Addressing workers at Nigg Bay on the Cromarty Firth in July 2013, First Minister Alex Salmond spoke of the six unions that “govern our lives today in Scotland”.
This is the sort of thing that should be discussed. What was good and what was bad about the Indy Ref campaign. 6 Unions was bloody stupid and I posted the same below the line on the Herald, particularly on Sundays. The SNP should have had an open forum on that - instead all they had for members (I was one for 3 years from 2014) was "policy" forums. So that members could debate what the fucking price of a dog licence should be and the fine for hunting foxes. Big deal. Earth shattering in fact!
Salmond was trying to make Independence look easy, not frightening. Going on about 5 continuing unions was not the way to do it. As the undecided and soft noes told me. "What's the point of Independence then?" They had more guts than us but found the whole thing unconvincing.
Both Alex Salmond AND Nicola Sturgeon represented Scotland.
Alex showed us what we CAN be, and to a fair degree, how to get there (including the personal cost of that).
Nicola on the other hand personified Scotland. The political cowardice, the colonised mind, the collusion with what we wish to escape, in return for personal gain, personal safety, personal protection from accountability. She showed us what we ARE, and how far we have to travel.
Richard Murphy is right. I think starting point has to be a widespread recognition of our current condition.
I'd say it was precisely that hard-headed pragmatism which led to the earlier comments you disagree with.
Independence with 5 unions retained was not viewed as an end in itself precisely BECAUSE Independence IS morally an end in itself. The intention surely that just as he viewed devolution aa worth pursuing to whet the appetite for exit from political union, so that exit could boost confidence and whet appetites for exit from financial union, for renegotiating our relations with European countries or defence partners, for debating whether to be a republic or a monarchy.
His aim was to make Independence achievable, by breaking that confrontation into smaller, individually achievable parts or stages. Fully aware that blind complacency such as what we see at present, could halt or reverse progress at any stage.
The real politick, is that a world of 8 billion makes unchallenged, splendid isolationist autonomy of 5.5 million even more ludicrously impossible than the UK delusion of the same. Our resources themselves, mean that we won't be 'left to our own devices'.
Therefore at every stages of our decolonisation we require allies (such as the other devolved nations, at this stage). And it is very difficult to build equitable alliances with other nations from a position of several de-unioning stages behind them.
And yes, as far as I know, ALBA's intention within Holyrood would be exactly that mobilisation to a referendum on who/where holds authority to decide Independence.
During the 1990s some supporters of devolution believed it would end independence. Some supporters of devolution believed it would lead to independence.
I entirely, 100%, believed devolution would end independence. I was right.
I voted No to devolution.
It astounds me that anyone might think a devolved parliament could or should make a decision on defence, or even be consulted. It's a devolved parliament. You can't decide it's more than that because you want it to be more. That, to some extent, is the mistake we've been making for over 25 years.
For more than a decade our grand mistake, devolution, has been more obvious than ever. Yet some continue to cling to the notion that devolution is the path to independence. It's not. It never was. It never will be.
Until we grasp the fact that devolution does not and will not lead to independence, we will be stuck with devolution.
We need to accept reality. We must accept that Holyrood is a devolved parliament and all our MSPs are devolved politicians. They are on the payroll of the British state. They are not independent, and the idea that they might actually support independence is fanciful. The idea that they can deliver independence is even more fanciful. Even if you think that one day we might vote for devolved MSPs who don't support devolution, the idea that they can deliver independence through a devolved parliament is laughable.
We need to end the SNP. For me, it's always been a joke. Alex Salmond had a devolutionist, Nicola Sturgeon, as his deputy. Read her book, she admits that she's a devolutionist. John Swinney is too, whether he admits it or not, it's obvious. Swinney is a devolutionist.
The SNP was an independence party lead by an independence supporter, Alex Salmond, but supported by devolutionists like Nicola Sturgeon, his deputy leader, a self-confessed devolutionist.
Unfortunately, it'll take a long time to end the SNP. It's no longer an independence party lead by an independence supporter. It's now only pretending to support independence. More accurately, it's a party supporting devolution. Nicola Sturgeon is a self-confessed devolutionist. John Swinney is clearly a devolutionist.
In the future we'll adopt a dual twofold approach: firstly, there'll be an organisation designed to deliver independence, and secondly, there'll be a parliamentary organisation with MPs, MSPs, councillors, etc., who support independence.
Devolution was self-evidently not a mistake. You need only look at the way the independence movement burgeoned after the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament to see that devolution had a positive effect. Your decidedly shallow argument holds that because devolution is bad now, it must always have been bad. That is just plain stupid. The context at the time devolution was introduced was markedly different from the context a quarter of a century later.
The mistake was not accepting devolution. The mistake was allowing devolution to persist long after its usefulness to Scotland's cause was over because its usefulness to politicians and political parties continued.
With hindsight, we might be able to identify a number of points at which it might be argued devolution should have been abandoned in favour of a direct drive for independence. Most of these points can only be identified with hindsight, and so should not be considered relevant. Of the others, by far the most obvious breaking point was in the immediate aftermath of the 2014 referendum.
That point is notable not only for the potential it had to initiate the process of restoring Scotland's independence, but also for the fact that the potential was plainly evident at the time.
Looking back, I can easily imagine an alternative history in which the momentum of Scotland's independence movement in 2015 was not squandered. In that history, Scotland's independence would have been restored by 2021.
Looking back even further, I find it impossible to imagine a scenario in which independence might happen absent devolution. Devolution was the only way forward then. And it did take Scotland's cause forward. That this progress stalled is not the fault of devolution. Culpability for that rests firmly with the politicians, parties, and 'leading figures' who found in the combination of devolution and the independence industry a system that worked to their benefit.
Denouncing devolution is, in any case, just about the most pointless exercise imaginable. It happened! It is the reality with which we must deal. It is utterly futile to argue that we made the wrong choice because we are never going to have that choice again. Any lessons that might be learned from that choice are redundant, as there will never again be a situation in which we are offered devolution as an option for change.
We are where we are. The first step in formulating a strategy for the restoration of Scotland's independence is to establish, as precisely as possible, the starting point for that process. Our cause is not helped at all by wishful thinking about that starting point. We can only build on the ground we occupy, using the tools and materials at our disposal. The Scottish Parliament has a vital role to play in restoring Scotland's independence. As do the nominally pro-independence politicians and parties. The fact that they are not presently fulfilling that role does not mean they can be dispensed with. We cannot magically produce a whole new democratic infrastructure. We can only require the existing infrastructure to do as we bid.
Unfortunately, the independence movement has chosen not to make use of the tools and materials that are at hand. Most have taken Alex Salmond's talk of a beautiful dream too literally. They find gratification in glorifying the dream and have lost sight of the other side of Alex Salmond. The side that was not satisfied with a dream. The hard-headed, pragmatic side which always sought the practical means by which the dream might be realised.
Salmond left the beautiful dream as his legacy. He would be appalled if anyone considered it the whole of that legacy. In his heyday, Salmond was a consummate political strategist. A political manipulator par excellence. We seem, as a movement, to have lost sight of that aspect of the man. That's a pity. Because there is much to be learned from him.
I'm not arguing that the Scottish parliament can be erased (nor time travel invented). I'm saying we need to appreciate that devolution was a mistake. That having a now confirmed devolutionist, Nicola Sturgeon, as Alex Salmond's deputy and successor was a mistake. I heard Alex say it was a mistake, the biggest mistake of his career, at an Alba gathering.
Alex didn't even acknowledge John Swinney. The look on his face said it all. Swinney is more of a devout devolutionist than Nicola Sturgeon.
Unfortunately, Alex Salmond was too late in realising the mistake he made trusting Nicola Sturgeon. The most recent poll I've seen says that 34% of voters intend to make the mistake of trusting John Swinney.
That will end in disaster.
I've never supported the SNP. Not even when Alex Salmond was leader. I knew he had the traitorous Nicola Sturgeon as his deputy. I knew she was an ally of John Swinney, another traitor. It was obvious. I could easily name half a dozen other traitorous goons who claim that they support independence. The SNP is full of them.
The way forward is to accept that devolution was a mistake, to recognise that the SNP is full of devolutionists, to acknowledge the limits of our devolved parliament, and to start a new twofold organisation; firstly, featuring an organisation beyond the political structure, and secondly, a political arm featuring MPs, MSPs, councillors, etc.
The order of these two groups is essential. The first group is the senior strategists, with a mass membership. The second group is the politicians.
We should actively seek confrontation... And execute it. Confrontation from the Scottish Parliament would be a very sound place to start. The Scottish Parliament should aggregate power to itself and thus challenge or confront Westminster or in effect England. That confrontation would have a moral right. There are many areas in the Scotland act that we could take control from Westminster and see what they do, but follow through in any resistance from Westminster or the supreme court. Losing to the supreme court only means that the people of Scotland see it as a colonial institution with no right to decide on the powers that Scottish Parliament should have
One mistake we often make in, rightly, following a path of non-violence ourselves, is to assume that Independence will be achieved without casualties. Regretably an entity willing to colonise by force and threat of force has few scruples.
You are certainly correct about the importance of the Scottish Parliament. Any process leading to a proper constitutional referendum has to run through an institution with democratic legitimacy and the power to make laws. That is the Scottish Parliament. Or rather, it would be the Scottish Parliament if only it cast off the chains of devolution. #ScottishUDI showed how this could be done. But it is probably too late now.
See this is why I keep reading your posts, why I joined your New Scotland Party & signed your Manifesto for Independence, Sadly neither of which gathered much enthusiasm... You KNOW what needs to be done, & maybe you are right, nobody today seems to think as you do or maybe just don't listen.. I do.
But what do we do Peter? I want to be able to vote for someone this time around, and there are some good people putting themselves forward to TRY, surely as things stand and we now know Scotland is run and controlled by the English Parliament, someone has to TRY.. Colette Walker was in my mind a BRAVE woman she she formed her own party the ISP..
She also challenged the SNP in By-elections, unlike anyone in the ALBA Party at the time. She TRIED & lost but is willing to keep TRYING at a cost to her..I admire her for that..
The I4I's in Liberate Scotland are also willing to try, & as much as you do not like some of them in LS, if THEY are willing to TRY, then they deserve our vote. Or we just stay home & do NOT vote... Because for me and my very large family, the Rocks will melt with the sun before we would ever give another vote to the SNP...
Somebody has to TRY surely, if we are to ever remove the rot that is the SNP today, led once again by the biggest tosser in 2003 who almost ruined the party back then..And has done NOTHING good at all this time around either...
Most of the people throwing their hats in the rink, are EX SNP members, also hard working activists, disgusted by the SNP today, and disgusted by ALBA whom they thought would be better..
Like them, I joined ALBA as a founding member, it took only the first Conference for me to realise what YOU have now realised in your post today.. ALEX for me, is still the greatest leader we have had ( even in the UK he was better than any PM) after 7 yrs out of politics and seeing how the SNP were now being run, he formed his own Party, & I believed he would have learned from his MISTAKES of 2014 Because there WERE mistakes made.....
That UNIONS debate was one of them, so was the vote being open to EVERYONE living here, yet NO Scot living abroad was entitle to vote on their HOME country..
When it came to a WM vote on BREXIT they did not allow any of the EUROPEANS living in the UK to vote..WONDER WHY? NO other country allows people who have just moved to their country to vote on such a big ticket issue, yes they can & should vote in local elections or referendums that are to deal with local issues.. BUT not in the SOVEREIGNTY of that country...
During his ALBA leadership speech he made it clear he would use the SAME FRANCHISE again.. That meant he too was going to be ASKING WM for a Sec30, he never said what he would do if he was turned down.. But on reading what he did say about those UNIONS.. It is obvious what Alex really wanted was for Scotland to have MORE say in this country & MORE control.. He did not want to fall out with the LONDON Parliament.
Nor would he have done what LS have pledged to do, which is to NEVER take up a seat in WM (If they ever won a seat)
So they may not have the experience of Salmond, but they I do believe have NO WM friendships to lose, & are willing to put up a stronger fight, as you have so often said yourself Peter, Independence is NOT Given it HAS to be taken... And I honestly believe (just as I once did in Alex) that they are not doing this just to sit in a Parliament that has NO real power and will be closed down when Farage gets in..They know this and they are still willing to fight against it, more than Swiney or any of his cult are willing to do...
WE always had a saying in our household when growing up, you can't fault a TRIER for TRYING.... I concur on that, & if we have NO triers, then we do not deserve any better than we get now with the worse SCOTTISH Party in charge today.. INDEPENDENCE NOTHING LESS is LS Motto... Sounds good to me...
I would normally agree that anyone at least trying to progress Scotland's cause deserves our support. But we are too far down the road to be investing in mere tryers with no hope of having any effect. We are at a point where we should be investing in politicians and parties with a clear and credible strategy for restoring independence AND a realistic possibility of being able to implement that plan.
It should have been the SNP, of course. So long as the SNP is the dominant force in Scottish politics, only they have the ability to implement a strategy that would take us to independence by way of a proper constitutional referendum. But the SNP has been captured by a self-serving clique which will not do what is required.
As there was no way to beat the SNP in the coming electoral contest, the priority of the independence movement should have been to force the SNP to return to being the party of independence. Only the independence movement has the necessary strength to force a reframing of the constitutional issue. Instead, the independence movement has put the bulk of its energies into a long list of projects and initiatives which never had any hope of success.
It is almost certainly too late now to turn things around. There is no win for Scotland's cause in the 2026 Scottish general election. Not the least of the reasons for that is the independence movement looking to magical solutions rather than giving hard-headed political pragmatism a chance.
Vote however you please. Just know that there is no way to make your vote effective in striking a blow for Scotland's liberation. Know also that it is the nominally pro-independence politicians and the independence movement as a whole who have rendered your vote useless.
I can't say I disagree with you Peter, wish I could.. But if SCOTLANDS Indy movement cannot find a LEADER willing to form a party as Sinn Fein did and replace the SNP overnight. then all we can hope for is that some of the TRYERS get elected and can argue against the SNP's stupid bills/polices..
I agree with you 100%, Kate. The TRIERS deserve our support because they know that Scotland needs independence in order to thrive and that nothing less than independence is acceptable. Peter has the best ideas that I have ever heard but unfortunately he is not willing to co-operate with others to try to have them adopted by the wider independence movement. I hope I have a TRIER to vote for in May.
It's not up to me to "co-operate with others". If as you say, I have the best ideas, the onus is on others to pick up on those ideas and run with them. These others have refused to do this. None of them have embraced the ideas. Those who have even discussed embracing them want me to change the ideas as a quid pro quo. But then they would cease to be the best ideas.
None of these tryers are going to get elected. Not according to the best information available. And even if they did, they would be totally ineffectual. They'd seldom get to speak, and nothing they said would have any impact or effect. For the most part, their words would not even be reported.
Like it or not, nothing happens without the SNP on board. Those who cannot live with this reality cannot serve Scotland's cause.
That's not how things work, Peter. Unless you have a good relationship with other people they won't be motivated to "pick up on those ideas and run with them."
I have a TRIER for the first time since I left the SNP in 2017, after 53yrs of voting for them..I just hope we can get her elected, even on the list, she was a hard working activist ex SNP of course, all the true Independistas are of course EX SNP..
Excellent post from Peter and letter from James Murphy. This disrespect for Scots law and its jurisdiction over our territorial waters should be used as yet more ammunition for our delegates to the UN concerning our non-self-governing status, along with our appeal against 'UK laws' of terrorism b eing applied to Scots without our consent.
We must use every opportunity to demonstrate how we are constrained by the false Union.
We know that Swinney doesn't have the guts or the guile for what's needed. Kenny MacAskill, meanwhile, has a completely closed mind to new approaches. They defer to the authority of Westminster and the British state as their thinking has not evolved since 2014.
Unlike Alex Salmond. As you say, he was pragmatic ... and adaptable. His thinking did seem to have moved on by the time of his death, even if perhaps he had hadn't (yet) reached the same place as the 'new thinkers'.
Towards the end of his letter James Murphy issues a three-part warning:
"The danger for the independence movement is not Westminster’s clarity, but Scotland’s refusal to take that clarity seriously."
Spot on. The British state does not cede power voluntarily. Just ask the Kenyans, Irish, Indians, Americans etc.
"The choice is now unavoidable: either Scotland prepares for a political confrontation over authority – not another legal appeal, not another polite request – or it accepts devolution as a permanent condition."
For our 'pro-Independence' political leaders it's time to put up or shut up.
"These letters were not humiliating because they were rude. They were humiliating because they were honest."
The British only treat beggars with contempt. It is a contempt that our would-be political freedom fighters deserve. But only for their own part and not in our name.
A brilliant piece of writing Peter...'the union makes Scotland less than it might be....our ambition is to repossess the status, authority and responsibilities that are rightfully ours.'.(ref Peter A Bell)Spot on . Now here's my take..I fell off a wall aged 7 landing on my heid. I stood up eventually and knew 2 things.
1. What it's like to be deid..told dad...he nodded sagely...went back to his newspaper
2. We had to get rid if the new so called 'queen' then Scotland could be free..told dad.. he went back to his newspaper ..
We were given a tin of sweets and a penny for the coronation...refused them.
I need no reason to TAKE freedom and would advocate violence towards anyone standing in Scotland's way. Nothing else will get us free..no' gentlemanly agreements'..we are being erased...
300years of invasion, abuse, theft, cultural oblivion, insults.... Tell me that it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS when foreigners use our country to attack others with the permission having been granted by the foreign english sh*te should be the reason for Scotland to finally turn viciously on those who would insult and make us look a laughing stock on the world stage..
Meanwhile holy willie wants to go and ask the foreign english sh*te if we can please have a referendum! If you are still not sure about how to achieve independence or want to chat inanely with the foreigners who own our country..hoping they'll give it back.... go and jump off a wall ..land on your heid and knock some sense into yourself...it will be a revelation.
And no I won't tell you what it's like tae be deid..you'll find out soon enough...
For OUR Scotland..OUR Scotland..OUR Scotland...got it?
Very good summing up of where we are. I saw James Murphy's letter too, and thought it was spot on. As time goes on, and the revelations about what has gone on pile up, I am more and more amazed at how naive I was back in the day.
Aye, Julian. We thought ourselves politically aware. We really understood too little. Now that we have a deeper understanding, the problem is how to give it effect.
Spot on Peter, the people's awareness remains quite 'rudimentary', which accords with the decolonization process, if we follow Frantz Fanon's analysis of the colonial condition.
This is because nobody had yet (pre-2021) undertaken 'a reasoned study of colonial society' in Scotland; hence nobody even knew what independence meant - decolonization - or why - liberation from oppression. Many still don't know.
This is where your 'New Thinking' joined most of the dots.
And it is primarily our colonial reality that must still be unveiled and understood:
Fanon describes independence as 'a fight for a national culture', and wider postcolonial theory also emphasizes the importance of culture in the context of decolonization and national liberation.
The 'self-recovery' of a colonized people requires them to discard the very culture that dominates them and to reclaim thair ain cultur an langage, and their identity with it.
The colonial hoax is as much cultural as anything else (and a worthless treaty charade), making the colonized assume another identity, in our case 'British', which basically means English.
An English Crown (forces) is a key part of the culture of domination, as is language, beliefs, imposed heritage, re-written history, an Anglo cultural hegemony, and of course the cultural values of the oppressor which includes 'the crushing of the colonized' (Memmi).
Of course, the ignorant dominant national party elite understand none of this, nor do they appreciate that 'colonialism is based on psychology' (Cesaire):
To me the devolution of education was a missed opportunity to make Scottish Studies, comprising all of those colonised areas, a compulsory school subject. Imagine the difference 18 years later if all residents aged 18-23 had had even an hour a week devoted to that for 13 years. No 'indoctrination', simply facts. Actually reading the Treaty Of Union alone would be enough to open a few eyes.
I think describing the coloniser as the English Crown allows us to explain further what we mean and also explain that the Scottish Crown is a very different beast.
This is the sort of thing that should be discussed. What was good and what was bad about the Indy Ref campaign. 6 Unions was bloody stupid and I posted the same below the line on the Herald, particularly on Sundays. The SNP should have had an open forum on that - instead all they had for members (I was one for 3 years from 2014) was "policy" forums. So that members could debate what the fucking price of a dog licence should be and the fine for hunting foxes. Big deal. Earth shattering in fact!
Salmond was trying to make Independence look easy, not frightening. Going on about 5 continuing unions was not the way to do it. As the undecided and soft noes told me. "What's the point of Independence then?" They had more guts than us but found the whole thing unconvincing.
Both Alex Salmond AND Nicola Sturgeon represented Scotland.
Alex showed us what we CAN be, and to a fair degree, how to get there (including the personal cost of that).
Nicola on the other hand personified Scotland. The political cowardice, the colonised mind, the collusion with what we wish to escape, in return for personal gain, personal safety, personal protection from accountability. She showed us what we ARE, and how far we have to travel.
Richard Murphy is right. I think starting point has to be a widespread recognition of our current condition.
I'd say it was precisely that hard-headed pragmatism which led to the earlier comments you disagree with.
Independence with 5 unions retained was not viewed as an end in itself precisely BECAUSE Independence IS morally an end in itself. The intention surely that just as he viewed devolution aa worth pursuing to whet the appetite for exit from political union, so that exit could boost confidence and whet appetites for exit from financial union, for renegotiating our relations with European countries or defence partners, for debating whether to be a republic or a monarchy.
His aim was to make Independence achievable, by breaking that confrontation into smaller, individually achievable parts or stages. Fully aware that blind complacency such as what we see at present, could halt or reverse progress at any stage.
The real politick, is that a world of 8 billion makes unchallenged, splendid isolationist autonomy of 5.5 million even more ludicrously impossible than the UK delusion of the same. Our resources themselves, mean that we won't be 'left to our own devices'.
Therefore at every stages of our decolonisation we require allies (such as the other devolved nations, at this stage). And it is very difficult to build equitable alliances with other nations from a position of several de-unioning stages behind them.
And yes, as far as I know, ALBA's intention within Holyrood would be exactly that mobilisation to a referendum on who/where holds authority to decide Independence.
During the 1990s some supporters of devolution believed it would end independence. Some supporters of devolution believed it would lead to independence.
I entirely, 100%, believed devolution would end independence. I was right.
I voted No to devolution.
It astounds me that anyone might think a devolved parliament could or should make a decision on defence, or even be consulted. It's a devolved parliament. You can't decide it's more than that because you want it to be more. That, to some extent, is the mistake we've been making for over 25 years.
For more than a decade our grand mistake, devolution, has been more obvious than ever. Yet some continue to cling to the notion that devolution is the path to independence. It's not. It never was. It never will be.
Until we grasp the fact that devolution does not and will not lead to independence, we will be stuck with devolution.
We need to accept reality. We must accept that Holyrood is a devolved parliament and all our MSPs are devolved politicians. They are on the payroll of the British state. They are not independent, and the idea that they might actually support independence is fanciful. The idea that they can deliver independence is even more fanciful. Even if you think that one day we might vote for devolved MSPs who don't support devolution, the idea that they can deliver independence through a devolved parliament is laughable.
We need to end the SNP. For me, it's always been a joke. Alex Salmond had a devolutionist, Nicola Sturgeon, as his deputy. Read her book, she admits that she's a devolutionist. John Swinney is too, whether he admits it or not, it's obvious. Swinney is a devolutionist.
The SNP was an independence party lead by an independence supporter, Alex Salmond, but supported by devolutionists like Nicola Sturgeon, his deputy leader, a self-confessed devolutionist.
Unfortunately, it'll take a long time to end the SNP. It's no longer an independence party lead by an independence supporter. It's now only pretending to support independence. More accurately, it's a party supporting devolution. Nicola Sturgeon is a self-confessed devolutionist. John Swinney is clearly a devolutionist.
In the future we'll adopt a dual twofold approach: firstly, there'll be an organisation designed to deliver independence, and secondly, there'll be a parliamentary organisation with MPs, MSPs, councillors, etc., who support independence.
The sooner we end the SNP, the better.
Devolution was self-evidently not a mistake. You need only look at the way the independence movement burgeoned after the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament to see that devolution had a positive effect. Your decidedly shallow argument holds that because devolution is bad now, it must always have been bad. That is just plain stupid. The context at the time devolution was introduced was markedly different from the context a quarter of a century later.
The mistake was not accepting devolution. The mistake was allowing devolution to persist long after its usefulness to Scotland's cause was over because its usefulness to politicians and political parties continued.
With hindsight, we might be able to identify a number of points at which it might be argued devolution should have been abandoned in favour of a direct drive for independence. Most of these points can only be identified with hindsight, and so should not be considered relevant. Of the others, by far the most obvious breaking point was in the immediate aftermath of the 2014 referendum.
That point is notable not only for the potential it had to initiate the process of restoring Scotland's independence, but also for the fact that the potential was plainly evident at the time.
Looking back, I can easily imagine an alternative history in which the momentum of Scotland's independence movement in 2015 was not squandered. In that history, Scotland's independence would have been restored by 2021.
Looking back even further, I find it impossible to imagine a scenario in which independence might happen absent devolution. Devolution was the only way forward then. And it did take Scotland's cause forward. That this progress stalled is not the fault of devolution. Culpability for that rests firmly with the politicians, parties, and 'leading figures' who found in the combination of devolution and the independence industry a system that worked to their benefit.
Denouncing devolution is, in any case, just about the most pointless exercise imaginable. It happened! It is the reality with which we must deal. It is utterly futile to argue that we made the wrong choice because we are never going to have that choice again. Any lessons that might be learned from that choice are redundant, as there will never again be a situation in which we are offered devolution as an option for change.
We are where we are. The first step in formulating a strategy for the restoration of Scotland's independence is to establish, as precisely as possible, the starting point for that process. Our cause is not helped at all by wishful thinking about that starting point. We can only build on the ground we occupy, using the tools and materials at our disposal. The Scottish Parliament has a vital role to play in restoring Scotland's independence. As do the nominally pro-independence politicians and parties. The fact that they are not presently fulfilling that role does not mean they can be dispensed with. We cannot magically produce a whole new democratic infrastructure. We can only require the existing infrastructure to do as we bid.
Unfortunately, the independence movement has chosen not to make use of the tools and materials that are at hand. Most have taken Alex Salmond's talk of a beautiful dream too literally. They find gratification in glorifying the dream and have lost sight of the other side of Alex Salmond. The side that was not satisfied with a dream. The hard-headed, pragmatic side which always sought the practical means by which the dream might be realised.
Salmond left the beautiful dream as his legacy. He would be appalled if anyone considered it the whole of that legacy. In his heyday, Salmond was a consummate political strategist. A political manipulator par excellence. We seem, as a movement, to have lost sight of that aspect of the man. That's a pity. Because there is much to be learned from him.
I'm not arguing that the Scottish parliament can be erased (nor time travel invented). I'm saying we need to appreciate that devolution was a mistake. That having a now confirmed devolutionist, Nicola Sturgeon, as Alex Salmond's deputy and successor was a mistake. I heard Alex say it was a mistake, the biggest mistake of his career, at an Alba gathering.
Alex didn't even acknowledge John Swinney. The look on his face said it all. Swinney is more of a devout devolutionist than Nicola Sturgeon.
Unfortunately, Alex Salmond was too late in realising the mistake he made trusting Nicola Sturgeon. The most recent poll I've seen says that 34% of voters intend to make the mistake of trusting John Swinney.
That will end in disaster.
I've never supported the SNP. Not even when Alex Salmond was leader. I knew he had the traitorous Nicola Sturgeon as his deputy. I knew she was an ally of John Swinney, another traitor. It was obvious. I could easily name half a dozen other traitorous goons who claim that they support independence. The SNP is full of them.
The way forward is to accept that devolution was a mistake, to recognise that the SNP is full of devolutionists, to acknowledge the limits of our devolved parliament, and to start a new twofold organisation; firstly, featuring an organisation beyond the political structure, and secondly, a political arm featuring MPs, MSPs, councillors, etc.
The order of these two groups is essential. The first group is the senior strategists, with a mass membership. The second group is the politicians.
Yes.
We should actively seek confrontation... And execute it. Confrontation from the Scottish Parliament would be a very sound place to start. The Scottish Parliament should aggregate power to itself and thus challenge or confront Westminster or in effect England. That confrontation would have a moral right. There are many areas in the Scotland act that we could take control from Westminster and see what they do, but follow through in any resistance from Westminster or the supreme court. Losing to the supreme court only means that the people of Scotland see it as a colonial institution with no right to decide on the powers that Scottish Parliament should have
One mistake we often make in, rightly, following a path of non-violence ourselves, is to assume that Independence will be achieved without casualties. Regretably an entity willing to colonise by force and threat of force has few scruples.
You are certainly correct about the importance of the Scottish Parliament. Any process leading to a proper constitutional referendum has to run through an institution with democratic legitimacy and the power to make laws. That is the Scottish Parliament. Or rather, it would be the Scottish Parliament if only it cast off the chains of devolution. #ScottishUDI showed how this could be done. But it is probably too late now.
See this is why I keep reading your posts, why I joined your New Scotland Party & signed your Manifesto for Independence, Sadly neither of which gathered much enthusiasm... You KNOW what needs to be done, & maybe you are right, nobody today seems to think as you do or maybe just don't listen.. I do.
But what do we do Peter? I want to be able to vote for someone this time around, and there are some good people putting themselves forward to TRY, surely as things stand and we now know Scotland is run and controlled by the English Parliament, someone has to TRY.. Colette Walker was in my mind a BRAVE woman she she formed her own party the ISP..
She also challenged the SNP in By-elections, unlike anyone in the ALBA Party at the time. She TRIED & lost but is willing to keep TRYING at a cost to her..I admire her for that..
The I4I's in Liberate Scotland are also willing to try, & as much as you do not like some of them in LS, if THEY are willing to TRY, then they deserve our vote. Or we just stay home & do NOT vote... Because for me and my very large family, the Rocks will melt with the sun before we would ever give another vote to the SNP...
Somebody has to TRY surely, if we are to ever remove the rot that is the SNP today, led once again by the biggest tosser in 2003 who almost ruined the party back then..And has done NOTHING good at all this time around either...
Most of the people throwing their hats in the rink, are EX SNP members, also hard working activists, disgusted by the SNP today, and disgusted by ALBA whom they thought would be better..
Like them, I joined ALBA as a founding member, it took only the first Conference for me to realise what YOU have now realised in your post today.. ALEX for me, is still the greatest leader we have had ( even in the UK he was better than any PM) after 7 yrs out of politics and seeing how the SNP were now being run, he formed his own Party, & I believed he would have learned from his MISTAKES of 2014 Because there WERE mistakes made.....
That UNIONS debate was one of them, so was the vote being open to EVERYONE living here, yet NO Scot living abroad was entitle to vote on their HOME country..
When it came to a WM vote on BREXIT they did not allow any of the EUROPEANS living in the UK to vote..WONDER WHY? NO other country allows people who have just moved to their country to vote on such a big ticket issue, yes they can & should vote in local elections or referendums that are to deal with local issues.. BUT not in the SOVEREIGNTY of that country...
During his ALBA leadership speech he made it clear he would use the SAME FRANCHISE again.. That meant he too was going to be ASKING WM for a Sec30, he never said what he would do if he was turned down.. But on reading what he did say about those UNIONS.. It is obvious what Alex really wanted was for Scotland to have MORE say in this country & MORE control.. He did not want to fall out with the LONDON Parliament.
Nor would he have done what LS have pledged to do, which is to NEVER take up a seat in WM (If they ever won a seat)
So they may not have the experience of Salmond, but they I do believe have NO WM friendships to lose, & are willing to put up a stronger fight, as you have so often said yourself Peter, Independence is NOT Given it HAS to be taken... And I honestly believe (just as I once did in Alex) that they are not doing this just to sit in a Parliament that has NO real power and will be closed down when Farage gets in..They know this and they are still willing to fight against it, more than Swiney or any of his cult are willing to do...
WE always had a saying in our household when growing up, you can't fault a TRIER for TRYING.... I concur on that, & if we have NO triers, then we do not deserve any better than we get now with the worse SCOTTISH Party in charge today.. INDEPENDENCE NOTHING LESS is LS Motto... Sounds good to me...
I would normally agree that anyone at least trying to progress Scotland's cause deserves our support. But we are too far down the road to be investing in mere tryers with no hope of having any effect. We are at a point where we should be investing in politicians and parties with a clear and credible strategy for restoring independence AND a realistic possibility of being able to implement that plan.
It should have been the SNP, of course. So long as the SNP is the dominant force in Scottish politics, only they have the ability to implement a strategy that would take us to independence by way of a proper constitutional referendum. But the SNP has been captured by a self-serving clique which will not do what is required.
As there was no way to beat the SNP in the coming electoral contest, the priority of the independence movement should have been to force the SNP to return to being the party of independence. Only the independence movement has the necessary strength to force a reframing of the constitutional issue. Instead, the independence movement has put the bulk of its energies into a long list of projects and initiatives which never had any hope of success.
It is almost certainly too late now to turn things around. There is no win for Scotland's cause in the 2026 Scottish general election. Not the least of the reasons for that is the independence movement looking to magical solutions rather than giving hard-headed political pragmatism a chance.
Vote however you please. Just know that there is no way to make your vote effective in striking a blow for Scotland's liberation. Know also that it is the nominally pro-independence politicians and the independence movement as a whole who have rendered your vote useless.
I can't say I disagree with you Peter, wish I could.. But if SCOTLANDS Indy movement cannot find a LEADER willing to form a party as Sinn Fein did and replace the SNP overnight. then all we can hope for is that some of the TRYERS get elected and can argue against the SNP's stupid bills/polices..
I agree with you 100%, Kate. The TRIERS deserve our support because they know that Scotland needs independence in order to thrive and that nothing less than independence is acceptable. Peter has the best ideas that I have ever heard but unfortunately he is not willing to co-operate with others to try to have them adopted by the wider independence movement. I hope I have a TRIER to vote for in May.
It's not up to me to "co-operate with others". If as you say, I have the best ideas, the onus is on others to pick up on those ideas and run with them. These others have refused to do this. None of them have embraced the ideas. Those who have even discussed embracing them want me to change the ideas as a quid pro quo. But then they would cease to be the best ideas.
None of these tryers are going to get elected. Not according to the best information available. And even if they did, they would be totally ineffectual. They'd seldom get to speak, and nothing they said would have any impact or effect. For the most part, their words would not even be reported.
Like it or not, nothing happens without the SNP on board. Those who cannot live with this reality cannot serve Scotland's cause.
That's not how things work, Peter. Unless you have a good relationship with other people they won't be motivated to "pick up on those ideas and run with them."
I have a TRIER for the first time since I left the SNP in 2017, after 53yrs of voting for them..I just hope we can get her elected, even on the list, she was a hard working activist ex SNP of course, all the true Independistas are of course EX SNP..
Excellent post from Peter and letter from James Murphy. This disrespect for Scots law and its jurisdiction over our territorial waters should be used as yet more ammunition for our delegates to the UN concerning our non-self-governing status, along with our appeal against 'UK laws' of terrorism b eing applied to Scots without our consent.
We must use every opportunity to demonstrate how we are constrained by the false Union.
It is just a pity that the best opportunity of all - the upcoming election - is being squandered.
We know that Swinney doesn't have the guts or the guile for what's needed. Kenny MacAskill, meanwhile, has a completely closed mind to new approaches. They defer to the authority of Westminster and the British state as their thinking has not evolved since 2014.
Unlike Alex Salmond. As you say, he was pragmatic ... and adaptable. His thinking did seem to have moved on by the time of his death, even if perhaps he had hadn't (yet) reached the same place as the 'new thinkers'.
Towards the end of his letter James Murphy issues a three-part warning:
"The danger for the independence movement is not Westminster’s clarity, but Scotland’s refusal to take that clarity seriously."
Spot on. The British state does not cede power voluntarily. Just ask the Kenyans, Irish, Indians, Americans etc.
"The choice is now unavoidable: either Scotland prepares for a political confrontation over authority – not another legal appeal, not another polite request – or it accepts devolution as a permanent condition."
For our 'pro-Independence' political leaders it's time to put up or shut up.
"These letters were not humiliating because they were rude. They were humiliating because they were honest."
The British only treat beggars with contempt. It is a contempt that our would-be political freedom fighters deserve. But only for their own part and not in our name.
A brilliant piece of writing Peter...'the union makes Scotland less than it might be....our ambition is to repossess the status, authority and responsibilities that are rightfully ours.'.(ref Peter A Bell)Spot on . Now here's my take..I fell off a wall aged 7 landing on my heid. I stood up eventually and knew 2 things.
1. What it's like to be deid..told dad...he nodded sagely...went back to his newspaper
2. We had to get rid if the new so called 'queen' then Scotland could be free..told dad.. he went back to his newspaper ..
We were given a tin of sweets and a penny for the coronation...refused them.
I need no reason to TAKE freedom and would advocate violence towards anyone standing in Scotland's way. Nothing else will get us free..no' gentlemanly agreements'..we are being erased...
300years of invasion, abuse, theft, cultural oblivion, insults.... Tell me that it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS when foreigners use our country to attack others with the permission having been granted by the foreign english sh*te should be the reason for Scotland to finally turn viciously on those who would insult and make us look a laughing stock on the world stage..
Meanwhile holy willie wants to go and ask the foreign english sh*te if we can please have a referendum! If you are still not sure about how to achieve independence or want to chat inanely with the foreigners who own our country..hoping they'll give it back.... go and jump off a wall ..land on your heid and knock some sense into yourself...it will be a revelation.
And no I won't tell you what it's like tae be deid..you'll find out soon enough...
For OUR Scotland..OUR Scotland..OUR Scotland...got it?
Very good summing up of where we are. I saw James Murphy's letter too, and thought it was spot on. As time goes on, and the revelations about what has gone on pile up, I am more and more amazed at how naive I was back in the day.
Aye, Julian. We thought ourselves politically aware. We really understood too little. Now that we have a deeper understanding, the problem is how to give it effect.
"We really understood too little"
Spot on Peter, the people's awareness remains quite 'rudimentary', which accords with the decolonization process, if we follow Frantz Fanon's analysis of the colonial condition.
This is because nobody had yet (pre-2021) undertaken 'a reasoned study of colonial society' in Scotland; hence nobody even knew what independence meant - decolonization - or why - liberation from oppression. Many still don't know.
This is where your 'New Thinking' joined most of the dots.
And it is primarily our colonial reality that must still be unveiled and understood:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/07/18/determinants-of-independence-colonialism/
How do we describe the colonising entity?
'The English' is too broad, my family there are not the colonisers.
'London' same problem.
'Westminster' well no because that also has people who want to end this.
How about The English Crown surely that is the colonising entity?
Fanon describes independence as 'a fight for a national culture', and wider postcolonial theory also emphasizes the importance of culture in the context of decolonization and national liberation.
The 'self-recovery' of a colonized people requires them to discard the very culture that dominates them and to reclaim thair ain cultur an langage, and their identity with it.
The colonial hoax is as much cultural as anything else (and a worthless treaty charade), making the colonized assume another identity, in our case 'British', which basically means English.
An English Crown (forces) is a key part of the culture of domination, as is language, beliefs, imposed heritage, re-written history, an Anglo cultural hegemony, and of course the cultural values of the oppressor which includes 'the crushing of the colonized' (Memmi).
Of course, the ignorant dominant national party elite understand none of this, nor do they appreciate that 'colonialism is based on psychology' (Cesaire):
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/03/the-colonial-mindset/
To me the devolution of education was a missed opportunity to make Scottish Studies, comprising all of those colonised areas, a compulsory school subject. Imagine the difference 18 years later if all residents aged 18-23 had had even an hour a week devoted to that for 13 years. No 'indoctrination', simply facts. Actually reading the Treaty Of Union alone would be enough to open a few eyes.
I think describing the coloniser as the English Crown allows us to explain further what we mean and also explain that the Scottish Crown is a very different beast.