It's when you look properly at things you find they're even more wrong than you thought.
Amendment A said: "...by achieving a majority of the popular vote on the sum of the Independence Supporting Parties ’ List Votes in the 2026 Scottish parliamentary election."
Amendment B said: "... more than 50% of voters supporting the SNP, or other political parties and independent candidates, that support Scotland’s Right to Choose, on the regional list.”
So more than 50% on the list, even 50%+1. Attached to a resolution comparing things to 2011.
Problem is that in 2011 as far as I can see, the total list vote for all pro-indy parties on the list was 49.8%. Which would have FAILED. So no Indy Ref in 2011 with those amendments.
This has nothing to do with the subject really.... it was a throwaway quote on bbc R4 Today from some English female who was representing some business interests/organisation?... and when she was answering a question on the wealth of the 'nation'... she threw this in as a factual remark... " the North Sea is our major economic source ".... its a pity that the Holyrood crew of all flavours knows this but does nothing to promote wealth into Scots incomes.... relying on propping up a corrupt unfair rip off system... so appealing to mandates etc will not capture imaginations... but factual explanations of the disparity in wealth will.... as people are aspirational... & Scots are no different
This quote I posted was a throw away line... it was included in a bbc discussion on the Uk's wealth... it was said so casually... in such a tone... that it reminded me of a family conversation from two years ago... where one of my relatives who works in the city of landen on behalf of a Nigerian company stated on Scotland seeking independence that " the city of landen would never allow it "... SO... as much as the business elite knowing about Scots seeking Indy... they are not in the least afraid... its a given that Scots assets will be kept as they are..... when they all recognise this is where their wealth comes from.
Its fear we Scots have to introduce... in the same way that the Uk used fear as a effective platform in 2014... honest john doesn't scare me... so as much as Scots are recognised as pursuing mandates & sovereignty... it only matters slightly in the higher margins of gobbledegook...... ...
Its cash that keeps things afloat... and when you remove the financial element... you start seriously looking into whats next... so proudly announcing about baby boxes/uni fees/free bus travel.... doesn't scare the establishment.... and those plain Scots I talk with daily aren't interested in mandates... its the cash in their pockets ... its their car costs... housing... kids... holidays... and the continual lack of money... the slow burn of fear...
What about John Swinney's promise of £10k each? The trouble is, people have been hearing these promises of prosperity all their lives. And they've actually got worse off! What makes you think more such promises will be effective?
Peter - pick one electoral region, stand an NSP candidate in every seat in that region, get ONE list msp elected with a wee bit of luck. It can be done on a shoestring and shoe leather and social media, and if not now - then when ?
I appreciate the advice, Geoff. And if it was only a wee bit electoral success I was looking for, I would almost certainly follow it. But much more is at stake here.
John Swinney must be stopped. What he is proposing to do will be ruinous for Scotland's cause. He is intent on affirming the supremacy of Westminster. He proposes to accede to the alien doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and thereby deny the sovereignty of Scotland's people.
If he is allowed to do as he proposes then acting for the nation, he will create a precedent that sets the Section 30 process in stone. He is preparing to accept that there is in the Section 30 process a perfectly valid means for us to exercise our right of self-determination. We will no longer be able to claim that we are being lillegitimately prevented from exercising our right of self determination because he is intent on endorsing the Section 30 process as a legitimate means to do so. He is going to endorse the British state's veto.
He needs to be stopped! One NSP MSP is not going to do that. I don't know if anything can. Because most people don't even realise the implications of what the SNP is going to do. And party loyalists don't care about the treachery or its consequences so long as they get a win for their team.
We are sleep-walking into permanent devolution with no possibility of escape.
I agree Peter, BUT, I do not think that they will get sufficient mandate against their own criteria so all bets will be off for the term of the next parliament, unless Swinney/Flynn request an S30 from Starmer and they get it and we sheep vote for devo max. That would be the real killer in my mind - but would Starmer take the risk ? An emphatic NO I think. So how does that inform pro independence voters choices in 2026 ? Vote for any independence party bar the SNP ? I wonder because that lays open the risk of a unionist parliament - and that would have a negative effect on other initiatives, but maybe a risk worth taking on the basis of lesser of 2 evils. What are the potential outcomes in 2026 ? An outright SNP majority - small % chance - very bad outcome as Devo-max becomes possible. An outright pro-independence majority - slightly higher chance than SNP only - but it will be SNP + Greens - again opens the spectre of Devo max "won" in an S30 referendum, No SNP or independence supporting majority - maybe a unionist coalition - would be tempted to a) do nothing re devolution, or b) reduce powers of the parliament - probably option a) because of potential pushback against b). Most likely outcome ? minority SNP-led government but effective constitutional veto powers on the part of their lucky coalition partners.
There is no good outcome in 2026. There is no best way for a Scottish nationalist to vote because there is no good way. So, it comes down to a process of elimination. we can eliminate all the British parties, obviously.
SNP - Eliminated because John Swinney's proposal is treacherous.
Alba - Eliminated because their approach is hardly better than the SNP's.
Liberate Scotland - Because they're ridiculous.
Greens - Maybe the least ghastly option. Which tells you a lot about the rest.
I always said that the repurposed ballot tactic didn't apply to Scottish Parliament elections. I may have to rethink that one. what a fucking shambles!
The comments here have made interesting reading. Desperately disillusioning, but interesting. Every voting booth in 2026 needs to be adorned with a banner along the lines of "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here", as hope seems to be fading faster than any of Starmer's election manifesto pledges. As a result of Swinney's blind deference to English superiority, I sadly quit my membership of the SNP this evening. I'm not sad that I've given up on a party that has quite evidently given up on independence, I'm sad that I've given up on the only party that is currently capable of achieving that independence. Their reluctance to even as much as address any viable alternatives to Swinney's pathetic strategy (i.e. Newington) was simply a bridge too far for me. Now I need to decide how to make a relatively meaningless vote actually mean something. Now there is a challenge. :(
I feel your pain. I feel like the opportunities of 2026 have been stolen by the people we trusted them too and we've no time to fix it. I feel sick and betrayed
Bit late for NSP..but definitely a FUTURE HOPE because the present parties will achieve nothing. ......It will be interesting to see what swiney does when his 'strategy' goes nowhere. ..and what he says to the Scottish nation.We watch...and wait...
I watched Trump...he talks a good talk but he has the military power at his back and now he is threatening whoever stands in his way in the middle east with..'all hell let loose'......and it seems to have worked ( so far) If you face bullies you have to be prepared to bully back and it might be an idea to think about where we can use bully/ hostile tactics against the foreign english..not talking about killing or shooting....the pen mightier than the sword...to start with.
1.Set up media to attack the english government everytime they let Scotland down...( eg .. huge billboard with NSP says....Grangemouth betrayed.) Blast it out on social media...buses going round Scotland with info on side. ...leaflets...email shots...absolutely non stop...keep it in the Scottish public eye..(' if it's a lie make it a big one..make it simple keep saying it and eventually they will believe it. ' ref:Goebbels) and yes we may have to manipulate the truth..the english do it all the time so like for like..
2. Ask the population to contact the Scottish government to....highlight anything that stops our independence fight...so they know the people are watching......a total non stop landslide of criticisms of government..they don't get to act with impunity....
3. Let it be known which Scots are betraying our nation...( I did say hostile action..Name the b*st*rds)
4.Anything the foreign english are up to.....secret pipeline taking power to england...give out names and locations..
5. Walk out of the cesspit..then walk back in again....demand this of our MPs for anything we don't like.
These off the top of my head..but a concerted attack against our invaders ..NON STOP....vitriolic responses.....pointing out any unfairness to our nation by the invaders..keep it in the public eye..no let up...till the next vote....
If that doesn't work we take a leaf out of Trump's book.....and the real action starts.....
If ALBA can't capitalise on this latest instance of snP bad faith/surrender by offering something RADICALLY different, ie embracing the New Thinking - as you suggest, they too will have to be written-off as pandering pretenders.
I understand what you say re NSP lacking the resources to put up candidates next May; it's such a shame that this is the case, but I wonder if were not so and NSP did stand some candidates, if they would be able to have any greater impact on loosening the SNP stranglehold on majority Pro-Independence support than ALBA or ISP have? Not that I'm suggesting giving-up the effort - on anyone's part - to do so.
I have to say though, P, I've thought for some time that there is only room for one such alternative- to-SNP Pro-Independence Party; at least, that the chances of usurping the SNP from it's complacently-held position as Brand Leader in that dept would be best served by having a single entity with that aim.
Otherwise, the risk is further fragmentation of and divisive antagonism within that Non-SNP Pro-Independence space.
Party politics at best and very little thought to liberation. I am going for liberate Scotland who are committing to indy first but starting from zero there will be challenges but that's how the snp started. Country before party
My understanding is and can only refer to the SINGLE LINE of the umbrella groups MANIFESTO is INDEPENDENCE NOTHING LESS. Not supplemented with other policies as is customary but that is their main focus . Perhaps that is unusual but that is my desire and more than content.
But how? Ask them how they propose to restore independence and they have no answer. No sane answer, anyway. From what I've been told by one of their more ardent supporters, they envisage some sort of rule by decree. They know nothing about such things as parliamentary procedure and have only contempt for the checks and balances of democracy.
It hardly matters as they're not going to get within interstellar distance of power. But the ravings of Liberate Scotland's supporter risktainting the whole movement. Its only a matter of time before the British media latches on to the craziness.
The same question put to SNP and Alba Party regarding how that is to be achieved has been put to Liberate Scotland but no answer has been forthcoming, other than "we will just take it".
Can you do better and describe the mechanism that LS are proposing?
Don't if you would consider this an adequate response from LS ( to my asking Roddy if he could put a liitle more meat on the " how " bone ), Stephen
" As to how we achieve independence.Standing on a single line manifesto of Independence nothing less. Achieving 50%+1 of seats and votes and declaring UDI.
I assume by "declaring UDI" Roddy McLeod actually means "declaring Independence unilaterally".
At present only LS are proposing "Achieving 50%+1 of seats and votes and declaring UDI" (as SNP manifesto is for something else as endorsed by their conference at the weekend and Alba Party are suggesting another mechanism). So it follows, as things stand, that LS would themselves have to obtain a majority of "seats and votes" by themselves. (It is not clear whether "seats and votes" means in total, both or either/or).
Given that the Scottish Parliament does not currently have the competence to introduce and/or pass legislation on constitutional matters any attempt to force this through would be ruled out of order.
In this event how do LS - should they get a majority of votes and seats under some definition - propose to implement the mandate?
" Given that the Scottish Parliament does not currently have the competence to introduce and/or pass legislation on constitutional matters any attempt to force this through would be ruled out of order.
In this event how do LS - should they get a majority of votes and seats under some definition - propose to implement the mandate? "
Well , is Peter, himself, not the strongest advocate of U.D.I, ergo......could the same question, ie how to implement such a mandate, not also be asked of him?
I'm not sure what the difference is between Peter's #ScottishUDI process and L.S's " ...... declare UDI ", Stephen. Are both not predicated on having an unequivocal mandate from ( enough of ) the Scottish people?
There is nothing wrong with popular sovereignty - it's the Scottish way after all in the tradition of Declaration of Arbroath and Claim of Right.
In fact, there is no need to restore it. It is there. It always has been. It just is.
The problem has been parties/candidates undermining and compromising that sovereignty by permitting Westminster any, never mind the final, say in the decision-making of the nation's people. That is treacherous.
It's when you look properly at things you find they're even more wrong than you thought.
Amendment A said: "...by achieving a majority of the popular vote on the sum of the Independence Supporting Parties ’ List Votes in the 2026 Scottish parliamentary election."
Amendment B said: "... more than 50% of voters supporting the SNP, or other political parties and independent candidates, that support Scotland’s Right to Choose, on the regional list.”
So more than 50% on the list, even 50%+1. Attached to a resolution comparing things to 2011.
Problem is that in 2011 as far as I can see, the total list vote for all pro-indy parties on the list was 49.8%. Which would have FAILED. So no Indy Ref in 2011 with those amendments.
SNP 876,421 44.0%
Green 86,939 4.4%
Margo MacDonald 18,732 0.9%
Scottish Socialist 8,272 0.4%
Solidarity 2,837 0.1%
-------------
Total 49.8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Scottish_Parliament_election
This has nothing to do with the subject really.... it was a throwaway quote on bbc R4 Today from some English female who was representing some business interests/organisation?... and when she was answering a question on the wealth of the 'nation'... she threw this in as a factual remark... " the North Sea is our major economic source ".... its a pity that the Holyrood crew of all flavours knows this but does nothing to promote wealth into Scots incomes.... relying on propping up a corrupt unfair rip off system... so appealing to mandates etc will not capture imaginations... but factual explanations of the disparity in wealth will.... as people are aspirational... & Scots are no different
This quote I posted was a throw away line... it was included in a bbc discussion on the Uk's wealth... it was said so casually... in such a tone... that it reminded me of a family conversation from two years ago... where one of my relatives who works in the city of landen on behalf of a Nigerian company stated on Scotland seeking independence that " the city of landen would never allow it "... SO... as much as the business elite knowing about Scots seeking Indy... they are not in the least afraid... its a given that Scots assets will be kept as they are..... when they all recognise this is where their wealth comes from.
Its fear we Scots have to introduce... in the same way that the Uk used fear as a effective platform in 2014... honest john doesn't scare me... so as much as Scots are recognised as pursuing mandates & sovereignty... it only matters slightly in the higher margins of gobbledegook...... ...
Its cash that keeps things afloat... and when you remove the financial element... you start seriously looking into whats next... so proudly announcing about baby boxes/uni fees/free bus travel.... doesn't scare the establishment.... and those plain Scots I talk with daily aren't interested in mandates... its the cash in their pockets ... its their car costs... housing... kids... holidays... and the continual lack of money... the slow burn of fear...
What about John Swinney's promise of £10k each? The trouble is, people have been hearing these promises of prosperity all their lives. And they've actually got worse off! What makes you think more such promises will be effective?
Peter - pick one electoral region, stand an NSP candidate in every seat in that region, get ONE list msp elected with a wee bit of luck. It can be done on a shoestring and shoe leather and social media, and if not now - then when ?
I appreciate the advice, Geoff. And if it was only a wee bit electoral success I was looking for, I would almost certainly follow it. But much more is at stake here.
John Swinney must be stopped. What he is proposing to do will be ruinous for Scotland's cause. He is intent on affirming the supremacy of Westminster. He proposes to accede to the alien doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and thereby deny the sovereignty of Scotland's people.
If he is allowed to do as he proposes then acting for the nation, he will create a precedent that sets the Section 30 process in stone. He is preparing to accept that there is in the Section 30 process a perfectly valid means for us to exercise our right of self-determination. We will no longer be able to claim that we are being lillegitimately prevented from exercising our right of self determination because he is intent on endorsing the Section 30 process as a legitimate means to do so. He is going to endorse the British state's veto.
He needs to be stopped! One NSP MSP is not going to do that. I don't know if anything can. Because most people don't even realise the implications of what the SNP is going to do. And party loyalists don't care about the treachery or its consequences so long as they get a win for their team.
We are sleep-walking into permanent devolution with no possibility of escape.
I agree Peter, BUT, I do not think that they will get sufficient mandate against their own criteria so all bets will be off for the term of the next parliament, unless Swinney/Flynn request an S30 from Starmer and they get it and we sheep vote for devo max. That would be the real killer in my mind - but would Starmer take the risk ? An emphatic NO I think. So how does that inform pro independence voters choices in 2026 ? Vote for any independence party bar the SNP ? I wonder because that lays open the risk of a unionist parliament - and that would have a negative effect on other initiatives, but maybe a risk worth taking on the basis of lesser of 2 evils. What are the potential outcomes in 2026 ? An outright SNP majority - small % chance - very bad outcome as Devo-max becomes possible. An outright pro-independence majority - slightly higher chance than SNP only - but it will be SNP + Greens - again opens the spectre of Devo max "won" in an S30 referendum, No SNP or independence supporting majority - maybe a unionist coalition - would be tempted to a) do nothing re devolution, or b) reduce powers of the parliament - probably option a) because of potential pushback against b). Most likely outcome ? minority SNP-led government but effective constitutional veto powers on the part of their lucky coalition partners.
There is no good outcome in 2026. There is no best way for a Scottish nationalist to vote because there is no good way. So, it comes down to a process of elimination. we can eliminate all the British parties, obviously.
SNP - Eliminated because John Swinney's proposal is treacherous.
Alba - Eliminated because their approach is hardly better than the SNP's.
Liberate Scotland - Because they're ridiculous.
Greens - Maybe the least ghastly option. Which tells you a lot about the rest.
I always said that the repurposed ballot tactic didn't apply to Scottish Parliament elections. I may have to rethink that one. what a fucking shambles!
The comments here have made interesting reading. Desperately disillusioning, but interesting. Every voting booth in 2026 needs to be adorned with a banner along the lines of "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here", as hope seems to be fading faster than any of Starmer's election manifesto pledges. As a result of Swinney's blind deference to English superiority, I sadly quit my membership of the SNP this evening. I'm not sad that I've given up on a party that has quite evidently given up on independence, I'm sad that I've given up on the only party that is currently capable of achieving that independence. Their reluctance to even as much as address any viable alternatives to Swinney's pathetic strategy (i.e. Newington) was simply a bridge too far for me. Now I need to decide how to make a relatively meaningless vote actually mean something. Now there is a challenge. :(
I feel your pain. I feel like the opportunities of 2026 have been stolen by the people we trusted them too and we've no time to fix it. I feel sick and betrayed
With no realistic strategy for independence they squabble and fight among themselves.
The British state did well in screwing up the Independence movement.
Is heir hatred is more important in than the cause of independence ?
I have decided not to vote at all for these Losers
Bit late for NSP..but definitely a FUTURE HOPE because the present parties will achieve nothing. ......It will be interesting to see what swiney does when his 'strategy' goes nowhere. ..and what he says to the Scottish nation.We watch...and wait...
I watched Trump...he talks a good talk but he has the military power at his back and now he is threatening whoever stands in his way in the middle east with..'all hell let loose'......and it seems to have worked ( so far) If you face bullies you have to be prepared to bully back and it might be an idea to think about where we can use bully/ hostile tactics against the foreign english..not talking about killing or shooting....the pen mightier than the sword...to start with.
1.Set up media to attack the english government everytime they let Scotland down...( eg .. huge billboard with NSP says....Grangemouth betrayed.) Blast it out on social media...buses going round Scotland with info on side. ...leaflets...email shots...absolutely non stop...keep it in the Scottish public eye..(' if it's a lie make it a big one..make it simple keep saying it and eventually they will believe it. ' ref:Goebbels) and yes we may have to manipulate the truth..the english do it all the time so like for like..
2. Ask the population to contact the Scottish government to....highlight anything that stops our independence fight...so they know the people are watching......a total non stop landslide of criticisms of government..they don't get to act with impunity....
3. Let it be known which Scots are betraying our nation...( I did say hostile action..Name the b*st*rds)
4.Anything the foreign english are up to.....secret pipeline taking power to england...give out names and locations..
5. Walk out of the cesspit..then walk back in again....demand this of our MPs for anything we don't like.
These off the top of my head..but a concerted attack against our invaders ..NON STOP....vitriolic responses.....pointing out any unfairness to our nation by the invaders..keep it in the public eye..no let up...till the next vote....
If that doesn't work we take a leaf out of Trump's book.....and the real action starts.....
For OUR Scotland and her getting angry weans...
If ALBA can't capitalise on this latest instance of snP bad faith/surrender by offering something RADICALLY different, ie embracing the New Thinking - as you suggest, they too will have to be written-off as pandering pretenders.
I understand what you say re NSP lacking the resources to put up candidates next May; it's such a shame that this is the case, but I wonder if were not so and NSP did stand some candidates, if they would be able to have any greater impact on loosening the SNP stranglehold on majority Pro-Independence support than ALBA or ISP have? Not that I'm suggesting giving-up the effort - on anyone's part - to do so.
I have to say though, P, I've thought for some time that there is only room for one such alternative- to-SNP Pro-Independence Party; at least, that the chances of usurping the SNP from it's complacently-held position as Brand Leader in that dept would be best served by having a single entity with that aim.
Otherwise, the risk is further fragmentation of and divisive antagonism within that Non-SNP Pro-Independence space.
Party politics at best and very little thought to liberation. I am going for liberate Scotland who are committing to indy first but starting from zero there will be challenges but that's how the snp started. Country before party
Explain Liberate Scotland's strategy for restoring independence.
My understanding is and can only refer to the SINGLE LINE of the umbrella groups MANIFESTO is INDEPENDENCE NOTHING LESS. Not supplemented with other policies as is customary but that is their main focus . Perhaps that is unusual but that is my desire and more than content.
But how? Ask them how they propose to restore independence and they have no answer. No sane answer, anyway. From what I've been told by one of their more ardent supporters, they envisage some sort of rule by decree. They know nothing about such things as parliamentary procedure and have only contempt for the checks and balances of democracy.
It hardly matters as they're not going to get within interstellar distance of power. But the ravings of Liberate Scotland's supporter risktainting the whole movement. Its only a matter of time before the British media latches on to the craziness.
The same question put to SNP and Alba Party regarding how that is to be achieved has been put to Liberate Scotland but no answer has been forthcoming, other than "we will just take it".
Can you do better and describe the mechanism that LS are proposing?
Don't if you would consider this an adequate response from LS ( to my asking Roddy if he could put a liitle more meat on the " how " bone ), Stephen
" As to how we achieve independence.Standing on a single line manifesto of Independence nothing less. Achieving 50%+1 of seats and votes and declaring UDI.
The key part here being " declaring UDI "
I assume by "declaring UDI" Roddy McLeod actually means "declaring Independence unilaterally".
At present only LS are proposing "Achieving 50%+1 of seats and votes and declaring UDI" (as SNP manifesto is for something else as endorsed by their conference at the weekend and Alba Party are suggesting another mechanism). So it follows, as things stand, that LS would themselves have to obtain a majority of "seats and votes" by themselves. (It is not clear whether "seats and votes" means in total, both or either/or).
Given that the Scottish Parliament does not currently have the competence to introduce and/or pass legislation on constitutional matters any attempt to force this through would be ruled out of order.
In this event how do LS - should they get a majority of votes and seats under some definition - propose to implement the mandate?
" Given that the Scottish Parliament does not currently have the competence to introduce and/or pass legislation on constitutional matters any attempt to force this through would be ruled out of order.
In this event how do LS - should they get a majority of votes and seats under some definition - propose to implement the mandate? "
Well , is Peter, himself, not the strongest advocate of U.D.I, ergo......could the same question, ie how to implement such a mandate, not also be asked of him?
Yes it could be asked of Peter too. And he has answered that satisfactorily for me via the #ScottishUDI process.
The difficulty with the LS approach is that when you ask the question regarding implementation it all peters out and no answer is forthcoming.
I'm not sure what the difference is between Peter's #ScottishUDI process and L.S's " ...... declare UDI ", Stephen. Are both not predicated on having an unequivocal mandate from ( enough of ) the Scottish people?
" don't know ....."
When you say that LS will JUST TAKE IT presumably restoring People Sovereignty instead of Parliamentary Sovereignty nothing wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with popular sovereignty - it's the Scottish way after all in the tradition of Declaration of Arbroath and Claim of Right.
In fact, there is no need to restore it. It is there. It always has been. It just is.
The problem has been parties/candidates undermining and compromising that sovereignty by permitting Westminster any, never mind the final, say in the decision-making of the nation's people. That is treacherous.
However, back to the process. What is it?
Meanwhile back on Planet Earth ...