The cart before the horse! We don't need a referendum the Scottish parliamentary majority for independence should be used ignoring the Scotland act. After passing a bill making the independence case and detailing separation negotiation dates and places with the Westminster government. Udi should be in that bill if negotiations fail to start by a date given. The only referendum we need is one after negotiations where the Scottish electric would be asked to ratify that deal or not.
So, to put together points about the usefulness of Craig Murray's article, which was reported in the National, and discussed on SGP - and this one:
1. At least it gets more people thinking and talking about the notion of UDI, which makes it more generally acceptable. Go back 10 years or even 5, and even talk of UDI in the Independence movement would have raised eyebrows, got tut-tutted, and had the “perpetrator” scorned, such as the comments made by some about Peter A Bell and his “Scottish UDI”.
2. Outside the Independence movement, i.e. the general uninvolved people of Scotland, it helps to introduce the idea of UDI – and get them thinking WHY it might be the only way to express our self-determination – i.e. the UK – the overall State – is denying Scotland the right to self-determination by not only refusing to co-operate with a referendum, but actively obstructing one. First May, then BoJo, then Truss, then Sunak, then Starmer, now Burnham – none of which can call themselves “Democrat”.
3. The UK State is in the position where it is supposed to facilitate self-determination for the People of Scotland. It is clearly failing to do so. The more UDI is discussed openly in Scotland – and elsewhere – the more Internationally it will be known that another UDI might be on the way, with all the uncertainty that brings for international relations, globally to varying extents. Stability is mostly preferable to them.
4. It puts the UK Government and Parliament under increasing pressure. This should be to urgently discuss with the Scottish Government, permanent changes to the Scotland Act to remove restrictions on a Constitutional Referendum, or at the very least, a draft Section 30 for one – something which could at least be quicker. edit: they are supposed to provide an internal route; if they fail to do so then other routes can be used (needs rewording)
I might “repurpose” my wordpress for the UDI thing. And I’d recommend the Indy movement as a whole to debate UDI as much as possible, including bloggers who might otherwise be averse – at the very least, that increasing debate puts increasing pressure on the UK Government, and helps Swinney to put pressure on – I am fully aware some people hate Swinney, but please, put Indy front and centre ahead of other beliefs or grudges about the SNP.
A day's past, a year has passed and now over a decade has passed and if it was up to the SNP a century would pass without a solid plan to leave the UK.
We can't challenge the SNP because no one gets to speak to these politician's its by invitation only.
Two of the most useful phrases to come out the UKG representatives mouths are "Scotland is in a voluntary union" and "Scotland is free to leave when ever it wants", so why did the SNP feel it necessary to take it to the Supreme count?
Scotland is in a cul-de-sac scenario on the constitutional question entirely created by the leadership of the SNP.
Now where talking about UDI, this is a good sign and I welcome it. The SNP focus now isn't UDI but instead hung parliament at the next Westminster election, more deflections from the SNP and kicking Independence into the long grass again.
I really can't see how we can achieve anything on the constitutional issue until we either remove John Swinney or replace the SNP entirely with another party.
I honestly believe the SNP focus is to stay tided to the Union until after 2031 Swinney said this much himself by saying he wanted to remain FM until 2031.
For me I do not believe Scotland is a union and that Scotland is already an Independent country, we just need to remove the invading elements in Scotland.
We cannot have umpteen UDI plans this isn't going to work and we need to stop thinking about what is right for England, if we go down the UDI route it has to be one single plan that works for Scotland and forget about whats right for England. The SNP has spent 12 yrs arguing whats right for England instead of say screw England whats right for Scotland and if you wanted an example of how England has crewed Scotland then look no further than the EU referendum.
While Swinney is in charge of the SNP nothing will change there happy to upset the Independence movement they've been doing it for 12 yrs simply because the SNP believe they are the Independence movement, this attitude needs to change and for it to change The National has to get on board it the paper is truly a Indy paper.
I've always though the only reason the UKG has been so bold is simply because they knew the SNP had no interest in restoring Scotland to its rightful place on the world stage. The Tory's tried telling us before the Holyrood election in 2021 but no one would listen, well people are starting to listen now about the SNP its just a pity £600k had to be stole and the jailing of Murrel and the passing of 12 yrs.
The SNP is no friend to Scotland waken up people the chains tying us to this Union is the SNP, so what are we going to do about it, while with the talk of UDI the SNP must be in a panic for sure and this is good news.
Not everyone is on board with it, and here is our problem. Peters plan, Craig's plan, we just need a plan which we can all follow. I hope to god we are not going to be arguing about which is the best plan for the next 12 yrs. People have had enough of talking its time for action.
If its Peter's plan I'll get behind it or any other plan we agree to. If we need to stand in the middle of the road on the dual carriage way I'll be there, its action not more talk we need.
I can do no more than put the case for #ScottishUDI and ask that it be given a fair hearing. After that, it's up to each individual. What really depresses me is the number of people who dismiss the strategy without even knowing what it is. They know only that it's not what they've been told by the independence industry.
I just keep plodding on and hope that each day finishes with more people pewrsuaaded than when it dawned.
Repudiate the Section 30 process as an illegitimate constraint on Scotland’s right of self-determination.
Declare one or all future Scottish Parliament or UK Parliament elections to be a plebiscite on the question of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to facilitate the exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination.
Assert the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament on the basis of its democratic legitimacy and the sovereignty of Scotland’s people, citing the fact this is the only way the people of Scotland can be enabled to exercise our human right of self-determination.
Recall Scotland’s Members of Parliament from Westminster to sit on a National Convention convened by the Scottish Parliament, with Members of the Scottish Parliament and such representatives of civic society as are deemed appropriate by the Scottish Parliament for the purpose of overseeing the drafting of a Constitution for Scotland.
Propose dissolution of the Union with England subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament and ratification by the people of Scotland in a confirmatory referendum that stands as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our inalienable right of self-determination.
Hold a referendum on the question of the Union under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament and subject to oversight and management by the National Convention and such bodies as may be appointed by the Scottish Parliament."
and perhaps with the title "UDI for Independence".
You need a simple page for people to hyperlink to.
Of course not everyone's on board with it. Otherwise it would have been implemented these past 5 years or so.
We are all frustrated with the lack of progress due to the ineptitude and cowardice of our would be liberator-politicians.
But we need a plan that will work.
At least we may be starting to be heading in the right direction. One towards confronting the British ... perhaps that should have been obvious to us - definitely including me here - all from the beginning.
Of that there can be no doubt. But not enough people see this. They continue to believe that it is Westminster that's blocking progress for Scotland's cause. It is very difficult for them to see the issue differently because the orthodoxies of the independence industry have been firmly entrenched over the last couple of decades.
It's not just the SNP. The National has only lately started to pay attention to dissenting voices within the independence movement. There are signs that things are changing. But I fear it may all be too late.
Thank you for your article on Craig Murray's speech.
Your remark..'the Independence Industry hasn't even left the starting line' ( ref: PaterA Bell) is spot on ..in fact I would go as far as to say ..they haven't even found it yet. And your 'Independence Industry' description of our Scottish governments 'quest' for freedom .is shown to be correct ..as they continue to award themselves a wage rise for their 'endeavours' in that 'industry'. Freedom for their nation is not enough..but 'a bag o' sill'er.' ( ref: R.Burns)... now that catches their attention...
Whether we agree with Murray's statement in parts or in total ..at least it wakens us up to the betrayal by our tartan donkeys in unholyrood...and might even cause ramifications in our population...... in other word ..'wakey wakey Scotland '..time to kick ass....an' here's how to do it...
There's been a lack of interest in independence recently and hopefully Murray's speech just might shake us awake...I suspect Scotland needs no real shaking..just give them the implements... point .. and murderous intentions would be apparent...after a bonfire of section 30 and any other trash thought up by westminster.....
I shall read other comments with interest to see the reaction of those Scots fully awake now...maybe even having a murderous look in their eyes..at last.( only 300 years later)
For OUR Scotland and her weans and those yet to come.
Yes, P, I was thinking of your ideas and views on UDI whilst reading and contemplating Craig's article ( just as an aside.....Craig has been advocating for * some form of * UDI for a few years; it's not just a conclusion he's suddenly arrived at ). This is an instance where two people in broad agreement might profitably/productively put their heads together to fine tune areas of disagreement and/or emphasis.
I won't say much more here re Craig's refreshingly bold and unapologetically radical article - hilarious seeing the hysteria it has caused in the amongst SNP Drone & * Indy *-by-magical inertia plodders; and of course the usual kneejerk-off Yoon Swoon ahahaha, priceless :) - as I've commented - extensively! BTL there already. Suffice to say, I consider your * take * more satisfying, ie thorough, whilst admiring Craig's passionate intelligence and eloquence ( not that you lack these qualities, compadre ) and would really like to see a dialogue between you both on the subject.
As you say.....it's definitely progress that the subject of UDI is being more commonly discussed and even if the response from the quarters referred to earlier is risible in it's tedious predictability, the subject is still being discussed and thought about.
Every Liberation Movement is scorned as " fantasy " and deemed " impossible " by the deniers of that Liberty - until the " fantasy " materialises in real life and the " impossible " becomes not only possible, but actual
I'm not aware of Craig Murray being quite so explicit about UDI previously. Of course, there are probably a great many people who considered UDI a reasonable option but were reticent, for obvious reasons. I suppose I was one of them for a long time. The process of decolonising the mind goes at different rates for different people. I was maybe a bit ahead of the curve on this. But we are now starting to see others arriving at much the same conclusions as myself, all in their own time.
Not that it's a competition, but I seem to remember Craig talking about the necessity of UDI a few years ago, or at least stating the Brit State will never allow Scottish Independence, it would/will have to be taken - ergo, UDI: how else might it be " taken "?
The ' issue ' with Craig is that he covers quite a few other topics, so it's possible to miss his statements, eg those on things like UDI. I would prefer he write and focus more on Scottish Affairs, specifically those concerning Independence; but it is, of course, his prerogative what he chooses to write about
"The most significant thing about what Craig Murray says is the fact that he is saying it. And that what he is saying is being discussed."
I quite agree.
And it is being discussed in terms by increasing numbers of people that are generally in favour of a much more muscular strategy in dealing with London and the British state.
Sure, there are wrinkles to be ironed out from Mr Murray's draft such as allowing any form of consultation with Westminster - even if this may only be paying lip service - but the general thrust hits the right tone.
It contrasts starkly with the timorous and stale approach of the industry comprising the leading politicians of the supposed pro-Independence parties and the mainstream pro-Independence media (composed of variously of some think-tanks, journalists, columnists, bloggers and podcasters).
And in throwing out the English Crown: “We have had enough of colonialism”, says the current much respected prime minister, Mia Mottley, “We want to put degradation and humiliation behind us.”
And from Grouse Beater:
"Of Professor Baird’s first rate analysis of Scotland malaise, I draw reader’s attention to the paragraph below entitled ‘Withdrawal Strategy’. I agree wholeheartedly with his advice that we should withdraw from the Treaty of Union immediately, due warning send to London. (I would send a delegation to the United Nations simultaneous to withdrawal to have our right of restoring self-determination endorsed.) That implies we have a new Accord ready to discuss. It has been an option open to us when SNP were given a landslide victory, a mystery why the SNP pushes aside mandates as of no value. One cannot negotiate a new Accord until the old is dismissed as unworkable and unjust. In a phrase: let us do it!"
Great comment AB.....'we want to put degradation and humiliation behind us' ( ref: Alf Baird)..and I would add ...an' a big threatening hammer also behind us....
I like GB's legal attitude as long as that big hammer is still behind oor back.
Peter, the point was merely to demonstrate that the English Crown was entirely removed from Barbados by the decision of a majority of the members of the Barbados Parliament, as was also the case in numerous former colonies now UN member states.
Self-determination is a right to independence. There is ongoing debate surrounding 'external' and so-called 'internal' self-determination (e.g. 'devolution'), the latter mainly created in the self-interest of imperial powers. To the majority of countries that have decolonized through the UN processes, independence is effectively self-determination (McWhinney 2008).
Some will call it hair-splitting and nit-picking, but I regard self-determination as the process by which a choice is made while independence is one of the things that can be chosen.
Independence isn't a human right. Self-determination is. There is no question that the people of Scotland have the right of self-determination. Not even the British state questions that. For good reason. Were they to deny that we have the right of self-determination, they'd find themselves on the wrong side of international law. It is our access to the full and free exercise of this right that is being blocked. And it is being blocked by the Scottish Government, not Westminster.
Self-determination is the right to choose. The independence industry talks about our right to choose but acts as if the British state has a superior right to dictate when and how we can exercise that right.
Independence is the ultimate objective. The proximate issue, however, is securing the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination. Unfortunately, a two-stage process is too difficult a concept for our political class to get to grips with. Either that or they think voters are too stupid to understand something even marginally more complicated than a de facto referendum on independence.
The professional politicians know that they need only mention the word 'independence' and the votes will fall in their lap. They don't need a route to independence because they are never asked for one. They only have to talk enough about the destination. They aren't asked about the travel arrangements.
Or, more correctly, the politicians have not in the past been asked about the how of restoring independence. They are starting to be asked now. And it is clear they haven't a clue.
Likewise at the risk of hair-splitting, postcolonial theory maintains that true liberation and 'self-recovery' of culture must go beyond what we might term 'independence'. Which further explains why any form of lesser 'internal' self-determination (i.e. continued colonialism) is wholly insufficient and is certainly not 'true liberation'.
As Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh put it in the context of Ireland:
"Fanon synthesised Freud, Marxism, and anti-colonialism by arguing that colonial rule simultaneously exploits people economically, dominates them politically, and wounds them psychologically, so genuine liberation must transform both social structures and human consciousness."
A majority of Scotland’s national representatives may exercise and assert Scottish sovereignty by revoking the Treaty of Union, as it began. A democratically elected majority of Scotland’s national representatives should initiate Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK union as soon as possible.
The British State may or may not wish to contest Scotland’s national representatives’ right, as representing a signatory party to the Treaty of Union, to withdraw the sovereign nation and people of Scotland from the UK union. Should this be contested, the courts may be asked to opine on the matter.
If there remains a dispute, then the matter may be taken to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ would then seek to settle the matter in accordance with international law by giving advisory opinion."
If we are inviting a legal challenge, then it would be sensible to ensure that we are defending a very secure position. That is one of the arguments for the #ScottishUDI strategy. It takes the constitutional issue into the realm of human rights. It recognises that before we can engage in the fight to restore our independence, we must secure the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination.
I despair of ever being able to adequately convey the strategic importance of this step. It is depressing and disheartening how often I get people saying in one breath that they totally agree with the #ScottishUDI process and then in the next breath start talking about a de facto referendum on independence.
It should be obvious that before we can restore independence, we must restore the Scottish Parliament's capacity to enact all the legislation that is required if independence is to be restored in a process that is impeccably democratic, even if it is deemed illegal by the administering power.
Apart from the obvious practical and procedural advantages of not having a referendum on independence before we have the capacity to deliver independence, there is a huge campaigning benefit of first fighting a battle we can win and win by a conclusive margin. Our chances of winning a de facto referendum on independence are no better than 50/50. Those odds swing to our advantage after we have won the battle to take back our parliament. The odds on us winning a de facto referendum on the powers of the Scottish Parliament are considerably better than 50/50.
Of course, this depends very much on us being able to claim that the Scottish Parliament asserting competence in constitutional matters is the only way we can have a democratic event in which we fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination. It therefore should also be obvious that the Section 30 process be repudiated. Frankly, I am surprised and appalled that Craig Murray considers it wise to begin by having the First Minister validate the Section 30 process – effectively declaring it to be an acceptable way of exercising our right of self-determination and thus fatally undermining the justification for UDI.
There is a good chance we'd lose a legal challenge to a unilateral declaration of independence. There is almost no possibility that we'd lose if we were defending what is arguably the most fundamental human right.
Aye Alf, this possibility has been out there for a long time.
But, to borrow a metaphor from SGPs James Kelly
you have to have thrown a six before you can travel down this particular route.
IIUC The going to the ICJ part is predicated upon first having your grievance validated by the UN then asserting that you do not have an available remedy.
I have every hope that all your efferts will open that path for us, but we are not there yet.
The devolutionists seem intent on sabotaging it, but fortunately they also seem lethargic in everything they do.
Unfortunately Whitehalls plans to unify the UK are marching on apace. :-(
The cart before the horse! We don't need a referendum the Scottish parliamentary majority for independence should be used ignoring the Scotland act. After passing a bill making the independence case and detailing separation negotiation dates and places with the Westminster government. Udi should be in that bill if negotiations fail to start by a date given. The only referendum we need is one after negotiations where the Scottish electric would be asked to ratify that deal or not.
So, to put together points about the usefulness of Craig Murray's article, which was reported in the National, and discussed on SGP - and this one:
1. At least it gets more people thinking and talking about the notion of UDI, which makes it more generally acceptable. Go back 10 years or even 5, and even talk of UDI in the Independence movement would have raised eyebrows, got tut-tutted, and had the “perpetrator” scorned, such as the comments made by some about Peter A Bell and his “Scottish UDI”.
2. Outside the Independence movement, i.e. the general uninvolved people of Scotland, it helps to introduce the idea of UDI – and get them thinking WHY it might be the only way to express our self-determination – i.e. the UK – the overall State – is denying Scotland the right to self-determination by not only refusing to co-operate with a referendum, but actively obstructing one. First May, then BoJo, then Truss, then Sunak, then Starmer, now Burnham – none of which can call themselves “Democrat”.
3. The UK State is in the position where it is supposed to facilitate self-determination for the People of Scotland. It is clearly failing to do so. The more UDI is discussed openly in Scotland – and elsewhere – the more Internationally it will be known that another UDI might be on the way, with all the uncertainty that brings for international relations, globally to varying extents. Stability is mostly preferable to them.
4. It puts the UK Government and Parliament under increasing pressure. This should be to urgently discuss with the Scottish Government, permanent changes to the Scotland Act to remove restrictions on a Constitutional Referendum, or at the very least, a draft Section 30 for one – something which could at least be quicker. edit: they are supposed to provide an internal route; if they fail to do so then other routes can be used (needs rewording)
I might “repurpose” my wordpress for the UDI thing. And I’d recommend the Indy movement as a whole to debate UDI as much as possible, including bloggers who might otherwise be averse – at the very least, that increasing debate puts increasing pressure on the UK Government, and helps Swinney to put pressure on – I am fully aware some people hate Swinney, but please, put Indy front and centre ahead of other beliefs or grudges about the SNP.
A day's past, a year has passed and now over a decade has passed and if it was up to the SNP a century would pass without a solid plan to leave the UK.
We can't challenge the SNP because no one gets to speak to these politician's its by invitation only.
Two of the most useful phrases to come out the UKG representatives mouths are "Scotland is in a voluntary union" and "Scotland is free to leave when ever it wants", so why did the SNP feel it necessary to take it to the Supreme count?
Scotland is in a cul-de-sac scenario on the constitutional question entirely created by the leadership of the SNP.
Now where talking about UDI, this is a good sign and I welcome it. The SNP focus now isn't UDI but instead hung parliament at the next Westminster election, more deflections from the SNP and kicking Independence into the long grass again.
I really can't see how we can achieve anything on the constitutional issue until we either remove John Swinney or replace the SNP entirely with another party.
I honestly believe the SNP focus is to stay tided to the Union until after 2031 Swinney said this much himself by saying he wanted to remain FM until 2031.
For me I do not believe Scotland is a union and that Scotland is already an Independent country, we just need to remove the invading elements in Scotland.
We cannot have umpteen UDI plans this isn't going to work and we need to stop thinking about what is right for England, if we go down the UDI route it has to be one single plan that works for Scotland and forget about whats right for England. The SNP has spent 12 yrs arguing whats right for England instead of say screw England whats right for Scotland and if you wanted an example of how England has crewed Scotland then look no further than the EU referendum.
While Swinney is in charge of the SNP nothing will change there happy to upset the Independence movement they've been doing it for 12 yrs simply because the SNP believe they are the Independence movement, this attitude needs to change and for it to change The National has to get on board it the paper is truly a Indy paper.
I've always though the only reason the UKG has been so bold is simply because they knew the SNP had no interest in restoring Scotland to its rightful place on the world stage. The Tory's tried telling us before the Holyrood election in 2021 but no one would listen, well people are starting to listen now about the SNP its just a pity £600k had to be stole and the jailing of Murrel and the passing of 12 yrs.
The SNP is no friend to Scotland waken up people the chains tying us to this Union is the SNP, so what are we going to do about it, while with the talk of UDI the SNP must be in a panic for sure and this is good news.
Here's a credible plan, tailored for Scotland and developed by our host, Peter A Bell: the #ScottishUDI process and #ManifestoForIndependence
https://manifestoforindependence.scot/manifesto/
Not everyone is on board with it, and here is our problem. Peters plan, Craig's plan, we just need a plan which we can all follow. I hope to god we are not going to be arguing about which is the best plan for the next 12 yrs. People have had enough of talking its time for action.
If its Peter's plan I'll get behind it or any other plan we agree to. If we need to stand in the middle of the road on the dual carriage way I'll be there, its action not more talk we need.
A very large part of the problem is that there are a lot of things that claim to be a plan, but they're not. They fail the 'what next' test.
So in that case Peter, what is your plan for getting everyone on side with your plan?
I can do no more than put the case for #ScottishUDI and ask that it be given a fair hearing. After that, it's up to each individual. What really depresses me is the number of people who dismiss the strategy without even knowing what it is. They know only that it's not what they've been told by the independence industry.
I just keep plodding on and hope that each day finishes with more people pewrsuaaded than when it dawned.
From this page:
https://manifestoforindependence.scot/manifesto/
you need to put just the following on its own page, perhaps "https://manifestoforindependence.scot/udi/"with a title "Scottish UDI":
"A Manifesto for Independence
Repudiate the Section 30 process as an illegitimate constraint on Scotland’s right of self-determination.
Declare one or all future Scottish Parliament or UK Parliament elections to be a plebiscite on the question of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to facilitate the exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination.
Assert the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament on the basis of its democratic legitimacy and the sovereignty of Scotland’s people, citing the fact this is the only way the people of Scotland can be enabled to exercise our human right of self-determination.
Recall Scotland’s Members of Parliament from Westminster to sit on a National Convention convened by the Scottish Parliament, with Members of the Scottish Parliament and such representatives of civic society as are deemed appropriate by the Scottish Parliament for the purpose of overseeing the drafting of a Constitution for Scotland.
Propose dissolution of the Union with England subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament and ratification by the people of Scotland in a confirmatory referendum that stands as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our inalienable right of self-determination.
Hold a referendum on the question of the Union under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament and subject to oversight and management by the National Convention and such bodies as may be appointed by the Scottish Parliament."
and perhaps with the title "UDI for Independence".
You need a simple page for people to hyperlink to.
Of course not everyone's on board with it. Otherwise it would have been implemented these past 5 years or so.
We are all frustrated with the lack of progress due to the ineptitude and cowardice of our would be liberator-politicians.
But we need a plan that will work.
At least we may be starting to be heading in the right direction. One towards confronting the British ... perhaps that should have been obvious to us - definitely including me here - all from the beginning.
Its the SNP/SG who's failing.
Of that there can be no doubt. But not enough people see this. They continue to believe that it is Westminster that's blocking progress for Scotland's cause. It is very difficult for them to see the issue differently because the orthodoxies of the independence industry have been firmly entrenched over the last couple of decades.
It's not just the SNP. The National has only lately started to pay attention to dissenting voices within the independence movement. There are signs that things are changing. But I fear it may all be too late.
Of that we are all too painfully aware.
Thank you for your article on Craig Murray's speech.
Your remark..'the Independence Industry hasn't even left the starting line' ( ref: PaterA Bell) is spot on ..in fact I would go as far as to say ..they haven't even found it yet. And your 'Independence Industry' description of our Scottish governments 'quest' for freedom .is shown to be correct ..as they continue to award themselves a wage rise for their 'endeavours' in that 'industry'. Freedom for their nation is not enough..but 'a bag o' sill'er.' ( ref: R.Burns)... now that catches their attention...
Whether we agree with Murray's statement in parts or in total ..at least it wakens us up to the betrayal by our tartan donkeys in unholyrood...and might even cause ramifications in our population...... in other word ..'wakey wakey Scotland '..time to kick ass....an' here's how to do it...
There's been a lack of interest in independence recently and hopefully Murray's speech just might shake us awake...I suspect Scotland needs no real shaking..just give them the implements... point .. and murderous intentions would be apparent...after a bonfire of section 30 and any other trash thought up by westminster.....
I shall read other comments with interest to see the reaction of those Scots fully awake now...maybe even having a murderous look in their eyes..at last.( only 300 years later)
For OUR Scotland and her weans and those yet to come.
Yes, P, I was thinking of your ideas and views on UDI whilst reading and contemplating Craig's article ( just as an aside.....Craig has been advocating for * some form of * UDI for a few years; it's not just a conclusion he's suddenly arrived at ). This is an instance where two people in broad agreement might profitably/productively put their heads together to fine tune areas of disagreement and/or emphasis.
I won't say much more here re Craig's refreshingly bold and unapologetically radical article - hilarious seeing the hysteria it has caused in the amongst SNP Drone & * Indy *-by-magical inertia plodders; and of course the usual kneejerk-off Yoon Swoon ahahaha, priceless :) - as I've commented - extensively! BTL there already. Suffice to say, I consider your * take * more satisfying, ie thorough, whilst admiring Craig's passionate intelligence and eloquence ( not that you lack these qualities, compadre ) and would really like to see a dialogue between you both on the subject.
As you say.....it's definitely progress that the subject of UDI is being more commonly discussed and even if the response from the quarters referred to earlier is risible in it's tedious predictability, the subject is still being discussed and thought about.
Every Liberation Movement is scorned as " fantasy " and deemed " impossible " by the deniers of that Liberty - until the " fantasy " materialises in real life and the " impossible " becomes not only possible, but actual
I'm not aware of Craig Murray being quite so explicit about UDI previously. Of course, there are probably a great many people who considered UDI a reasonable option but were reticent, for obvious reasons. I suppose I was one of them for a long time. The process of decolonising the mind goes at different rates for different people. I was maybe a bit ahead of the curve on this. But we are now starting to see others arriving at much the same conclusions as myself, all in their own time.
Not that it's a competition, but I seem to remember Craig talking about the necessity of UDI a few years ago, or at least stating the Brit State will never allow Scottish Independence, it would/will have to be taken - ergo, UDI: how else might it be " taken "?
The ' issue ' with Craig is that he covers quite a few other topics, so it's possible to miss his statements, eg those on things like UDI. I would prefer he write and focus more on Scottish Affairs, specifically those concerning Independence; but it is, of course, his prerogative what he chooses to write about
"The most significant thing about what Craig Murray says is the fact that he is saying it. And that what he is saying is being discussed."
I quite agree.
And it is being discussed in terms by increasing numbers of people that are generally in favour of a much more muscular strategy in dealing with London and the British state.
Sure, there are wrinkles to be ironed out from Mr Murray's draft such as allowing any form of consultation with Westminster - even if this may only be paying lip service - but the general thrust hits the right tone.
It contrasts starkly with the timorous and stale approach of the industry comprising the leading politicians of the supposed pro-Independence parties and the mainstream pro-Independence media (composed of variously of some think-tanks, journalists, columnists, bloggers and podcasters).
Fair play to Craig Murray.
And in throwing out the English Crown: “We have had enough of colonialism”, says the current much respected prime minister, Mia Mottley, “We want to put degradation and humiliation behind us.”
And from Grouse Beater:
"Of Professor Baird’s first rate analysis of Scotland malaise, I draw reader’s attention to the paragraph below entitled ‘Withdrawal Strategy’. I agree wholeheartedly with his advice that we should withdraw from the Treaty of Union immediately, due warning send to London. (I would send a delegation to the United Nations simultaneous to withdrawal to have our right of restoring self-determination endorsed.) That implies we have a new Accord ready to discuss. It has been an option open to us when SNP were given a landslide victory, a mystery why the SNP pushes aside mandates as of no value. One cannot negotiate a new Accord until the old is dismissed as unworkable and unjust. In a phrase: let us do it!"
Great comment AB.....'we want to put degradation and humiliation behind us' ( ref: Alf Baird)..and I would add ...an' a big threatening hammer also behind us....
I like GB's legal attitude as long as that big hammer is still behind oor back.
For OUR Scotland and her hammer waving weans.
I take no lectures from someone who supposes the terms 'independence' and 'self-determination' to be synonyms.
Peter, the point was merely to demonstrate that the English Crown was entirely removed from Barbados by the decision of a majority of the members of the Barbados Parliament, as was also the case in numerous former colonies now UN member states.
Self-determination is a right to independence. There is ongoing debate surrounding 'external' and so-called 'internal' self-determination (e.g. 'devolution'), the latter mainly created in the self-interest of imperial powers. To the majority of countries that have decolonized through the UN processes, independence is effectively self-determination (McWhinney 2008).
Some will call it hair-splitting and nit-picking, but I regard self-determination as the process by which a choice is made while independence is one of the things that can be chosen.
Independence isn't a human right. Self-determination is. There is no question that the people of Scotland have the right of self-determination. Not even the British state questions that. For good reason. Were they to deny that we have the right of self-determination, they'd find themselves on the wrong side of international law. It is our access to the full and free exercise of this right that is being blocked. And it is being blocked by the Scottish Government, not Westminster.
Self-determination is the right to choose. The independence industry talks about our right to choose but acts as if the British state has a superior right to dictate when and how we can exercise that right.
Independence is the ultimate objective. The proximate issue, however, is securing the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination. Unfortunately, a two-stage process is too difficult a concept for our political class to get to grips with. Either that or they think voters are too stupid to understand something even marginally more complicated than a de facto referendum on independence.
The professional politicians know that they need only mention the word 'independence' and the votes will fall in their lap. They don't need a route to independence because they are never asked for one. They only have to talk enough about the destination. They aren't asked about the travel arrangements.
Or, more correctly, the politicians have not in the past been asked about the how of restoring independence. They are starting to be asked now. And it is clear they haven't a clue.
"Independence is the ultimate objective"
Likewise at the risk of hair-splitting, postcolonial theory maintains that true liberation and 'self-recovery' of culture must go beyond what we might term 'independence'. Which further explains why any form of lesser 'internal' self-determination (i.e. continued colonialism) is wholly insufficient and is certainly not 'true liberation'.
As Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh put it in the context of Ireland:
"Fanon synthesised Freud, Marxism, and anti-colonialism by arguing that colonial rule simultaneously exploits people economically, dominates them politically, and wounds them psychologically, so genuine liberation must transform both social structures and human consciousness."
https://blosc.wordpress.com/2026/07/31/the-irish-are-the-one-race-for-whom-psychoanalysis-is-of-no-use-whatsoever/
Which means that a liberated people must, among other tasks:
1. totally transform all of the (colonial) institutions, and:
2. get rid of the colonial mindset.
This might be regarded as what decolonization is about.
A slight variation on ending the 'Union' charade:
"Withdrawal Strategy
A majority of Scotland’s national representatives may exercise and assert Scottish sovereignty by revoking the Treaty of Union, as it began. A democratically elected majority of Scotland’s national representatives should initiate Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK union as soon as possible.
The British State may or may not wish to contest Scotland’s national representatives’ right, as representing a signatory party to the Treaty of Union, to withdraw the sovereign nation and people of Scotland from the UK union. Should this be contested, the courts may be asked to opine on the matter.
If there remains a dispute, then the matter may be taken to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ would then seek to settle the matter in accordance with international law by giving advisory opinion."
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/scotland-in-the-21st-century-10/
Excellent AB..still of course holding that hammer behind oor back..just in case!
For OUR Scotland and her weans.
If we are inviting a legal challenge, then it would be sensible to ensure that we are defending a very secure position. That is one of the arguments for the #ScottishUDI strategy. It takes the constitutional issue into the realm of human rights. It recognises that before we can engage in the fight to restore our independence, we must secure the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination.
I despair of ever being able to adequately convey the strategic importance of this step. It is depressing and disheartening how often I get people saying in one breath that they totally agree with the #ScottishUDI process and then in the next breath start talking about a de facto referendum on independence.
It should be obvious that before we can restore independence, we must restore the Scottish Parliament's capacity to enact all the legislation that is required if independence is to be restored in a process that is impeccably democratic, even if it is deemed illegal by the administering power.
Apart from the obvious practical and procedural advantages of not having a referendum on independence before we have the capacity to deliver independence, there is a huge campaigning benefit of first fighting a battle we can win and win by a conclusive margin. Our chances of winning a de facto referendum on independence are no better than 50/50. Those odds swing to our advantage after we have won the battle to take back our parliament. The odds on us winning a de facto referendum on the powers of the Scottish Parliament are considerably better than 50/50.
Of course, this depends very much on us being able to claim that the Scottish Parliament asserting competence in constitutional matters is the only way we can have a democratic event in which we fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination. It therefore should also be obvious that the Section 30 process be repudiated. Frankly, I am surprised and appalled that Craig Murray considers it wise to begin by having the First Minister validate the Section 30 process – effectively declaring it to be an acceptable way of exercising our right of self-determination and thus fatally undermining the justification for UDI.
There is a good chance we'd lose a legal challenge to a unilateral declaration of independence. There is almost no possibility that we'd lose if we were defending what is arguably the most fundamental human right.
Aye Alf, this possibility has been out there for a long time.
But, to borrow a metaphor from SGPs James Kelly
you have to have thrown a six before you can travel down this particular route.
IIUC The going to the ICJ part is predicated upon first having your grievance validated by the UN then asserting that you do not have an available remedy.
I have every hope that all your efferts will open that path for us, but we are not there yet.
The devolutionists seem intent on sabotaging it, but fortunately they also seem lethargic in everything they do.
Unfortunately Whitehalls plans to unify the UK are marching on apace. :-(
Aye good point n4m3... but that hammer is still an option...
For OUR Scotland and her weans who didnae come up the Clyde on a bike,...