!
Likewise, sorry for cutting in.
but when I see this "We are a devolved nation"
It gets my goat when it is being said by someone who is otherwise acting like they are knowledgeable and authoritative.
Someone who truly IS thoughtful and knowledgeable should, in my not so humble opinion, be avoiding saying this very thing.
For multiple reasons.
Firstly it is wrong. Dead wrong. You yourself have described how The Scotland Act describes a devolved reserved powers model under Westminster Sovereignty.
WE (Scotland) are NOT a "devolved nation"
WE are a Nation. A Nation with a long and distinct cultural and constitutional history.
We have a defined territory.
We are a people who deserve the right to express our will for self determination.
And secondly because it plays right into the hand of the "We cannae dae it!" doomsayers and the bullshit bingo balderdash of the British Better Together brigade.
We CAN do it.
FFS man, why do you want to go around contributing to their false narrative propaganda message?
Hae a wee think tae yersel.
The current British arrangement was put in place by the British Ruling Elite to suit the long term ends of the British Ruling Elite.
As Peter sometimes phrases it, Our Parliament is in chains and WE need to strike off those chains.
One might say that 'Our' PARLIAMENT is a devolved parliament, and people would understand that as a shorthand for what I wrote above, and you clearly know to be the case.
There can be no justification for a true Scottish Nationalist to continue saying 'Scotland is a devolved Nation' when they know that is WRONG and they might instead be usefully commenting and thus contributing to educating people that the devolved powers model of The Scotland Act needs to be overturned by us, the people, to reclaim our Scottish not British sovereignty.
Of course if you do not believe that, then by all means do explain to us what is the alternative understanding?
My understanding is that we voted for devolution in 1997. I didn't, obviously. Those who did now appear desperate to rephrase the matter. I can understand why. Devolution is an obstacle to independence. No amount of rephrasing is going to help, unfortunately.
In fact, dressing the situation up, making it look or sound better, is a problem. What advantage is there in fooling people!? None that I can see. We are where we are. We voted for devolution in 1997. Now we are devolved.
I can well understand why you don't like it. I don't like it. It's a fact though.
" Now we are devolved.
I can well understand why you don't like it. I don't like it. It's a fact though."
You did it again. 'It' is most definitely NOT a fact though!
"We" are not Devolved.
'We' are the People of Scotland.
The Nation of Scotland is us the people in this realm, this territory.
Just as Scotland is NOT devolved, so We are NOT devolved.
You have already accepted that the Scotland Act created a devolved parliament.
Now I am left wondering why it is that you cannot see that that description, which is apt for that institution, is entirely inappropriate for US (the people) and our Nation (Scotland)
We are the People. We are the Nation.
The Parliament is a devolved parliament.
What possible reason would you have to say that this is not so?
Apart from anything else there never has been any legal authority or mechanism to subvert the sovereignty of The People of Scotland by making 'us' 'devolved' i.e. below, or under the Sovereignty of the English Crown.
Even if you subscribe to the idea that the Scottish parliament signed up to a Union with England to create the British Parliament there still is no mechanism there that can give away 'our' sovereignty.
The old Scottish Parliament existed to serve the community of this Realm and The People were both theoretically and practically sovereign _over_ it. The Scottish Parliament never was Sovereign over us and no mechanism ever existed either for it to exercise sovereignty over us, or to give that sovereignty away.
It is the 'child' institution of Westminster that is devolved from Westminster.
Not our Nation, not us the People, not our Sovereignty.
You do see that point, right?
It is quite simple really.
I've made no comment on all the stuff you're talking about. I'm simply saying that we voted for devolution in 1997. It is a fact. We also voted independence down in 2014.
Nicola Sturgeon then made the gullible fools promises. She promised a second referendum on various dates before going to the Supreme Court for a ruling, a ruling she now celebrates as it put independence supporters in their place (or words to that effect). Watch her on The Rest Is Politics.
That is where we are now.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. You can dress it up anyway you like. However, the sooner we grasp the facts, the better, especially the fact that John Swinney is a disaster for Scotland. Surely, you can't dress that up!
[details elided]
Very disappointing reply. :-(
I'm sorry. I suggest your disappointment should be aimed at Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney, the protected witnesses who allegedly conspired against Alex Salmond, and all the SNP devolutionists.
You might even extend your disappointment to the SNP voters; the ones who knowingly approve of devolution and the ones who are fooled by it.
They all disappoint me. 30 years and counting...
Indeed.
Language matters. The way we talk about things shapes the way we think about them.
Devolution is obviously well past its use-by date. But it's what we've got. We can't just wish it away, as some seem to imagine. Devolution must be ended. That is synonymous with ending the Union and with liberating Scotland.
However you phrase it, there will be a fight. That fight has take place as far as possible within the existing constitutional settlement up to the point where the Union is ended and the devolved Scottish Parliament becomes the true Parliament of Scotland.
We know there is no route to a proper constitutional referendum and independence through the legal and constitutional framework which has evolved under the imperative to preserve the Union. We there must come a point at which compliance becomes defiance. We know there is no way to have a proper constitutional referendum while our Parliament remains bound by the chains of devolution. We know that if we want to break the Union, we must break one or more of the rules which protect the Union.
The way we talk about the constitutional issue matters. To my mind, the liberation struggle is best served, not by abolishing the Scottish Parliament but by freeing it from the chains of devolution. We should shape our thinking by discussing the Scottish Parliament as something that was stolen from us in 1707 then returned to us in chains in 1999.
It's 'Scotland's oil!' This is a campaign slogan that worked. I am persuaded that 'It's Scotland's parliament' would work even better.
We get to choose which rule we break to be able to end the Union if we wish. I am persuaded that the best rule to break would be the one which prevents the democratically elected parliament legislating for a proper constitutional referendum.
The best way to conduct our fight is as a human rights issue. The situation where the British state dictates when and how we exercise our right of self-determination is in breach of international law. If they can dictate the when and how, they can dictate if. That is not acceptable.
Unfortunately, I don't think a single MSP will break a single law.
74.6% of us voted for Devolution in 1997, and some of us campaigned for the first devolution referendum in 1979. I had to argue then with SNP members who said it wasn't Independence, and shop stewards who swallowed the Tory line that it was a bad bill and the Tories would give them a better one. Yeah, that happened.
And in the 90s the SNP were still reluctant to go for devolution - it was Labour and the LibDems who dragged them on board. Devolution has been a good thing for Scotland, and less than 9% of voters here would want to abolish Holyrood.
If you are claiming the MSPs would go to jail (prison), name the exact Law whether UK or Scots, and the charges. And who would charge, arrest and indeed, prosecute them. The UK has no federal police, unlike e.g. Spain.
I'm arguing that there's not a single MSP who would break a single law for independence. I suspect there never will be.
What would MSPs go to jail for? On what charge? What is the procedure?
I said: "...I'll bet that not a single one [MSPs] will break the law..."
How could they lose their "wages"?
As I understand it, you are advocating an illegal path to independence. If MSPs "grasp the thistle" I'm guessing that a few of them, the ring leaders, will be suspended from the Scottish parliament, initially losing their passes, and eventually losing their wages.
How could they lose their wages? How could they be suspended or sacked? What is the procedure?
The Alba Party doesn't have any parliamentarians with MSP "wages" to lose.
Good point. I think Alba are unlikely to have any MSPs. Currently, they appear to be missing £70,000 and seem to be in dispute with each other over what to do about it.
My point wasn't limited to Alba, of course, I'm saying that any illegal attempt to use the Scottish parliament could result in MSPs being suspended, and eventually sacked.
I would like to think that Scottish MSPs being suspended or sacked on the say of the UK government, would cause uproar, démonstrations and even riots
Apparently liabilities are more the problem.
I agree they are unlikely to even survive as a political entity.
But, to Peter's point, if they are to continue what have they got to lose by adopting a much more radical stance in any offering to the electorate?
Alba could lose whatever little credibility they have left.
It's unlikely to matter given that someone is being accused of stealing £70,000. The SNP appears to have lost £600,000 with only one man being accused of crimes. Frankly, it's ridiculous! Are we really expected to believe that two political parties have only one culprit each!? Is no one wondering how that is even possible!? Aren't organisations supposed to have treasurers, finance committees, further scrutiny from NEC members, and multiple signatories?
Even if Alba stand candidates they'll be list MSPs. I know there are people who take the Scottish parliament for more than it actually is, but the reality is that it's a devolved parliament. A devolved parliament that took a case to the Supreme Court and proved it has no legal powers over independence. If Alba, the SNP and the Greens or whoever did win a majority in favour of independence, it'd be about as effective as Anas Sarwar was when he called for Keir Starmer to resign.
Devolved parliaments don't have the power or the influence that many people like to think. Someone on here was moaning that John Swinney wasn't consulted on defence. He accepts that he's as important as an English mayor! Did no one see Alex Salmond's last ever Tweet showing a picture of Swinney standing alongside English mayors and the like. It was very revealing, as was Anas Sarwar's failed intervention. Starmer wasn't even mildly annoyed.
Alba has financial problems and internal strife to put it gently, and it seems to be very unlikely it will stand in this election, now or ever.
I agree. Alba was a vehicle for Alex Salmond. It has nothing to offer without him.
Not that I'm saying the SNP has anything to offer. For me, they offer less than nothing. I believe they are campaigning against independence.
Nailed it Peter!
Independence is the endpoint!
Um...anybody told Holy Wullie and Albatross'
Or are our worthy politicians too busy..
*Attacking each other?
*Embezzling funds meant for Scotland's FREEDOM.
*Awarding themselves a payrise
*Practising at being quislings and traitors
Meantime back at the ranch WW3 is getting nicely underway. ( Nostradamus prophesied this)
Unfortunately Scotland has absolutely NO SAY or control as our 'colonial masters' ( hostile foreign english) have just agreed to allow two 'british bases' to be used by the attacking americans and our RAF planes are on ' the defensive ' and 'attacking ' drones aimed at our allies. I can just hear the Iranians..'don't attack 'british bases' cos they are not attacking us'....ay right..Cyprus has just been hit this morning.....I'm now waiting for subs to be involved and bang goes Faslane..and Central Scotland with it.
Nah the politicians that represent Scotland have one goal....to win seats in the Scottish Parliament..finito! While living in La La Land..
Do you think if the Scots took a baseball bat and pas de Basque'd their way to Holy Wullie's podium and explained the Scottish UDI Strategy to him..he would change his ideas....no thought not.
Once again you are spot on Peter......but the ijits in Holyrood are NOT LISTENING.
For OUR Scotland and her weans.
( Nostradamus prophesied this)
Interesting - can you please list the Quatrain you mean?