One of the lines being used by those promoting the both-votes-SNP strategy is that we should all resort to this strategy in an effort to secure the overall majority which John Swinney has demanded as a condition for him taking any action on the constitutional issue.
They couldn't really base the election campaign on Swinney's "strategy for independence", could they? I can well understand why they would want to talk about pretty much anything else rather than that.
We're not ready for independence. Around 1997 we confused devolution with the route to independence and we've not recovered.
Nicola Sturgeon gave the game away in her book. She had no idea how to deliver independence, she spent our money on a court case to prove that we have no legal route to independence, and she confirmed that she is a devolutionist.
How anyone can mistake John Swinney for anything other than a criminal, busy covering up past crimes by committing more crime, is absolutely incredible. He's just broken the law again by deliberately failing to comply with freedom of information legislation. How anyone can think he's worth voting for is absolutely amazing.
Even more amazing is that more than 30% of us have spent 11 years supporting the SNP, the party that made the mistake of supporting devolution back in 1997, and the party that attempted to jail Alex Salmond.
Once devolution was installed, how did you, or do you, think we're going to get out of it? Surely, after 11 years, you can see that John Swinney is a devolutionist as Nicola Sturgeon was a devolutionist. Fortunately she has admitted it in her book.
These two and a dozen others conspired against Alex Salmond and now Swinney is desperately trying to avoid even a little of the truth being exposed.
Our Scottish government is breaking the law to prevent a freedom of information request from exposing a tiny fraction of truth. Sturgeon was found guilty by a parliamentary committee but she covered it up hiding the truth and having the Hamilton enquiry report on only a fraction of what happened.
These devious devolutionists are the result of devolution. The failed vote in 2014 was the result of devolution. The fact that we have a devolved government and devolved parliament full of devolutionists... I won't go on.
I thought it would become clear in the course of the first two parliamentary terms that devolution was inadequate. I also saw the possibility of the Scottish Parliament playing a strong psychological role in building support for independence. I was right about both of these things. But considerably more about the latter than the former.
What nobody foresaw back then was the extent to which the SNP changed. With the benefit of hindsight, we can all be clever. It is easy to say now that Sturgeon and Swinney are devolutionists. But if you'd said that in 2000, everybody would have laughed at you.
Admittedly, there were people who were against devolution, for a variety of reasons. I understood those reasons. But I took the view that the advantages and benefits of having the parliament outweighed other considerations. I am still of that opinion. I cannot see how Scotland's cause might have made the progress it did in the first fifteen years of this century had the parliament not existed.
In any case, it is pointless arguing now that devolution was a mistake. We can't alter the past. Sometimes, we can learn valuable lessons from the past. But I don't think this is one of those occasions. What was the alternative? Could there have been an alternative? Once devolution became a real possibility, it had to happen. It was inevitable.
If there is a lesson in this, it is that people need to see a goal is attainable before they will go for it. There was a clear and credible plan for devolution. There is no clear and credible plan for independence.
It wasn't possible to have a clear and credible plan for restoring independence back in the last quarter of the 20th century. The state of our knowledge and understanding was inadequate. Now, it is possible to have that clear and credible plan for restoring independence. But by far the largest part of the independence movement and none of the nominally pro-independence parties seems aware that the lack of such a plan is the crucial difference between the campaign for devolution and the fight to restore Scotland's independence.
I returned home to Scotland in 1995, moving from Lytham to Glasgow. I left behind a career as both an active trade unionist and a full-time official to study psychology at Strathclyde University and I began playing football with the Scottish Militant Labour team. I was never a SML member. I did attend the inaugural meeting to form the Scottish Socialist Party but again I just continued playing fitba' and took a break from politics.
I did subscribe to their newspaper and was surprised to find one morning that they'd turned into Scottish nationalists. I'd represented trade union members across the UK and had staged successful campaigns to save jobs in Edinburgh, Belfast and Manchester.
I say all this because I grew up in a Fife mining village where I can only remember one SNP supporter, a local headmaster. Growing up with my dad on strike in the early 70s, spending 10 years representing trade union members all over the UK and negotiating in London has coloured my view.
I've said all of that to explain why I voted No to devolution in 1997. I'd represented members all over the UK, had held regular negotiations in London and couldn't see how devolution would help any of my members. I used to attend and speak at the TUC conference but even when representing Scottish members the STUC was no use to me. My Scottish members, as with any members, relied on the entire UK membership.
My members in Belfast also relied on support from all the UK membership. We could call on all 8,000 members in the UK to support less than 1,000 members in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I feel the same way towards the Scottish parliament as I felt about the STUC. What's the point of it!?
I say all this to help explain why I see Holyrood as a diversionary tactic used by unionists and devolutionists to distract genuine independence supporters from their just cause.
If someone had said to me that to save jobs in Edinburgh I could only call on support from members in Scotland, I'd have laughed. No sensible campaign would, or should, ever try to persuade a UK government by limiting their support, or by aiming at a limited target.
For me, it's just a matter of common sense.
Sorry to go on, but please let me finish by saying that I support your initiative to use the Scottish parliament as you describe. I assume though that your campaign is now as good as over. Any idea what you might do next?
The SNP NEC are a duplicitous cabal of colonialists loving their gravy train. We dont WANT a "Sec #30" order. We dont NEED a foreign country telling us what to do. I'll repeat. Liberation Scotland offered up the Stirling Directive to Holyrood. Stake your path to freedom upon the Claim of Right. The response? Deafening silence. Like wee kids sucking their thumbs in the playground.
"North Ayrshire Council leader Marie Burns and depute leader Shaun Macaulay have given notice on their resignations. ... Councillor Tony Gurney has taken over as SNP group leader, with councillor Christina Larsen now the depute leader."
but this is of most interest I think:
"... as demonstrated by our latest Audit Commission report that praised NAC as an exemplar for other Scottish authorities ... This endorsement has not been achieved without a collegiate approach across the chamber, and I look forward to meeting with the other leaders to plan the next steps, starting with the budget negotiations."
NAC has changed back and for between Labour and SNP NOC, and there's little difference. I'm lucky to have one of the best councils in Scotland, including their Trading Standards, and I've heard about most from those in their area (I traveled a lot). Holyrood too needs to go back to "a collegiate approach across the chamber", and to be blunt yet again, I think it was Sturgeon who turned it into a constant stairheid rammy. Like she did with her "debate" with Curran.
Holyrood was designed to be collegiate, and rightly so.
Ok I'm back to agreeing with you again Pete. You have hit the nail on the head regarding Swinney's adherence to the Section 30 route. Winning or losing a Section 30 referendum, only gives us what Engerland decides to give us. That could be more devo-max promises that they will ultimately fail to honour, or perhaps hee haw, which is the much more likely outcome under Starmer. I'm still trying to find a meaningful way of voting in May, but presently I can find none.
To summarise, if I may, the potential scenario depicted:
1. Holyrood Election 2026 - majority SNP MSPs returned
2. Requested Section 30 - granted by British Government, subject to agreement of conditions
3. Terms - imposed by British Government and accepted by Scottish Government
4. Campaign - majority Yes outcome
5. Result - ignored by British Government/UK Parliament
An 'adverse' upshot at any one of these stages kills the 'process'.
However, I doubt very much that Swinney and his army of spin doctors will have gamed the process past stage 1 (i.e. where the SNP fail to achieve a majority of MSPs AT HR26, much to the relief of FM and his advisors).
Whit huv ye got agin' the pantomime Peter. Cos as we weel ken this is a pantomime.
Cinderella..that's Scotland ...rollin' aboot in the ashes...we wull be if WWW3 starts on our land.
The Ugly Sisters/Quislings..plenty o' them..let's go fur alexander an jack..if ye can think o' anymore ..ye can fill in the blanks yerself...(gove,anas thingummy,findlay, ruth nobody in ermine, fiona not the bruce..)the list is endless. Tak' yer pick.
Buttons..got tae be swiney....cos that's whit Scotland 's gonny get oot o' this pantomime ...buttons.
An' the rest o' the cast are up at Holyrood.
So wur aw' set fur a great nicht o' entertainment...except you torn face..where's yer joy in life?
So wur gettin ripped aff again...whit's yer problem..we should be used to it...
Of course we could get oot oan the streets an' frighten the sh*t oot o' the comedians that huv been wastin' oor time fur 300 years.
Then when we chase the excrement oot o' Scotland snarling..we're behind yoo!....better run ya b*st*rds....the audience..that'll be the Scottish generations tae come....can applaud us.
Tickets are free...ye just need some guid auld bannockburn steel.
Swinney is nae 'kind and loyal servant' tae Scotland, mair Westminster. Which figures, as he is managing a colonial administration, tho he kids on he disnae ken it.
Uriah Heep comes to mind; antagonist and manipulative, promoted way beyond where he should be, like aw thay ither daeless an ditherin SNP FMs efter Alex Salmond.
How aboot Holy Wullie fur the 'big man'?..as he always seems tae be in the praying mantis position tae the foreign english.(I use the term 'big man' in an ironic sense ye ken)
But I'll gie ye 11 oot o' 10 fur effort Alf.
We jist need a few real Scots wi' backbone an' we can kick the foreign english b*sta*rds oot oor land..snarling...'come back an' we'll gie ye another doin'....then we can fecht amang oorselves in peace. How's that sound?
On a bit of a side note..I see that the leader of 'Scottish' Reform has stated if they come to power 'Scottish independence would be off the table for ten years'. How dare he!!... Trying to steal Swinney's job!
OK. So Swinney goes on and on about a majority for the SNP in the HOLYROOD election will get rid of Starmer of WESTMINSTER.
Flynn pays for a trailer saying "Vote SNP to sack Starmer". Of WESTMINSTER.
And the nett result of that from the Herald is "SNP vote falls in poll as Reform surge ahead of Labour".
https://archive.is/9qjXf
Remember 2024 "Vote SNP to kick the Tories out"? Nothing about Indy? How the SNP lost 38 MPs?
Does anyone in any position of influence in the SNP have a single functioning brain cell?
At this rate the SNP will have just 27 MSPs and not even be the main opposition.
Dickheads. Swinney rating down to 4 out of 10. And dropping.
They couldn't really base the election campaign on Swinney's "strategy for independence", could they? I can well understand why they would want to talk about pretty much anything else rather than that.
Interesting article from Dorcha Lee, a former Irish Defence Forces Provost Marshal and Director of Military Police.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/can-europe-build-a-credible-nuclear-deterrent-without-the-us/
The good thing is that people are thinking about not relying on the USA any more.
We're not ready for independence. Around 1997 we confused devolution with the route to independence and we've not recovered.
Nicola Sturgeon gave the game away in her book. She had no idea how to deliver independence, she spent our money on a court case to prove that we have no legal route to independence, and she confirmed that she is a devolutionist.
How anyone can mistake John Swinney for anything other than a criminal, busy covering up past crimes by committing more crime, is absolutely incredible. He's just broken the law again by deliberately failing to comply with freedom of information legislation. How anyone can think he's worth voting for is absolutely amazing.
Even more amazing is that more than 30% of us have spent 11 years supporting the SNP, the party that made the mistake of supporting devolution back in 1997, and the party that attempted to jail Alex Salmond.
Devolution was not a mistake. The mistake was letting it go on too long.
Once devolution was installed, how did you, or do you, think we're going to get out of it? Surely, after 11 years, you can see that John Swinney is a devolutionist as Nicola Sturgeon was a devolutionist. Fortunately she has admitted it in her book.
These two and a dozen others conspired against Alex Salmond and now Swinney is desperately trying to avoid even a little of the truth being exposed.
Our Scottish government is breaking the law to prevent a freedom of information request from exposing a tiny fraction of truth. Sturgeon was found guilty by a parliamentary committee but she covered it up hiding the truth and having the Hamilton enquiry report on only a fraction of what happened.
These devious devolutionists are the result of devolution. The failed vote in 2014 was the result of devolution. The fact that we have a devolved government and devolved parliament full of devolutionists... I won't go on.
I thought it would become clear in the course of the first two parliamentary terms that devolution was inadequate. I also saw the possibility of the Scottish Parliament playing a strong psychological role in building support for independence. I was right about both of these things. But considerably more about the latter than the former.
What nobody foresaw back then was the extent to which the SNP changed. With the benefit of hindsight, we can all be clever. It is easy to say now that Sturgeon and Swinney are devolutionists. But if you'd said that in 2000, everybody would have laughed at you.
Admittedly, there were people who were against devolution, for a variety of reasons. I understood those reasons. But I took the view that the advantages and benefits of having the parliament outweighed other considerations. I am still of that opinion. I cannot see how Scotland's cause might have made the progress it did in the first fifteen years of this century had the parliament not existed.
In any case, it is pointless arguing now that devolution was a mistake. We can't alter the past. Sometimes, we can learn valuable lessons from the past. But I don't think this is one of those occasions. What was the alternative? Could there have been an alternative? Once devolution became a real possibility, it had to happen. It was inevitable.
If there is a lesson in this, it is that people need to see a goal is attainable before they will go for it. There was a clear and credible plan for devolution. There is no clear and credible plan for independence.
It wasn't possible to have a clear and credible plan for restoring independence back in the last quarter of the 20th century. The state of our knowledge and understanding was inadequate. Now, it is possible to have that clear and credible plan for restoring independence. But by far the largest part of the independence movement and none of the nominally pro-independence parties seems aware that the lack of such a plan is the crucial difference between the campaign for devolution and the fight to restore Scotland's independence.
We must change this before progress can be made.
I returned home to Scotland in 1995, moving from Lytham to Glasgow. I left behind a career as both an active trade unionist and a full-time official to study psychology at Strathclyde University and I began playing football with the Scottish Militant Labour team. I was never a SML member. I did attend the inaugural meeting to form the Scottish Socialist Party but again I just continued playing fitba' and took a break from politics.
I did subscribe to their newspaper and was surprised to find one morning that they'd turned into Scottish nationalists. I'd represented trade union members across the UK and had staged successful campaigns to save jobs in Edinburgh, Belfast and Manchester.
I say all this because I grew up in a Fife mining village where I can only remember one SNP supporter, a local headmaster. Growing up with my dad on strike in the early 70s, spending 10 years representing trade union members all over the UK and negotiating in London has coloured my view.
I've said all of that to explain why I voted No to devolution in 1997. I'd represented members all over the UK, had held regular negotiations in London and couldn't see how devolution would help any of my members. I used to attend and speak at the TUC conference but even when representing Scottish members the STUC was no use to me. My Scottish members, as with any members, relied on the entire UK membership.
My members in Belfast also relied on support from all the UK membership. We could call on all 8,000 members in the UK to support less than 1,000 members in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I feel the same way towards the Scottish parliament as I felt about the STUC. What's the point of it!?
I say all this to help explain why I see Holyrood as a diversionary tactic used by unionists and devolutionists to distract genuine independence supporters from their just cause.
If someone had said to me that to save jobs in Edinburgh I could only call on support from members in Scotland, I'd have laughed. No sensible campaign would, or should, ever try to persuade a UK government by limiting their support, or by aiming at a limited target.
For me, it's just a matter of common sense.
Sorry to go on, but please let me finish by saying that I support your initiative to use the Scottish parliament as you describe. I assume though that your campaign is now as good as over. Any idea what you might do next?
The SNP NEC are a duplicitous cabal of colonialists loving their gravy train. We dont WANT a "Sec #30" order. We dont NEED a foreign country telling us what to do. I'll repeat. Liberation Scotland offered up the Stirling Directive to Holyrood. Stake your path to freedom upon the Claim of Right. The response? Deafening silence. Like wee kids sucking their thumbs in the playground.
On a side note: https://archive.is/tZL80, a little alarmist headline but:
"North Ayrshire Council leader Marie Burns and depute leader Shaun Macaulay have given notice on their resignations. ... Councillor Tony Gurney has taken over as SNP group leader, with councillor Christina Larsen now the depute leader."
but this is of most interest I think:
"... as demonstrated by our latest Audit Commission report that praised NAC as an exemplar for other Scottish authorities ... This endorsement has not been achieved without a collegiate approach across the chamber, and I look forward to meeting with the other leaders to plan the next steps, starting with the budget negotiations."
NAC has changed back and for between Labour and SNP NOC, and there's little difference. I'm lucky to have one of the best councils in Scotland, including their Trading Standards, and I've heard about most from those in their area (I traveled a lot). Holyrood too needs to go back to "a collegiate approach across the chamber", and to be blunt yet again, I think it was Sturgeon who turned it into a constant stairheid rammy. Like she did with her "debate" with Curran.
Holyrood was designed to be collegiate, and rightly so.
Ok I'm back to agreeing with you again Pete. You have hit the nail on the head regarding Swinney's adherence to the Section 30 route. Winning or losing a Section 30 referendum, only gives us what Engerland decides to give us. That could be more devo-max promises that they will ultimately fail to honour, or perhaps hee haw, which is the much more likely outcome under Starmer. I'm still trying to find a meaningful way of voting in May, but presently I can find none.
To summarise, if I may, the potential scenario depicted:
1. Holyrood Election 2026 - majority SNP MSPs returned
2. Requested Section 30 - granted by British Government, subject to agreement of conditions
3. Terms - imposed by British Government and accepted by Scottish Government
4. Campaign - majority Yes outcome
5. Result - ignored by British Government/UK Parliament
An 'adverse' upshot at any one of these stages kills the 'process'.
However, I doubt very much that Swinney and his army of spin doctors will have gamed the process past stage 1 (i.e. where the SNP fail to achieve a majority of MSPs AT HR26, much to the relief of FM and his advisors).
Game, set and match: The British State.
Aye. We must not even think about losing, let alone plan for it.
Whit huv ye got agin' the pantomime Peter. Cos as we weel ken this is a pantomime.
Cinderella..that's Scotland ...rollin' aboot in the ashes...we wull be if WWW3 starts on our land.
The Ugly Sisters/Quislings..plenty o' them..let's go fur alexander an jack..if ye can think o' anymore ..ye can fill in the blanks yerself...(gove,anas thingummy,findlay, ruth nobody in ermine, fiona not the bruce..)the list is endless. Tak' yer pick.
Buttons..got tae be swiney....cos that's whit Scotland 's gonny get oot o' this pantomime ...buttons.
An' the rest o' the cast are up at Holyrood.
So wur aw' set fur a great nicht o' entertainment...except you torn face..where's yer joy in life?
So wur gettin ripped aff again...whit's yer problem..we should be used to it...
Of course we could get oot oan the streets an' frighten the sh*t oot o' the comedians that huv been wastin' oor time fur 300 years.
Then when we chase the excrement oot o' Scotland snarling..we're behind yoo!....better run ya b*st*rds....the audience..that'll be the Scottish generations tae come....can applaud us.
Tickets are free...ye just need some guid auld bannockburn steel.
Fur OOR Scotland and the generations tae come.
Buttons?
Swinney is nae 'kind and loyal servant' tae Scotland, mair Westminster. Which figures, as he is managing a colonial administration, tho he kids on he disnae ken it.
Uriah Heep comes to mind; antagonist and manipulative, promoted way beyond where he should be, like aw thay ither daeless an ditherin SNP FMs efter Alex Salmond.
How aboot Holy Wullie fur the 'big man'?..as he always seems tae be in the praying mantis position tae the foreign english.(I use the term 'big man' in an ironic sense ye ken)
But I'll gie ye 11 oot o' 10 fur effort Alf.
We jist need a few real Scots wi' backbone an' we can kick the foreign english b*sta*rds oot oor land..snarling...'come back an' we'll gie ye another doin'....then we can fecht amang oorselves in peace. How's that sound?
Fur oor Scotland and her demented weans.
On a bit of a side note..I see that the leader of 'Scottish' Reform has stated if they come to power 'Scottish independence would be off the table for ten years'. How dare he!!... Trying to steal Swinney's job!
Treason will be debated immediately post Independence, along with reconciliation.