Righty. Second fucking try as typing too fast hit some stupid shortcut sequence maybe on my pad thing that deleted the lot. Not for the fist time I fucking hate shortcuts nobody wants.
Looking for this "does an election give a parliament legitimacy" the dreaded AI gave this link and extract:
"By 2006 the Power Inquiry reported that “the fundamental feature of any representative democracy is that a government derives its legitimacy and mandate to govern by winning the consent of its community through periodic elections."
Looking for the origin of that, and ignoring the UK Parliament "summary"
"Loss of mandate and legitimacy: Clearly, the fundamental feature of any representative democracy is that a government derives its legitimacy and mandate to govern by winning the consent of its community through periodic elections."
It's in relation to falling turnout, but turning it arse about face, you could rephrase that:
"GRANTING of mandate and legitimacy: Clearly, the fundamental feature of any representative democracy is that it is the community through periodic elections that gives the government and parliament its legitimacy and mandate to govern and represent the community".
Which means the CURRENT Parliament and Government already have whatever we mandated it.
No need for any Scotland Act; that has been superseded. The Scotland Act is a dead parrot, a dodo. The Scotland Act is no longer extant, it no longer sounds in the Rule of Law, it no longer controls, empowers or limits, the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government, we do. Already.
We might remember that colonialism is regarded as a scourge and a crime against humanity (UN) and that: 'no one colonizes innocently or with impunity', and that; a colonial society is 'a sick society' (Cesaire).
On the matter of who runs colonial institutions, colonial cultural hegemony, colonial establishment, and why they cannot be left in situ after independence:
There is an important distinction here between Holyrood’s legal origin and its democratic ownership. It can be Scotland’s Parliament even while its powers remain constrained by the Scotland Act. But reframing alone does not make the case for UDI. That still requires a clear mandate, functioning state capacity and international recognition. The unresolved question is how democratic legitimacy becomes usable constitutional power.
Note that this includes a popular instruction by the people for the parliament to assume legislative competence and an endorsement of a parliamentary proposal (Act) to declare Independence.
You make the mistake of assuming that Westminster has the final say, a veto.
If you believe that the Scottish people are sovereign as per the Scottish tradition dating from the Declaration of Arbroath through the Claim of Right then you must believe it is they who are boss. Not parliament, be that Westminster or Holyrood.
It follows that if the Scottish people vote for a prospectus that states that Holyrood can legislate to enact our right of self-determination then that is what must happen. It is the people not Westminster's Scotland Act that determines the powers of the Holyrood parliament.
When you say "legal" you presumably are referencing 'UK' law as per Westminster definition. There is no doubt that this 'domestic' law will have to be broken in order to ultimately restore Independence. But, the trick is to stay within international law, by holding a proper referendum on the constitution and enacting the decision of the people.
So, outside 'UK law' but within international law.
It's a mistake to put Westminster and the British state at the heart of the process. They have no formal role in Scotland's choice.
"I do not assume that Westminster ought to possess a permanent democratic veto."
Not only does it not "ought to possess a permanent democratic veto", it doesn't in fact. Unless, like John Swinney and too many others you confer that authority on that parliament.
"I am distinguishing democratic legitimacy from legal competence. The Scottish people may be the ultimate source of democratic authority, but an election mandate does not itself confer powers upon Holyrood that it does not presently possess."
The Scottish Parliament is whatever the Scottish people say it is. You continue to reference the significance of "legal" with respect to legislative competence, the implication being that only Westminster i.e. the British can decide the limits of our parliament's powers. That is the very attitude that the British are content for people here to take as it will keep us in a permanent state of paralysis. You need to break out of the British mindset.
"Indeed, you now concede the central point: your proposed route would be outside UK law."
I never argued it - it is obvious that we'd have to break UK 'domestic law'!
International law underscores the fundamental human right of peoples to self-determination. It is guaranteed under the UN Charter of 1945. By holding a scrupulously fair referendum we will be within international law. That is what matters.
"... but the British state plainly has a formal role within the constitutional order that presently exists."
As mentioned previously a foreign government can have no formal role in Scotland's right to choose the form of government best suited to its needs. If the British were involved they would simply set thresholds, bars, hurdles and traps so difficult as to be next to impossible to surmount.
More than 3 centuries of indoctrination that the only way we can obtain freedom is with the agreement of the British is difficult to cast off.
But discard it we must if we are to realise Scotland's Cause.
I don’t want to turn Peter’s comment section into a prolonged two-person exchange. You’re very welcome to follow or subscribe to Scotland Explained here:
"That may be defended as an exercise of constituent power, but it would then be an extra-legal constitutional rupture"
Ah, but one of the issues here is that the present extant constitutional position is already a constitutional rupture, in favour of England-as-Britain dominating Scotland.
Scotland has our ancient constitution and laws and we would be acting within the Scottish constitution to restore our rights.
This is not a secession.
It is very important to always be clear about that.
This will be the _restoration_ of Scottish Statehood.
Without the UN recognition that Liberation are working towards a UDI without preparation could indeed leave Scotland as a 'non-state actor'. But that will not happen if Liberation see their tasks through to their desired conclusion.
"That may still be argued for, but it then requires a credible account of
how Scotland’s institutions would implement it,"
We have a civil service. This is what civil services are for. ;-)
Craig Murray has previously insisted that they must immediately be compelled to either swear allegiance to the people of Scotland or be fired permanently from working for our government.
" how the transition would be managed"
It is not difficult to imagine a process of transition. This has happened to various degrees among the roughly sixty former colonies that have departed the British Empire.
Unfortunately it would appear that the current SNP are totally unsuitable people to even begin this required stage as they have demonstrated with their seeming ideological dependence on the Charlotte Street Partners / lobbyists idea of tying future Scotland to dependence on the Bank of England through Sterlingisation as outlined in the unpopular 'growth commission' fiasco. :-(
This issue does indeed need to be tackled BEFORE restoring Scotlands self governance becomes an imminent prospect.
We have some time then.
" and how international recognition would be secured."
As I am sure you are aware, the Scottish Liberation Committee have this part well under way at the UN, so it is these first two which are lagging badly. ;-)
I looked back to find the Craig Murray video, which if you have not seen it yet, would constitute a worthwhile addition to the discourse for you to listen to what he has to say.
Thanks. I think there is more common ground here than disagreement.
My point is not that a transition is unimaginable, or that Scotland lacks capable civil servants. It is that “we have a civil service” is not yet a transition plan. Scottish Government officials are presently part of the UK-wide Civil Service and administer devolved responsibilities. Many functions required by a sovereign state are currently distributed across UK institutions. A civil service can implement a settlement, but it cannot itself create the authority, institutions or political choices that settlement requires.
I would also strongly resist compulsory loyalty oaths and permanent dismissal. Scotland would need continuity, expertise and an impartial public service during any transition. A political loyalty test could damage all three.
The experience of former colonies demonstrates that transitions are possible. It does not remove the need for a Scotland-specific settlement covering institutions, revenue, currency, assets, liabilities and continuity of services.
I agree that the Growth Commission illustrates the problem. It proposed continuing to use sterling without a formal monetary union, while accepting that Scotland would lack monetary-policy autonomy. Whether one supports or rejects that choice, it is precisely the kind of fundamental issue that must be settled politically before the transition, rather than handed to civil servants afterwards.
I am aware of Liberation Scotland’s UN activity, and it is worth following. However, petitioning and addressing UN forums constitute international advocacy, not international recognition. Scotland is not presently listed as one of the UN’s 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories. Inclusion on that list, recognition of Scottish statehood by other countries and eventual UN membership would also be distinct processes.
I do not believe Westminster possesses an eternal moral veto over Scottish self-determination. I do believe that democratic mandate, legal authority, administrative capacity and international recognition are different things. A credible strategy must connect them.
So yes, we have time. My argument is that we should use it to undertake this work now.
There is a lot in your reply and based on your prior input elsewhere I am aware that you are aware of the issues.
My suggestion to you would be that the best place for you to convert your ideas into necessary action would be for you to try to make the case for the necessary progress to those who will be working on these very issues at YESUnited and the new YES2030 initiative.
Now to some of your specific opinions expressed above.
Craig Murray correctly cites the example of what happened to Mohammed Morsis [1] revolutionary government in Egypt.
If you don't tackle the fact that laws and institutions are biased to 'the union' then you are dooming yourself to almost certain sabotage and failure from the start.
Scotland has a wealth of talent.
We can do it.
"A political loyalty test could damage all three."
If you don't like the shorthand description of a serious issue, then
I would suggest to you that you give some thought to how the issue is to be best handled, for it must be addressed.
YESUnited and YES2030 may well be useful places to develop this thinking, and I do not doubt Scotland’s talent or capacity. Publicly asking how the transition would work is also part of the necessary preparation.
I agree that laws, institutional mandates and incentives designed around the Union could not simply be carried unchanged into an independent Scotland. My objection is not to addressing that problem. It is to treating a blanket allegiance requirement and permanent exclusion from public employment as though they were the only possible remedy, or merely “shorthand”.
The Morsi example cuts both ways. Egypt’s military and security establishment retained autonomous coercive power and ultimately removed an elected president. Morsi also attempted to place presidential decisions beyond judicial review and governed through a deeply polarised constitutional process. The lesson is the need for clear civilian authority, broad democratic legitimacy, constitutional safeguards and institutional continuity.
I would distinguish between institutions and individuals. Union-based laws and mandates would have to be replaced. Anyone actively sabotaging the transition, or refusing to perform the constitutional duties of a sensitive office, could not remain in that post and should be dealt with through due process. A constitutional affirmation for particular office-holders may also be reasonable.
But a civil servant who voted No and nevertheless served the new government honestly and impartially would be doing precisely what a professional civil servant should do. Political belief is not sabotage. Indeed, the present Civil Service Code already defines impartiality as serving governments of different political persuasions equally well.
That is how I would address institutional resistance while protecting continuity, expertise and an impartial public service. On the UN point, I am content to leave it there.
That is precisely what I am building Scotland Explained towards: developing the institutional, economic and democratic groundwork needed to turn self-government from an aspiration into a credible programme. Engagement with YESUnited and YES2030 may form part of that, but this project is already my contribution to the work.
I’ve commented on the lexicon and phraseology we use in independence circles when confronting the coloniser. We need to develop our own language that frames the relationship and Independence on our terms. Primary among the changes we need is to never use the word Union, it is Annexation. There is so much more, which you allude to here, Peter.
It’s powerful and effective. Notice that the Good Friday Agreement is now also tagged The Belfast Agreement. That occurred as a result of NI Unionists coining the phrase and repeating it into common currency. In my example, replace Union with Annexation. How and what does it make you think?
This is something that sorely needs to be addressed and helpful you have gone some way to addressing it here.
Over the years since the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014 I have come to realise the importance of language as it relates to Scotland’s Cause.
As such I have now for years used ‘returning Scotland’s independent statehood’ or ‘reinstating Scotland’s nation-state status’ or ‘restoring Scotland’s full self-government’ when referencing the campaign in support of Scotland’s Cause.
I refer to this campaign as ‘Scotland’s Cause’ as this elevates the campaign onto a higher plane that mere day to day political policies. It implies something higher, nobler, principled and moral. It suggests that a country making its own decision is normal, that setting its own priorities in accordance with its own values is the natural state of affairs.
Equally I never refer to the UK as ‘the country’ or even ‘a country’ as it is a) not my country and b) is not a country, it being a state comprising multiple jurisdictions including the country of Scotland.
I always talk of Scotland’s right of self-determination as something that is ‘not theirs to give, but ours to have’ since we already own it, via the UN Charter. Power we take by asserting that right, not by requesting permission to exercise it.
In order to counter years of British propaganda and indoctrination we must use the power of language to change mindsets and control the narrative.
Spot on Peter. I think the last few days should be enough for the Scots to say..we desperately need to RECOVER our freedom. I say recover because it's still there .. hidden under section this or that ..or secreted away in some westminster drawer that the Scots can't find...or even open.
Watching swiney sing the 'english national anthem made me boak...and the infantile appearance of our supposed 'betters' ..a man who cheated on his wife and the tart he consorted with standing radiantly smiling....fresh from the Tardis..what could be more appropriate..a mythical piece of equipment ..much like the royal gold coach that these chancers swan about in and wave to the smelly pathetic peasants standing in the rain to get a two second glimpse of the gods that rip us off daily.
Meantime burn'em sticks a finger up to the Scottish nation. Not even a 'gonny no do that ' squeak from swiney.
Something has to give as our jailers are emboldened ..much like the pernicious quislings being lauded with honours for betraying their homeland...smirking and grinning...
The insults will come quick and non stop if there is no reaction from us...our nation led of course by that sad wee man and his non existent 'secret plan'..who also is making a fool of Scotland. He'll be next for a gong..and the cape that goes with it.
I despair...but say again..only the Irish way will solve our problem...if we get the chance before putin decides to attack the 'uk bases '......for uk read Scotland....
I was with you until the last paragraph, but then you lost me.
I don't understand what you mean when you bring Ukraine into the discussion.
Are you referring to the US instigated coup that overthrew the democratically elected government?
Are you referring to all of the eastern provinces being happy to participate in a democratic federation only to have the corrupt Zelenski rejime ban their language, culture, newspapers and TV stations and Banderist [1] neo nazi death squads kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering them?
The people of Ukraine have been manuevered into a disastrous position through giving up their neutrality and their territory being used as a geopolitical battleground.
Clearly that sort of outcome is to be avoided if at all possible!
Terrible example- the Ukraine population done nothing of the sort; EVERYTHING that is happening in that country is a product of the utter corruption of it's leader/s. Any sacking or juggling of the Elite of that country is about the division of spoils. It's advisable to not believe a word about goings-on in Ukraine that ushers from the Zelensky Regime itself, the EUK/US Clown Show or the entire West MSM. They are all incapable of telling anything even resembling the truth
Maybe because that total imbecile Kallas has determined their perception of events in Ukraine. WTF has my comment got to do with Estonia anyway? ( assuming you comment above was addressed to me )
Yes... as the limited knowledge I have of some Estonians who from the end of WW2 were under Russian 'control' have a very different perspective on the facts of life that the Russians imposed on their previous Independence.... and again those Estonians I know feel that both the German & Russian occupation were roughly equal in state sponsored/face doesn't fit killing.... with one particular villages inhabitants killed by equal numbers... by both sides.... not to forget about the sex slave operations.... so when the Russians left after depleting vast assets...and the Estonians regained their Independence ... I can assure you that those I know are very very far from thinking of the Russian state as anything but something they never wish to suffer again... and strangely they are some of the biggest supporters of the Ukrainian people as they too have 'suffered' ....
Now I feel very angry about the english control of Scotland and the anglo Scots who are happy with this system.... BUT my feelings are dwarfed by those Estonians when they refer to the Russian occupation under the guise of one people supporting each other.... I could rabbit on about this but there is no point as it deflects from riding the stupidity of the so called democrapic cabal we Scots have in Holyrood.
Righty. Second fucking try as typing too fast hit some stupid shortcut sequence maybe on my pad thing that deleted the lot. Not for the fist time I fucking hate shortcuts nobody wants.
Looking for this "does an election give a parliament legitimacy" the dreaded AI gave this link and extract:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/48803/html/
"By 2006 the Power Inquiry reported that “the fundamental feature of any representative democracy is that a government derives its legitimacy and mandate to govern by winning the consent of its community through periodic elections."
Looking for the origin of that, and ignoring the UK Parliament "summary"
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03948/SN03948.pdf
I found the full report which gave me this:
https://www.jrrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PowertothePeople_001-2006.pdf
"Loss of mandate and legitimacy: Clearly, the fundamental feature of any representative democracy is that a government derives its legitimacy and mandate to govern by winning the consent of its community through periodic elections."
It's in relation to falling turnout, but turning it arse about face, you could rephrase that:
"GRANTING of mandate and legitimacy: Clearly, the fundamental feature of any representative democracy is that it is the community through periodic elections that gives the government and parliament its legitimacy and mandate to govern and represent the community".
Which means the CURRENT Parliament and Government already have whatever we mandated it.
No need for any Scotland Act; that has been superseded. The Scotland Act is a dead parrot, a dodo. The Scotland Act is no longer extant, it no longer sounds in the Rule of Law, it no longer controls, empowers or limits, the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government, we do. Already.
We might remember that colonialism is regarded as a scourge and a crime against humanity (UN) and that: 'no one colonizes innocently or with impunity', and that; a colonial society is 'a sick society' (Cesaire).
On the matter of who runs colonial institutions, colonial cultural hegemony, colonial establishment, and why they cannot be left in situ after independence:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/08/01/the-determinants-of-independence-institutions/comment-page-1/
There is an important distinction here between Holyrood’s legal origin and its democratic ownership. It can be Scotland’s Parliament even while its powers remain constrained by the Scotland Act. But reframing alone does not make the case for UDI. That still requires a clear mandate, functioning state capacity and international recognition. The unresolved question is how democratic legitimacy becomes usable constitutional power.
You obtain a clear mandate from the #ManifestoForIndependence as outlined in the #ScottishUDI process that Peter : https://manifestoforindependence.scot/manifesto/
Note that this includes a popular instruction by the people for the parliament to assume legislative competence and an endorsement of a parliamentary proposal (Act) to declare Independence.
You make the mistake of assuming that Westminster has the final say, a veto.
If you believe that the Scottish people are sovereign as per the Scottish tradition dating from the Declaration of Arbroath through the Claim of Right then you must believe it is they who are boss. Not parliament, be that Westminster or Holyrood.
It follows that if the Scottish people vote for a prospectus that states that Holyrood can legislate to enact our right of self-determination then that is what must happen. It is the people not Westminster's Scotland Act that determines the powers of the Holyrood parliament.
When you say "legal" you presumably are referencing 'UK' law as per Westminster definition. There is no doubt that this 'domestic' law will have to be broken in order to ultimately restore Independence. But, the trick is to stay within international law, by holding a proper referendum on the constitution and enacting the decision of the people.
So, outside 'UK law' but within international law.
It's a mistake to put Westminster and the British state at the heart of the process. They have no formal role in Scotland's choice.
"I do not assume that Westminster ought to possess a permanent democratic veto."
Not only does it not "ought to possess a permanent democratic veto", it doesn't in fact. Unless, like John Swinney and too many others you confer that authority on that parliament.
"I am distinguishing democratic legitimacy from legal competence. The Scottish people may be the ultimate source of democratic authority, but an election mandate does not itself confer powers upon Holyrood that it does not presently possess."
The Scottish Parliament is whatever the Scottish people say it is. You continue to reference the significance of "legal" with respect to legislative competence, the implication being that only Westminster i.e. the British can decide the limits of our parliament's powers. That is the very attitude that the British are content for people here to take as it will keep us in a permanent state of paralysis. You need to break out of the British mindset.
"Indeed, you now concede the central point: your proposed route would be outside UK law."
I never argued it - it is obvious that we'd have to break UK 'domestic law'!
International law underscores the fundamental human right of peoples to self-determination. It is guaranteed under the UN Charter of 1945. By holding a scrupulously fair referendum we will be within international law. That is what matters.
"... but the British state plainly has a formal role within the constitutional order that presently exists."
As mentioned previously a foreign government can have no formal role in Scotland's right to choose the form of government best suited to its needs. If the British were involved they would simply set thresholds, bars, hurdles and traps so difficult as to be next to impossible to surmount.
More than 3 centuries of indoctrination that the only way we can obtain freedom is with the agreement of the British is difficult to cast off.
But discard it we must if we are to realise Scotland's Cause.
I don’t want to turn Peter’s comment section into a prolonged two-person exchange. You’re very welcome to follow or subscribe to Scotland Explained here:
https://davidmcwilliam.substack.com/
"That may be defended as an exercise of constituent power, but it would then be an extra-legal constitutional rupture"
Ah, but one of the issues here is that the present extant constitutional position is already a constitutional rupture, in favour of England-as-Britain dominating Scotland.
Scotland has our ancient constitution and laws and we would be acting within the Scottish constitution to restore our rights.
This is not a secession.
It is very important to always be clear about that.
This will be the _restoration_ of Scottish Statehood.
Without the UN recognition that Liberation are working towards a UDI without preparation could indeed leave Scotland as a 'non-state actor'. But that will not happen if Liberation see their tasks through to their desired conclusion.
"That may still be argued for, but it then requires a credible account of
how Scotland’s institutions would implement it,"
We have a civil service. This is what civil services are for. ;-)
Craig Murray has previously insisted that they must immediately be compelled to either swear allegiance to the people of Scotland or be fired permanently from working for our government.
" how the transition would be managed"
It is not difficult to imagine a process of transition. This has happened to various degrees among the roughly sixty former colonies that have departed the British Empire.
Unfortunately it would appear that the current SNP are totally unsuitable people to even begin this required stage as they have demonstrated with their seeming ideological dependence on the Charlotte Street Partners / lobbyists idea of tying future Scotland to dependence on the Bank of England through Sterlingisation as outlined in the unpopular 'growth commission' fiasco. :-(
This issue does indeed need to be tackled BEFORE restoring Scotlands self governance becomes an imminent prospect.
We have some time then.
" and how international recognition would be secured."
As I am sure you are aware, the Scottish Liberation Committee have this part well under way at the UN, so it is these first two which are lagging badly. ;-)
I looked back to find the Craig Murray video, which if you have not seen it yet, would constitute a worthwhile addition to the discourse for you to listen to what he has to say.
Peter blogged about it here:
https://peterabell.substack.com/p/almost-getting-there
Thanks. I think there is more common ground here than disagreement.
My point is not that a transition is unimaginable, or that Scotland lacks capable civil servants. It is that “we have a civil service” is not yet a transition plan. Scottish Government officials are presently part of the UK-wide Civil Service and administer devolved responsibilities. Many functions required by a sovereign state are currently distributed across UK institutions. A civil service can implement a settlement, but it cannot itself create the authority, institutions or political choices that settlement requires.
I would also strongly resist compulsory loyalty oaths and permanent dismissal. Scotland would need continuity, expertise and an impartial public service during any transition. A political loyalty test could damage all three.
The experience of former colonies demonstrates that transitions are possible. It does not remove the need for a Scotland-specific settlement covering institutions, revenue, currency, assets, liabilities and continuity of services.
I agree that the Growth Commission illustrates the problem. It proposed continuing to use sterling without a formal monetary union, while accepting that Scotland would lack monetary-policy autonomy. Whether one supports or rejects that choice, it is precisely the kind of fundamental issue that must be settled politically before the transition, rather than handed to civil servants afterwards.
I am aware of Liberation Scotland’s UN activity, and it is worth following. However, petitioning and addressing UN forums constitute international advocacy, not international recognition. Scotland is not presently listed as one of the UN’s 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories. Inclusion on that list, recognition of Scottish statehood by other countries and eventual UN membership would also be distinct processes.
I do not believe Westminster possesses an eternal moral veto over Scottish self-determination. I do believe that democratic mandate, legal authority, administrative capacity and international recognition are different things. A credible strategy must connect them.
So yes, we have time. My argument is that we should use it to undertake this work now.
There is a lot in your reply and based on your prior input elsewhere I am aware that you are aware of the issues.
My suggestion to you would be that the best place for you to convert your ideas into necessary action would be for you to try to make the case for the necessary progress to those who will be working on these very issues at YESUnited and the new YES2030 initiative.
Now to some of your specific opinions expressed above.
Craig Murray correctly cites the example of what happened to Mohammed Morsis [1] revolutionary government in Egypt.
If you don't tackle the fact that laws and institutions are biased to 'the union' then you are dooming yourself to almost certain sabotage and failure from the start.
Scotland has a wealth of talent.
We can do it.
"A political loyalty test could damage all three."
If you don't like the shorthand description of a serious issue, then
I would suggest to you that you give some thought to how the issue is to be best handled, for it must be addressed.
There is no need to litigate the UN thing here.
Of course it will proceed in stages.
We all know that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%932013_Egyptian_protests#July_2013_(ousting_of_Morsi)
YESUnited and YES2030 may well be useful places to develop this thinking, and I do not doubt Scotland’s talent or capacity. Publicly asking how the transition would work is also part of the necessary preparation.
I agree that laws, institutional mandates and incentives designed around the Union could not simply be carried unchanged into an independent Scotland. My objection is not to addressing that problem. It is to treating a blanket allegiance requirement and permanent exclusion from public employment as though they were the only possible remedy, or merely “shorthand”.
The Morsi example cuts both ways. Egypt’s military and security establishment retained autonomous coercive power and ultimately removed an elected president. Morsi also attempted to place presidential decisions beyond judicial review and governed through a deeply polarised constitutional process. The lesson is the need for clear civilian authority, broad democratic legitimacy, constitutional safeguards and institutional continuity.
I would distinguish between institutions and individuals. Union-based laws and mandates would have to be replaced. Anyone actively sabotaging the transition, or refusing to perform the constitutional duties of a sensitive office, could not remain in that post and should be dealt with through due process. A constitutional affirmation for particular office-holders may also be reasonable.
But a civil servant who voted No and nevertheless served the new government honestly and impartially would be doing precisely what a professional civil servant should do. Political belief is not sabotage. Indeed, the present Civil Service Code already defines impartiality as serving governments of different political persuasions equally well.
That is how I would address institutional resistance while protecting continuity, expertise and an impartial public service. On the UN point, I am content to leave it there.
That is precisely what I am building Scotland Explained towards: developing the institutional, economic and democratic groundwork needed to turn self-government from an aspiration into a credible programme. Engagement with YESUnited and YES2030 may form part of that, but this project is already my contribution to the work.
I’ve commented on the lexicon and phraseology we use in independence circles when confronting the coloniser. We need to develop our own language that frames the relationship and Independence on our terms. Primary among the changes we need is to never use the word Union, it is Annexation. There is so much more, which you allude to here, Peter.
It’s powerful and effective. Notice that the Good Friday Agreement is now also tagged The Belfast Agreement. That occurred as a result of NI Unionists coining the phrase and repeating it into common currency. In my example, replace Union with Annexation. How and what does it make you think?
This is something that sorely needs to be addressed and helpful you have gone some way to addressing it here.
Excellent Peter.
Over the years since the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014 I have come to realise the importance of language as it relates to Scotland’s Cause.
As such I have now for years used ‘returning Scotland’s independent statehood’ or ‘reinstating Scotland’s nation-state status’ or ‘restoring Scotland’s full self-government’ when referencing the campaign in support of Scotland’s Cause.
I refer to this campaign as ‘Scotland’s Cause’ as this elevates the campaign onto a higher plane that mere day to day political policies. It implies something higher, nobler, principled and moral. It suggests that a country making its own decision is normal, that setting its own priorities in accordance with its own values is the natural state of affairs.
Equally I never refer to the UK as ‘the country’ or even ‘a country’ as it is a) not my country and b) is not a country, it being a state comprising multiple jurisdictions including the country of Scotland.
I always talk of Scotland’s right of self-determination as something that is ‘not theirs to give, but ours to have’ since we already own it, via the UN Charter. Power we take by asserting that right, not by requesting permission to exercise it.
In order to counter years of British propaganda and indoctrination we must use the power of language to change mindsets and control the narrative.
Spot on Peter. I think the last few days should be enough for the Scots to say..we desperately need to RECOVER our freedom. I say recover because it's still there .. hidden under section this or that ..or secreted away in some westminster drawer that the Scots can't find...or even open.
Watching swiney sing the 'english national anthem made me boak...and the infantile appearance of our supposed 'betters' ..a man who cheated on his wife and the tart he consorted with standing radiantly smiling....fresh from the Tardis..what could be more appropriate..a mythical piece of equipment ..much like the royal gold coach that these chancers swan about in and wave to the smelly pathetic peasants standing in the rain to get a two second glimpse of the gods that rip us off daily.
Meantime burn'em sticks a finger up to the Scottish nation. Not even a 'gonny no do that ' squeak from swiney.
Something has to give as our jailers are emboldened ..much like the pernicious quislings being lauded with honours for betraying their homeland...smirking and grinning...
The insults will come quick and non stop if there is no reaction from us...our nation led of course by that sad wee man and his non existent 'secret plan'..who also is making a fool of Scotland. He'll be next for a gong..and the cape that goes with it.
I despair...but say again..only the Irish way will solve our problem...if we get the chance before putin decides to attack the 'uk bases '......for uk read Scotland....
For OUR Scotland and her betrayed weans.
I was with you until the last paragraph, but then you lost me.
I don't understand what you mean when you bring Ukraine into the discussion.
Are you referring to the US instigated coup that overthrew the democratically elected government?
Are you referring to all of the eastern provinces being happy to participate in a democratic federation only to have the corrupt Zelenski rejime ban their language, culture, newspapers and TV stations and Banderist [1] neo nazi death squads kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering them?
The people of Ukraine have been manuevered into a disastrous position through giving up their neutrality and their territory being used as a geopolitical battleground.
Clearly that sort of outcome is to be avoided if at all possible!
Would you explain what it is you do mean?
Thanks.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banderite
Terrible example- the Ukraine population done nothing of the sort; EVERYTHING that is happening in that country is a product of the utter corruption of it's leader/s. Any sacking or juggling of the Elite of that country is about the division of spoils. It's advisable to not believe a word about goings-on in Ukraine that ushers from the Zelensky Regime itself, the EUK/US Clown Show or the entire West MSM. They are all incapable of telling anything even resembling the truth
Could you possibly explain why the citizens of Estonia seem to have a different perspective on what you regard as the truth in Ukraine...
Maybe because that total imbecile Kallas has determined their perception of events in Ukraine. WTF has my comment got to do with Estonia anyway? ( assuming you comment above was addressed to me )
Yes... as the limited knowledge I have of some Estonians who from the end of WW2 were under Russian 'control' have a very different perspective on the facts of life that the Russians imposed on their previous Independence.... and again those Estonians I know feel that both the German & Russian occupation were roughly equal in state sponsored/face doesn't fit killing.... with one particular villages inhabitants killed by equal numbers... by both sides.... not to forget about the sex slave operations.... so when the Russians left after depleting vast assets...and the Estonians regained their Independence ... I can assure you that those I know are very very far from thinking of the Russian state as anything but something they never wish to suffer again... and strangely they are some of the biggest supporters of the Ukrainian people as they too have 'suffered' ....
Now I feel very angry about the english control of Scotland and the anglo Scots who are happy with this system.... BUT my feelings are dwarfed by those Estonians when they refer to the Russian occupation under the guise of one people supporting each other.... I could rabbit on about this but there is no point as it deflects from riding the stupidity of the so called democrapic cabal we Scots have in Holyrood.