In addition to the (should be) obvious surrender of our constitutional rights via stupidly/treacherously begging WM for a section 30, there is the additional risk of what ensues being not even a fake 'referendum', but a 3-option 'choice' on the ballot paper. People like opting for the "middle way". It makes them feel comfortable. The middle 'choice' will be "devo max". Which of course would be an offer of 'nothing'. So John, you can shove yer section 30 up yer erse.
Good point. Referendums have to be binary. Otherwise, you run the risk of getting a result that isn't decisive. Suppose there are three options and the votes are divided equally. What then? How likely is it that one option out of the three would get over the 50% line at the first go?
Surrendering our constitutional rights by agreeing to a section 30 does place the entire process in Westminster's hands. So regardless of any 'negotiation' with Holyrood, they can ultimately hold the gun to Scotland's heid in whatever way they deem most effective to kill off our dreams of breaking free.
But there cannot be a majority vote such as you describe when the party taking the lion's share of the vote is not standing on an explicitly pro-independence manifesto commitment. A vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence. It is a vote for precisely what John Swinney says it's a vote for. Which is a request for a Section 30 order.
An election pretending to be a referendum cannot be conclusive enough to provide an unchallengeable mandate for ending the Union. I am a lifelong Scottish nationalist. If I can argue that such a vote is invalid, imagine what the British state and our indigenous Unionists would do with it.
#ScottishUDI doesn't "invent even more hurdles". It is a means of overcoming existing hurdles. The legislative competence hurdle, for one. The conclusiveness hurdle for another.
I would like it fine if I thought a plebiscitary election might work. But it won't. It won't for the obvious reason that proponents have totally failed to get the biggest nominally pro-independence party on board. It won't work because the independence movement has failed to put in place the necessary party-political and parliamentary process. It might have worked if the nominally pro-independence parties had all adopted exactly the same manifesto commitment. But when people are voting for parties rather than a proposition, the outcome will not provide clarity and certainty.
We should be making it as difficult as possible for our opponents to challenge the outcome. A plebiscitary election - and particularly one in which the vote is close and the anti vote is more explicit than the pro vote - is a gift to those who want to challenge the result.
Peter, it disna maitter whit the colonizer, the colonialists or even whit Swinney says; whit maitters is whit soverane Scottish fowk want. That is self-determination.
It's pointless wanting something if you don't know how to get it. Even more than desire people need agency. They need a credible account of the how. As Assa Samake-Roman puts it, you have to show them the handle.
"They need to be shown where to press, and what happens when they do."
The politicians are the problem precisely because they are essential to the solution. But they are getting away with avoiding their role in resolving the constitutional issue mainly due to two groups of people – the ones who insist they are already fulfilling that role when they plainly aren't and the ones who dismiss them despite there being no alternative.
There is much talk of 'the people' taking over. But absolutely no sign of them doing so. There is much talk of conventions and the like, but no sign of them coming into being. Nor any explanation of how such an entity could usurp the role of the national parliament.
It's fine to say the people must act. But it is then incumbent on those saying this to describe in some detail exactly what it is the people have to do. What form must their action take? Saying things like 'The people must rise up and take independence' is great rhetoric. But there comes a point at which the rhetoric must end and the practicalities must be addressed.
Yes! The people must act! But as Assa Samake-Roman says, they must be shown the handle and what it does. They must be shown a sequence of actions which lead to a proper constitutional referendum and independence, if that is the choice the people make.
The Scottish Parliament is the tool for the job. Or rather, it has the potential to be the tool for the job. A tool in the hands of the people. There is no other entity in existence which has this potential. We have to explain to people how they make the Scottish Parliament the tool that they need. Otherwise, it's like we are asking people to go into battle without weapons. We are telling them they must do something, but not giving them the tools they need.
There's a lot to commend in what Craig Murray says. He clearly
a) Rejects any Westminster involvement in, interference with or influence over Scotland's choice
b) Recognises that Scotland's right of self-determination is incompatible with a British veto
c) Believes in the Scottish Parliament asserting its authority over constitutional matters
A pity, then, that he doesn't see the need for a proper national referendum that requests and gains the explicit endorsement of the Scottish people on the single issue of independent statehood for Scotland to ratify any Scottish Parliament vote.
That would go a long way to converting his (and AtLS') version of UDI - U-just Do It! - into the #ScottishUDI process.
Sometimes I think there is only you and me aware of the fact that you don't ask your jailor if you can please be let go.. ( I would add OR ELSE Jimmy). Is anybody oot there listening?
I am a tad more radical than you because you keep trying to educate ..I just want to kick the arse of the foreign nation called foreign english ( or cuckoo in the nest) oot of OOR land and if they don't shift themselves pronto then get the invading b*st*rds removed in ANY way we can.. ....that's that bit of Irish genetics in me making unfriendly plans.
I watched the living dead in Holyrood vote for assisted dying last night...and I thought these are the zombies that are promising 'independence'( + the quislings on either side who don't)...no they DIDN'T pass the bill ( neither would I..you don't kill people ..you protect the clan)....yet they are prepared to let the foreign english KILL the future of generations of Scots to come by keeping them imprisoned in a toxic union FOREVER...explain that to me..
I have written to 'them' asking where they stand on Scottish UDI Strategy..not one has answered or even acknowledged my existence..but they do ask for dosh or help to deliver whatever crap they have...so they know where I live..
I was touched by the emotional speeches ( NOT)...Spare your sentiment MSPs for the young Scots to come ..some disabled and sick.... denied a country free and independent but instead tied to a malicious evil parasitic foreign nation..guess who that is...who rob denigrate, insult our land.
I have drawn up a MUCLOCK....based on MUSCULAR UNIONISM and I shall be interested to see what it looks like after the election. Keeps me busy.....
An excellent piece as usual ..and I shall be interested to see how long you retain some semblance of sanity.
Catherine, the trajectory of the so-called civilised west towards assisted suicide chills me to the bone. I recommend everyone to watch Tuesday's debate on parliament TV – rare evidence of real critical thinking and scrutiny such a change in law deserves. It comes down to the rights of some pitted against risk to others, not influence by the 'god-botherers', as some would have it.
In the likelihood the new parliament wont progress Scotland's cause one inch, I was even considering basing my votes on holding back a progressively dystopian future where performative premature death eventually becomes the norm. Medical science and ethics, then education, around normal death and dying stalls and eventually becomes redundant. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but when everything is costed and commodified, thats one future.
Quite rightly, we aspire to take every care bringing new lives into the world. Lets apply the same care and attention to natural processes at the end. Unfortunately so many of the best thinkers are standing down in May, and I fear the new cohort will bring this distorted 'progressive' thinking with them. This issue isnt going away, nor its loudest proponents.
Excellent comment. I am trying to remember the film where people went on a carousel at a 'certain age' and then ..'supposedly.'.went on to the 'happy land' but in fact were turned into soylent green bikkies..am I right?Their leaders of course lived out their lives not letting the daft citizens know what was happening. The message I took was ..don't trust your leaders. I don't want anyone sick or disabled to feel they are a burden and should put themselves up for annihilation..'encouraged' sometimes by those around them. Love and cherish them..protect them from those who would eradicate them. They are our clan...let no-one do them harm.
If we had a functional parliament and politicians that were fighting for independence then it ought to have been an easy matter to agree that where we are at right now is not the right place to be considering introducing state sponsored death _from_.
Since it emerged from the debate process that approximately 18,000 people a year are NOT currently receiving the end of life CARE that they NEED, and that there is no prospect of at least an additional 500 million pounds per year being available to spend to begin to address this situation, then what we need to do to fix this pressing problem is to not be forced into the position that we are currently in by Westminster policy decisions.
We need to ring our own till, and spend our own money.
This situation will never be addressed under devolution.
We need Independence.
With Independence and a powerful empowered Scottish Parliament this lack of attention to this serious issue could be largely addressed in one electoral cycle.
Even the deal breaking issue that we allegedly have to get Westminster to provide our healthcare professionals with a reasonable conscientious objectors opt out and protections should be a signal that we need to break free from that level of stifling control.
I despair at the lack of vigour among the political class.
Your most important sentence.....'we need independence'..
Why?
We have a 'leader 'who today said it is not ' legal 'for us to stop the foreign english from allowing another foreign nation to use our airports.
We have an Iranian spokesman saying today that allowing american planes to use UK airports to attack Iran will be considered an aggressive attack on them...
So it is legal for a foreign englishman to put Scotland and her people in harm's way..? Somebody should point that out to swinney who does not want his son to go to Auld Firm football matches....I would guess an Iranian missile coming at you would be a lot more drastic than a gemme o' footie in Glesga.....but I may be wrong....
Thank you for Logans Run...I was stuck at green soylent bikkies!
Its astonishing msps from healthcare and other regulated professions supported a bill which left no say for them, and no parliamentary scrutiny, over professional standing under the new law.
Regulation to protect the public and those professions from megalomaniacs, monsters and incompetents in order to uphold trust, without which our health service crumbles.
So likewise we are content to hand over our constitutional future to the avaricious, duplicitous captors we already know are not to be trusted?
Not sure what land Dr Sandesh Gulhane msp lives in - if its the same land the rest of us inhabit we can rest assured there's nothing to worry our silly heids about. According to the good doctor, we "control all aspects of our lives". Either he's been munching on the other side of the mushroom*, or he's been dishing out massive quantities of blue pills** ..... *Alice in Wonderland,
In addition to the (should be) obvious surrender of our constitutional rights via stupidly/treacherously begging WM for a section 30, there is the additional risk of what ensues being not even a fake 'referendum', but a 3-option 'choice' on the ballot paper. People like opting for the "middle way". It makes them feel comfortable. The middle 'choice' will be "devo max". Which of course would be an offer of 'nothing'. So John, you can shove yer section 30 up yer erse.
Good point. Referendums have to be binary. Otherwise, you run the risk of getting a result that isn't decisive. Suppose there are three options and the votes are divided equally. What then? How likely is it that one option out of the three would get over the 50% line at the first go?
Surrendering our constitutional rights by agreeing to a section 30 does place the entire process in Westminster's hands. So regardless of any 'negotiation' with Holyrood, they can ultimately hold the gun to Scotland's heid in whatever way they deem most effective to kill off our dreams of breaking free.
No need to invent even more hurdles preventing liberation, that is oor doun-hauder's role:
"..the role of the colonizer is to make any prospect of independence for the colonized seem impossible" (Memmi).
A majority vote in favour of all pro-independence candidates/parties is a majority vote in favour of independence.
But there cannot be a majority vote such as you describe when the party taking the lion's share of the vote is not standing on an explicitly pro-independence manifesto commitment. A vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence. It is a vote for precisely what John Swinney says it's a vote for. Which is a request for a Section 30 order.
An election pretending to be a referendum cannot be conclusive enough to provide an unchallengeable mandate for ending the Union. I am a lifelong Scottish nationalist. If I can argue that such a vote is invalid, imagine what the British state and our indigenous Unionists would do with it.
#ScottishUDI doesn't "invent even more hurdles". It is a means of overcoming existing hurdles. The legislative competence hurdle, for one. The conclusiveness hurdle for another.
I would like it fine if I thought a plebiscitary election might work. But it won't. It won't for the obvious reason that proponents have totally failed to get the biggest nominally pro-independence party on board. It won't work because the independence movement has failed to put in place the necessary party-political and parliamentary process. It might have worked if the nominally pro-independence parties had all adopted exactly the same manifesto commitment. But when people are voting for parties rather than a proposition, the outcome will not provide clarity and certainty.
We should be making it as difficult as possible for our opponents to challenge the outcome. A plebiscitary election - and particularly one in which the vote is close and the anti vote is more explicit than the pro vote - is a gift to those who want to challenge the result.
Peter, it disna maitter whit the colonizer, the colonialists or even whit Swinney says; whit maitters is whit soverane Scottish fowk want. That is self-determination.
It's pointless wanting something if you don't know how to get it. Even more than desire people need agency. They need a credible account of the how. As Assa Samake-Roman puts it, you have to show them the handle.
"They need to be shown where to press, and what happens when they do."
https://peterabell.substack.com/p/a-sense-of-agency
Those choosing to work for the colonizer are not the solution, they are the problem.
The politicians are the problem precisely because they are essential to the solution. But they are getting away with avoiding their role in resolving the constitutional issue mainly due to two groups of people – the ones who insist they are already fulfilling that role when they plainly aren't and the ones who dismiss them despite there being no alternative.
There is much talk of 'the people' taking over. But absolutely no sign of them doing so. There is much talk of conventions and the like, but no sign of them coming into being. Nor any explanation of how such an entity could usurp the role of the national parliament.
It's fine to say the people must act. But it is then incumbent on those saying this to describe in some detail exactly what it is the people have to do. What form must their action take? Saying things like 'The people must rise up and take independence' is great rhetoric. But there comes a point at which the rhetoric must end and the practicalities must be addressed.
Yes! The people must act! But as Assa Samake-Roman says, they must be shown the handle and what it does. They must be shown a sequence of actions which lead to a proper constitutional referendum and independence, if that is the choice the people make.
The Scottish Parliament is the tool for the job. Or rather, it has the potential to be the tool for the job. A tool in the hands of the people. There is no other entity in existence which has this potential. We have to explain to people how they make the Scottish Parliament the tool that they need. Otherwise, it's like we are asking people to go into battle without weapons. We are telling them they must do something, but not giving them the tools they need.
There's a lot to commend in what Craig Murray says. He clearly
a) Rejects any Westminster involvement in, interference with or influence over Scotland's choice
b) Recognises that Scotland's right of self-determination is incompatible with a British veto
c) Believes in the Scottish Parliament asserting its authority over constitutional matters
A pity, then, that he doesn't see the need for a proper national referendum that requests and gains the explicit endorsement of the Scottish people on the single issue of independent statehood for Scotland to ratify any Scottish Parliament vote.
That would go a long way to converting his (and AtLS') version of UDI - U-just Do It! - into the #ScottishUDI process.
Sometimes I think there is only you and me aware of the fact that you don't ask your jailor if you can please be let go.. ( I would add OR ELSE Jimmy). Is anybody oot there listening?
I am a tad more radical than you because you keep trying to educate ..I just want to kick the arse of the foreign nation called foreign english ( or cuckoo in the nest) oot of OOR land and if they don't shift themselves pronto then get the invading b*st*rds removed in ANY way we can.. ....that's that bit of Irish genetics in me making unfriendly plans.
I watched the living dead in Holyrood vote for assisted dying last night...and I thought these are the zombies that are promising 'independence'( + the quislings on either side who don't)...no they DIDN'T pass the bill ( neither would I..you don't kill people ..you protect the clan)....yet they are prepared to let the foreign english KILL the future of generations of Scots to come by keeping them imprisoned in a toxic union FOREVER...explain that to me..
I have written to 'them' asking where they stand on Scottish UDI Strategy..not one has answered or even acknowledged my existence..but they do ask for dosh or help to deliver whatever crap they have...so they know where I live..
I was touched by the emotional speeches ( NOT)...Spare your sentiment MSPs for the young Scots to come ..some disabled and sick.... denied a country free and independent but instead tied to a malicious evil parasitic foreign nation..guess who that is...who rob denigrate, insult our land.
I have drawn up a MUCLOCK....based on MUSCULAR UNIONISM and I shall be interested to see what it looks like after the election. Keeps me busy.....
An excellent piece as usual ..and I shall be interested to see how long you retain some semblance of sanity.
For OUR Scotland and her jailed weans.
Catherine, the trajectory of the so-called civilised west towards assisted suicide chills me to the bone. I recommend everyone to watch Tuesday's debate on parliament TV – rare evidence of real critical thinking and scrutiny such a change in law deserves. It comes down to the rights of some pitted against risk to others, not influence by the 'god-botherers', as some would have it.
In the likelihood the new parliament wont progress Scotland's cause one inch, I was even considering basing my votes on holding back a progressively dystopian future where performative premature death eventually becomes the norm. Medical science and ethics, then education, around normal death and dying stalls and eventually becomes redundant. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but when everything is costed and commodified, thats one future.
Quite rightly, we aspire to take every care bringing new lives into the world. Lets apply the same care and attention to natural processes at the end. Unfortunately so many of the best thinkers are standing down in May, and I fear the new cohort will bring this distorted 'progressive' thinking with them. This issue isnt going away, nor its loudest proponents.
Excellent comment. I am trying to remember the film where people went on a carousel at a 'certain age' and then ..'supposedly.'.went on to the 'happy land' but in fact were turned into soylent green bikkies..am I right?Their leaders of course lived out their lives not letting the daft citizens know what was happening. The message I took was ..don't trust your leaders. I don't want anyone sick or disabled to feel they are a burden and should put themselves up for annihilation..'encouraged' sometimes by those around them. Love and cherish them..protect them from those who would eradicate them. They are our clan...let no-one do them harm.
For OUR Scotland and ALL her weans.
Robin McAlpine is pretty scathing about how the whole process has been handled.
"The Scottish Parliament is failing and needs major reform. "
https://robinmcalpine.org/assisted-dying-vote-shows-scottish-parliament-is-failing/
IIRC Catherine that film was 'Logans run'.
And Anne makes an excellent point.
If we had a functional parliament and politicians that were fighting for independence then it ought to have been an easy matter to agree that where we are at right now is not the right place to be considering introducing state sponsored death _from_.
Since it emerged from the debate process that approximately 18,000 people a year are NOT currently receiving the end of life CARE that they NEED, and that there is no prospect of at least an additional 500 million pounds per year being available to spend to begin to address this situation, then what we need to do to fix this pressing problem is to not be forced into the position that we are currently in by Westminster policy decisions.
We need to ring our own till, and spend our own money.
This situation will never be addressed under devolution.
We need Independence.
With Independence and a powerful empowered Scottish Parliament this lack of attention to this serious issue could be largely addressed in one electoral cycle.
Even the deal breaking issue that we allegedly have to get Westminster to provide our healthcare professionals with a reasonable conscientious objectors opt out and protections should be a signal that we need to break free from that level of stifling control.
I despair at the lack of vigour among the political class.
Your most important sentence.....'we need independence'..
Why?
We have a 'leader 'who today said it is not ' legal 'for us to stop the foreign english from allowing another foreign nation to use our airports.
We have an Iranian spokesman saying today that allowing american planes to use UK airports to attack Iran will be considered an aggressive attack on them...
So it is legal for a foreign englishman to put Scotland and her people in harm's way..? Somebody should point that out to swinney who does not want his son to go to Auld Firm football matches....I would guess an Iranian missile coming at you would be a lot more drastic than a gemme o' footie in Glesga.....but I may be wrong....
Thank you for Logans Run...I was stuck at green soylent bikkies!
For OUR Scotland and her weans on the front line.
Why isnt JS invoking Scots and International law? "I was just doing my job" was never a defence for complicity in genocide and war crimes.
Its astonishing msps from healthcare and other regulated professions supported a bill which left no say for them, and no parliamentary scrutiny, over professional standing under the new law.
Regulation to protect the public and those professions from megalomaniacs, monsters and incompetents in order to uphold trust, without which our health service crumbles.
So likewise we are content to hand over our constitutional future to the avaricious, duplicitous captors we already know are not to be trusted?
It's not astonishing Anne...they live in Zombie land...aka Holyrood
And as you know doctors and 'experts' are infallible....Shipman comes to mind....
For OUR Scotland and her great weans.
Not sure what land Dr Sandesh Gulhane msp lives in - if its the same land the rest of us inhabit we can rest assured there's nothing to worry our silly heids about. According to the good doctor, we "control all aspects of our lives". Either he's been munching on the other side of the mushroom*, or he's been dishing out massive quantities of blue pills** ..... *Alice in Wonderland,
**The Matrix