A recurring theme in discourse on the constitutional issue is the notion that in order to make progress all that is needed is for all the pro-independence parties to ‘sit down round the table and thrash out their differences’.
I'm a long standing (suffering) fan of Dundee FC. I have secret friendships with some fans of , whisper it, Dundee United. Over the decades there have been entirely sensible though superficial moves towards combining these 2 clubs in order to achieve what would obviously be complete dominance of Scottish football (humour me). So during one of these episodes I was chatting with a friend of the Arab persuasion about what the merged club would be called - his suggestion ? Each set of fans would nominate one name from their existing club, Dundee FC fans would of course nominate "Dundee" as their word - guess what word DUFC fans would nominate ?
That reminds me of the old Spitting Image sketch from the late 1980s when Messrs Steel and Owen - the "Two Davids" - were discussing who would lead a new political entity created by the merger of their parties, namely the (then) Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the (then) Liberal Party.
The suggestion from Owen was that Steel would get to choose the first name whilst he (Owen) would select the surname. The meek Steel - as portrayed - agreed.
(The little David, of course, in reality got the last laugh after the 1987 election when he formed the SDLP with other members of Owen's erstwhile party, sidelining the latter in the process and ending Owen's UK political ambitions).
Absolutely and totally OT, well it is Friday, and ladies, please avert your eyes.
This mass screening for prostrate cancer SHOULD go ahead. Probably like many I didn't bother, preferring not to get the bad news, but did go for all the blood tests under the sun. Had a high PSA and having said I wanted to live till 103, got sent for a scan and got an appointment quite quickly. Hey, I was CLEAR of cancer, but just got the two daily meds and what a difference it made and makes. Not just errrrr, physically, but mentally too. Sadly it means I might be a burden on the state for longer, much to the total disgust of Freeze Reeves and her so-called Labour party senicidal cronies.
The UK health secretary is considering the ignorant specialist survey "more harm than good my arseh***" is what I say. So in Scotland we should go ahead / continue anyway, and if anybody gets the chance for a full blood test for as much readings as possible including PSA, give your blood generously.
The point made by Peter was that "the ‘unity’ thing hasn’t happened".
My point was that the Liberation Scotland multi-party (incl individual candidates) approach is an example of a unifying strategy. Whether it will work or not at this election, or what vote outcome is deemed likely based on polling evidence, is another matter.
The Liberate Scotland initiative signatories also better understand our colonial reality and the need for decolonization and liberation, compared with other parties claiming they support independence, hence the name 'Liberate Scotland'. This is a major shift in understanding compared to Peter's 'nominally' independence parties such as SNP, or Alba, who still do not understand far less communicate to/with the people the meaning of independence.
We also know from postcolonial theory that unity of and with the people is necessary to free them: "the leaders pursuit of unity is necessarily also an attempt to organize the people, requiring witness to the fact that the struggle for liberation is a common task" (Freire) for any oppressed group.
Confusing/conflating Liberation Scotland and Liberate Scotland, Alf. I strongly suspect this is what the latter hoped for.
Assuming that you intended to refer to Liberate Scotland throughout, you call it "an example of a unifying strategy". If so, it is a strategy which has failed utterly. I contend that it was always destined to fail. I maintain that it is a doomed strategy which can never succeed. Human nature and the adversarial, election-focused nature of our politics ensure that it can never work. So far, I have been proved correct. I might ultimately be proved wrong. But can we really afford to wait and see? How many election cycles should we go through while we test this grand 'unity' notion?
Or do we proceed with a more realistic and pragmatic perspective on things? How about we recognise that this notion of unity in the form of amalgamation is worthy-sounding idealistic nonsense based on a fallacious understanding of our situation and the way politics works in the real world.
Amalgamation can't work. Aggregation can. Aggregation meaning a loose union of numerous heterogeneous units. Unity of purpose rather than unity of identity. All that's required is a common purpose. That is the missing element. a single purpose that all of the numerous heterogeneous units can adopt while each continues to maintain its distinct identity.
To use the SNP as the most obvious example: it is NEVER going to let its identity be subsumed in some umbrella organisation. No party with an established 'brand' will do so. The SNP is NEVER going to let some umbrella organisation speak for it. No party with an established 'voice' will do so. It is just NEVER going to happen.
However, it is entirely possible that the SNP might join with others in committing to a single purpose which is tightly defined so that it doesn't clash with any party's distinct principles, policies, or positions.
Of course, it might take a great deal of pressure to force the SNP and other parties to adopt this common purpose. Only the independence movement has the required strength to generate this pressure, and only in combination. It is NOT at the level of the nominally pro-independence parties that 'unity' must be sought, but at the level of the independence movement. If there is unity of purpose in the independence movement, the parties can be made to follow suit.
All that remains is to identify the purpose. This too demands a realistic and pragmatic perspective on the constitutional issue. It demands realisation that the purpose is NOT 'winning independence'. The purpose is securing the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination. A purpose which everybody can identify with because the right of self-determination is a fundamental human right. In principle, even Unionists might agree with this purpose. Not everybody wants independence. But very few would disagree that we must have the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination.
Like Alba Party, Liberate Scotland has not created a new machinery. It has simply inserted itself into the old machinery. Either could have created that new machinery. Neither chose to do so. If there is anything different about Liberate Scotland it is the possibility that some of those involved might have a vague idea of what this new machinery might look like. Or at least, a tenuous realisation that new machinery is both possible and required. But they have not gone on to create that machinery. Thus, they have failed.
Plenty folk repeatedly voted SNP over the last decade without any "new machinery" on independence, and across the UK people voted for Brexit without any 'plan' as such.
Which confirms what we know, that people vote on the basis of their emotions, which means they are not looking for or necessarily needing a definitive 'plan' once they have set their minds on a particular preferred outcome/goal.
'Let's get Independence done' is all any independence movement wants. A plebiscite election serves that purpose, as it did in many former colonies, and that is what an elected majority of nationalist representatives in a colony are for, i.e. to get independence done. They only have that one purpose!
'Let's get Independence done' is not all an independence movement needs, even if it may be all it says it wants. As well as wanting it done, the movement needs to know that it CAN be done. A credible strategy is currently the missing element. That is why support for independence isn't increasing but is not diminishing either. The persistent support is those who just want independence. The additional support that is required is those who also need to know that it can be done. After which, we get the ones who need to actually see it being done.
People do tend to "vote on the basis of their emotions". But something has to trigger the emotions. The emotional desire for independence is not enough. This must be augmented by an emotional belief that it is a real prospect.
A plebiscite election may have served in the circumstances of many former colonies. That tells us precisely nothing about its appropriateness in Scotland's circumstances. Each case is unique. Each requires a solution tailored to its circumstances. For a number of reasons, a plebiscite election is not appropriate to our circumstances. For one thing, too much effort has been put into telling people that a referendum is necessary. It might be possible in principle to alter that perception. In practice, however, it would be an uphill task. A very steep hill given that the SNP and the Scottish Government are saying a referendum is essential. And given the fact that Unionists and the British state concur with this. That's a strong wind of propaganda against which to pish.
For another thing, a plebiscite election can never be conclusive enough. I am a lifelong Scottish nationalist. But I am also a realist. If I can formulate a list of arguments as to why a plebiscite election doesn't settle the matter, then so can Unionists. We know that there are hard-line Unionists who will always oppose breaking the Union. We must 'disarm' them as much as possible. We must leave them with no rational justification for opposing - by whatever means available to them - the restoration of independence.
There will always be a hardcore rump of extremists prepared to resort to 'direct action' in defence of their precious Union. We would be well advised to minimise and isolate this hardcore to the greatest extent possible by making independence indisputably the expressed will of Scotland's people. That requires a conclusive choice in a proper constitutional referendum.
One distinct advantage of the confirmatory referendum proposed by the #ScottishUDI strategy is that it can be expected to increase support for independence simply by the fact that it is happening, while also lowering the bar for conclusiveness a little by virtue of the referendum being a vote on a detailed proposal.
A plebiscite election would suffice to provide a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to repossess the powers it requires in order to provide a proper constitutional referendum. That is what it should be used for. As things stand, we would struggle to get over 50% in a plebiscite election. A vote on 'more powers' would be much more likely to provide a clear mandate. Particularly if the campaign presented this as an opportunity to take back something that is rightfully ours, but which was stolen from us and is being withheld from us.
A positive result in that plebiscite election would then serve as an elevated launchpad for a Yes campaign in the runup to the confirmatory referendum. Success breeds success.
As a researcher I tend to look for evidence to ascertain the realities of a given situation or phenomenon:
The theoretical reality, as Albert Memmi reminds us, is that colonial domination means: "the colonizer denies the colonized the most precious right granted to most men: liberty. The colonized has no way out of his state of woe" (and is made to believe thus, and may even make such arguments, spurious or otherwise, in support of the colonizers domination).
The observed reality is that, whether we like it or not, no party is adopting #ScottishUDI.
The observed reality is that a few national parties (who, importantly, also understand our colonial reality, unlike the 'nominally' independence parties) are now unified and intend to fight the election as a plebiscite on independence under the 'Liberate Scotland' banner.
As you and others have astutely reminded us, independence must be taken, it will never be freely given by the oppressor power, and this also fits with the 'offer' of the unified independence parties.
The reality, then, is that the colonized who desires freedom can only support those who seek their liberation, and in this instance, at this election, that is the Liberate Scotland political alliance.
If only there was some way that the liberation parties could come out publicly offering a directly attainable goal.
The goal that a vote for them is a vote to take back the powers to OUR parliament and strike off the restrictive chains of devolution from our parliament.
What a wonderful thing that could be.
They would be in the vanguard.
Heroes, Liberators of the people.
Next years Holyrood election would be their big chance.
With a very simple and attractive electoral offer like that, there would be little to no room for misrepresentation in the media or misunderstanding on the doorsteps.
"If only there was some way that the liberation parties could come out publicly offering a directly attainable goal."
They already have.
The Liberate Scotland Alliance
"We will use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence, uniting pro independence candidates across Scotland under a single purpose, to end the Union and begin the rebirth of a free Scottish state"
Independence for Scotland
"ISP contest Scottish Parliament elections as plebiscites. It is the party’s stance that if a majority of seats return pro-independence MSPs, this is a binding expression of the Scottish people’s desire for independence from the United Kingdom. The Acts of Union were a bilateral treaty. In international law, such a treaty is annulled when one or both parties withdraw."
Sovereignty Party
"At a recent Sovereignty Congress, a motion declaring the members’ support for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) was debated and agreed by the membership. This is conditional on a majority of the Scottish electorate voting for parties that support withdrawing from the UK."
Independents4Independence
"Our message is simple: it is time to turn the upcoming Holyrood election in May 2026 into a decisive referendum on Scotland’s independence. We call for this election to be transformed into a plebiscite—an unmistakable mandate from the Scottish people to break free from the constraints of the British Union and to chart a new course as an independent nation. Our manifesto for the 2026 Holyrood election will be a bold declaration of independence. "
In 2014 there was an Independence Referendum organised after a Section 30 with the terms negotiated between Michael Moore and Nicola Sturgeon, and agreed by David Cameron and Alex Salmond. A Section 30 is, contrary to some people's mistaken beliefs, an Order in Council which is in this case secondary legislation passed by both Houses of the UK Parliament AND the Scottish Parliament, usually with little or no debate. In this case MPs thanked the UK Gov for an unusually long debate in the House of Commons, though not the usual parliamentary stages of course of primary legislation such as the Scotland Act itself - or permanent changes to it.
The Section 30 was preceded by the Edinburgh Agreement, signed by Cameron, Salmond, Moore and Sturgeon in October 2012. People like myself interested in the legality of these things, read all the articles on such as the Scottish Constitutional Futures Forum set up by a few experts on both sides of the constitutional divide, including an article on the Edinburgh Agreement - that conclusion way back then was that it wasn't enforceable, except politically.
However, the referendum went ahead and 3,623,344 voted out of a registered 4,283,392 - with very strong effort to get people registered who'd never voted before. The turnout was 84.59%. It would seem exceedingly unlikely that more than a handful of them didn't believe that they were voting FOR or AGAINST Independence. They - we - were exercising our self-determination.
Even if it had been a YES vote, there was no legal compulsion on "Westminster" to "give" Independence. But no serious and trained expert, or practicing politician before or after, has ever doubted that a YES vote would have led to Independence; the only question being WHEN not IF. Indeed, this is the reason for the refusal of Westminster so far to agree to a section 30 Order. Such as negotiations on the financial terms such as any debt were expected to continue long after Independence itself. In general the borders are clear except for the missing 6,000 square miles of the North Sea (yes, international law DOES support our claim - see EJIL). The agreement and referendum might not be enforceable - same as the EU Referendum - but politically, it was. Independence for Scotland would indeed have happened. As did unfortunately, Brexit.
That is the reality. And only this blogger seeks to deny it. On the other hand, many people in the Indy movement are sick of seeing the SNP, as they put it, sending out the begging bowl to Westminster begging for a Section 30 time and time again. Perhaps some unthinking people confuse being against begging bowls, with being against the Section 30 completely.
However, what many people including Swinney want, is for the powers to be permanently devolved, via a permanent change of the Scotland Act, which would be under Primary legislation and go through the stages and committees at the House of Commons and House of Lords, and also through the Scottish Parliament who would have to agree with it for Royal Assent to be given. That would then never ever involve a Section 30 Order in Council to approve a referendum - it would only be for the Scottish Parliament without reference to Westminster, though it would of course be polite, diplomatic and sensible to have such discussions as a YES vote would lead to negotiations on the terms of Independence.
And THAT is reality in a nutshell so to speak; E&OE excepted.
Just for some hardnosed stats, and just looking at the List.
In 2003 the SSP got 6 MSPs with 128,026 votes and 6.76%. They had Tommy Sheridan who was a hero to many (and still is for some, probably including me). In 2007 they got none with 13,096 and 0.6%; and with 31,096 votes and 1.5% of the vote, Solidarity got none.
In 2016 and with massive promotion by the National, columns and even TV appearances, and endorsement by Sillars amongs others, RISE with 10,911 and 0.5% got none (Solidarity with 14,333 and 0.6% got none), despite hope over fear etc). UKIP with 46,426 and 2.0% got - none).
In 2021 and a lot of hype and Alex Salmond, Alba with 44,913 and 1.66% got - none.
Alba are polling less, they have McAskill who was Justice Secretary under Salmond, they'll be lucky to get 40,000 votes and - no seats.
I4I, ISP, Liberate Scot, any others, don't appear on the polling, don't get backed by the National or any other news"paper", don't get on TV, nobody outside a small circle knows anyone from these other parties. They'll be lucky to get as many as 10,911 votes, and that's between the lot.
And from that point of view, why on earth would the SNP and Greens want to talk to noisy but very sparsely populated parties which, particularly for the SNP, are extremely anti-SNP? It would do them more harm than good, and probably destroy any credibility they had with the electorate.
With no evident sense of irony, you list three parties under the heading "UNITY PARTIES". Surely there should only be one.
The divide here is between parties which cynically use the notion of 'unity' as an electioneering device and those that don't. Or at least, not to the same extent. Because they all talk about unity. But they all want unity on their own terms. Hence, no unity.
The whole idea of gathering all the nominally pro-independence parties under one umbrella is nonsensical. It hasn't happened, despite the fact that they all say they want it. There's a reason for this. It's impossible! It hasn't happened because it can't happen. Human nature and the nature of politics militate against it.
The 'unity' schtick sounds good as part of the electioneering rhetoric. But like much besides, it is both cause and symptom of tribalism. Your divide is a manifestation of tribalism - "UNITY PARTIES" versus "ANTI-UNITY PARTIES". For the former, the most important and useful thing about the idea of "UNITY" is that allows them to accuse others of being "ANTI-UNITY".
What does it matter anyway? None of them has a clue about how to restore independence. So, it make absolutely no difference whether they are the "UNITY" tribe or the other tribe.
It has been explained to you repeatedly why it is essential that the Section 30 process be repudiated. I see no point in explaining it again as you seem incapable of understanding.
It takes two to compromise. Even if Swinney was prepared to compromise, you aren't. You are uncompromising so there will NEVER be a compromise with you. You say in your article:
"The underlying — and entirely false — premise is that there is always a workable compromise."
and then you seem to be proud that YOU are the problem not Swinney!
So no lack of reading material, or lack of explanation for anyone to consider.
One can see that obviously, and human nature being what it is, that those who have not acknowledged the issues with the S30 process, may find it difficult to admit them now.
Especially if their public position depends on them not admitting that what they have been advocating FOR for all these years can be seen clearly now to have been the wrong thing.
Expecting any kind of 'mea culpa', 'I was wrong' or heaven forbid an admission that they had reservations but did not know what else they should do, well that would seem unlikely, wouldn't it?
So probably the best we might hope for is for certain people to accept that we need to 'move on' from the Section 30 process, that would be a start.
Of course privately they would have to accept that WHEN the British state comes calling with an OFFER of some sort of Section30 'compromise offer'
that it will be a trap, and has to be resisted.
Not just resisted, but utterly discarded.
The S30, or equivalent Westminster process, will not be our salvation and it could very well turn out to be our ruin.
THIS is what people need to understand.
If John Swinney or the SNP leadership refuse to acknowledge why this is so, then we face the prospect of ruin at their hands. :-(
You're not asking me to "compromise". You're asking me to wreck the #ScottishUDI strategy. You're just incapable of understanding that you are asking me to wreck it.
You can't see the strategy as a whole. You decided early on that you had to 'improve' it and latched onto the notion of dropping the repudiation of Section 30 as a way of making the strategy yours. Or more importantly, not mine. Having latched onto it, you now can't let go.
I fully understand the psychology at work here. Which is why I know that further discussion is pointless. It's not that you are intellectually incapable of understanding the reasons for repudiating the Section 30 process. But you are definitely psychologically incapable of doing so.
I shall, of course, ignore completely your inevitable petty and petulant response.
" How can there be any compromise between these two positions? " . Obviously, there can't be any compromise in that instance; but this is an uncharacteristically " straw mannish " example, P. The kind of " we can work it out " proposals being mooted involve people and ideas not nearly as far apart in plausibility, conception/perception and, crucially....honesty as you & Swinney
We now know, incontrovertibly, that Swiinney/SNP are not serious about the Constitutional Question; but there are plenty of good, hardworking, committed people who are.
I get what you're saying, eg about power differentials, divergent positions & willingness/reluctance to compromise: at the same time though, it's not as if people with a shared aim but different approach have NEVER got together and worked-out ways to optimize their energies to achieve, or at least progress. their common ambition.
If that was the case, ie people with common interest/different ideas pooling resources, no battle would ever have been won and many of the civilisational/technological advances have been accomplished. Mavericks have often been massively, game-changingly important: but so have Team Players
But none of those "good, hardworking, committed people" has come up with a strategy that actually leads to the proper constitutional referendum which must happen. The only thing that happens when you make compromises with people who haven't a clue but just want to be part of it is that their bad thinking subtracts from the good thinking.
If somebody came up with a better strategy that #ScottishUDI then I would abandon #ScottishUDI immediately and support the other thing. But nobody has come up with such a plan.
If somebody discovered a fatal flaw in #ScottishUDI that wasn't amenable to some fix or workaround, I'd stop promoting it. But nobody has found such a flaw. In fact, nobody has even tried to find it. All the opposition to #ScottishUDI has been at the level of personal insult.
If somebody came up with an improvement to #ScottishUDI, I'd seize it with both hands. I'm not in the slightest bit precious about it. But this hasn't happened either.
So, I'm left with something that I am totally persuaded is the right way to go, and I'm asked to enter into discussions with people who want me to change various things in ways that I know will fuck the strategy completely. Why would I do that?
This is like science. I'm right until I'm proved wrong. I can do no other than defend what I reason is the best strategy. Somebody asking me to compromise this strategy is like them asking me to consider a 'federal solution' rather than independence. Why would I do that?
The only "strategy" that's been around for any length of time and has been "stuck" with is Salvo and Liberation Scotland. Whether this will eventually achieve its existence remains to be seen. However, it does have more substance where independence is concerned than anything Swinney has never put forward or thinks he has put forward.
Your own argument about independence groups/parties getting together like King Arthur's knights around the table in order to come up with a way forward independence agreement has one fundamental problem. No-one asked them to. Said groups are not sovereign in terms of representation of all the people.
I am totally amenable to a round table as long as I can bring my Lchaber..pike...mills bomb...I'd even go for a folding table cos I could get to the foreign english/traitors even faster.
We know that the ONLY way is the Scottish UDI Manifesto....the fact that swiney turns his head away from it let's you know he is betraying us.
I don't think the quisling would want to sit down and thrash things oot wi' the likes o' me and others of similar homicidal inclinations towards traitors.
We produce so many quislings ..I wonder if there is something in the water that encourages growth of these parasitic organisms? ..but more importantly have we a cure....Let's ask the free Irish...
I'm a long standing (suffering) fan of Dundee FC. I have secret friendships with some fans of , whisper it, Dundee United. Over the decades there have been entirely sensible though superficial moves towards combining these 2 clubs in order to achieve what would obviously be complete dominance of Scottish football (humour me). So during one of these episodes I was chatting with a friend of the Arab persuasion about what the merged club would be called - his suggestion ? Each set of fans would nominate one name from their existing club, Dundee FC fans would of course nominate "Dundee" as their word - guess what word DUFC fans would nominate ?
That reminds me of the old Spitting Image sketch from the late 1980s when Messrs Steel and Owen - the "Two Davids" - were discussing who would lead a new political entity created by the merger of their parties, namely the (then) Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the (then) Liberal Party.
The suggestion from Owen was that Steel would get to choose the first name whilst he (Owen) would select the surname. The meek Steel - as portrayed - agreed.
(The little David, of course, in reality got the last laugh after the 1987 election when he formed the SDLP with other members of Owen's erstwhile party, sidelining the latter in the process and ending Owen's UK political ambitions).
Absolutely and totally OT, well it is Friday, and ladies, please avert your eyes.
This mass screening for prostrate cancer SHOULD go ahead. Probably like many I didn't bother, preferring not to get the bad news, but did go for all the blood tests under the sun. Had a high PSA and having said I wanted to live till 103, got sent for a scan and got an appointment quite quickly. Hey, I was CLEAR of cancer, but just got the two daily meds and what a difference it made and makes. Not just errrrr, physically, but mentally too. Sadly it means I might be a burden on the state for longer, much to the total disgust of Freeze Reeves and her so-called Labour party senicidal cronies.
The UK health secretary is considering the ignorant specialist survey "more harm than good my arseh***" is what I say. So in Scotland we should go ahead / continue anyway, and if anybody gets the chance for a full blood test for as much readings as possible including PSA, give your blood generously.
The point made by Peter was that "the ‘unity’ thing hasn’t happened".
My point was that the Liberation Scotland multi-party (incl individual candidates) approach is an example of a unifying strategy. Whether it will work or not at this election, or what vote outcome is deemed likely based on polling evidence, is another matter.
The Liberate Scotland initiative signatories also better understand our colonial reality and the need for decolonization and liberation, compared with other parties claiming they support independence, hence the name 'Liberate Scotland'. This is a major shift in understanding compared to Peter's 'nominally' independence parties such as SNP, or Alba, who still do not understand far less communicate to/with the people the meaning of independence.
We also know from postcolonial theory that unity of and with the people is necessary to free them: "the leaders pursuit of unity is necessarily also an attempt to organize the people, requiring witness to the fact that the struggle for liberation is a common task" (Freire) for any oppressed group.
Confusing/conflating Liberation Scotland and Liberate Scotland, Alf. I strongly suspect this is what the latter hoped for.
Assuming that you intended to refer to Liberate Scotland throughout, you call it "an example of a unifying strategy". If so, it is a strategy which has failed utterly. I contend that it was always destined to fail. I maintain that it is a doomed strategy which can never succeed. Human nature and the adversarial, election-focused nature of our politics ensure that it can never work. So far, I have been proved correct. I might ultimately be proved wrong. But can we really afford to wait and see? How many election cycles should we go through while we test this grand 'unity' notion?
Or do we proceed with a more realistic and pragmatic perspective on things? How about we recognise that this notion of unity in the form of amalgamation is worthy-sounding idealistic nonsense based on a fallacious understanding of our situation and the way politics works in the real world.
Amalgamation can't work. Aggregation can. Aggregation meaning a loose union of numerous heterogeneous units. Unity of purpose rather than unity of identity. All that's required is a common purpose. That is the missing element. a single purpose that all of the numerous heterogeneous units can adopt while each continues to maintain its distinct identity.
To use the SNP as the most obvious example: it is NEVER going to let its identity be subsumed in some umbrella organisation. No party with an established 'brand' will do so. The SNP is NEVER going to let some umbrella organisation speak for it. No party with an established 'voice' will do so. It is just NEVER going to happen.
However, it is entirely possible that the SNP might join with others in committing to a single purpose which is tightly defined so that it doesn't clash with any party's distinct principles, policies, or positions.
Of course, it might take a great deal of pressure to force the SNP and other parties to adopt this common purpose. Only the independence movement has the required strength to generate this pressure, and only in combination. It is NOT at the level of the nominally pro-independence parties that 'unity' must be sought, but at the level of the independence movement. If there is unity of purpose in the independence movement, the parties can be made to follow suit.
All that remains is to identify the purpose. This too demands a realistic and pragmatic perspective on the constitutional issue. It demands realisation that the purpose is NOT 'winning independence'. The purpose is securing the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination. A purpose which everybody can identify with because the right of self-determination is a fundamental human right. In principle, even Unionists might agree with this purpose. Not everybody wants independence. But very few would disagree that we must have the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination.
Like Alba Party, Liberate Scotland has not created a new machinery. It has simply inserted itself into the old machinery. Either could have created that new machinery. Neither chose to do so. If there is anything different about Liberate Scotland it is the possibility that some of those involved might have a vague idea of what this new machinery might look like. Or at least, a tenuous realisation that new machinery is both possible and required. But they have not gone on to create that machinery. Thus, they have failed.
Plenty folk repeatedly voted SNP over the last decade without any "new machinery" on independence, and across the UK people voted for Brexit without any 'plan' as such.
Which confirms what we know, that people vote on the basis of their emotions, which means they are not looking for or necessarily needing a definitive 'plan' once they have set their minds on a particular preferred outcome/goal.
'Let's get Independence done' is all any independence movement wants. A plebiscite election serves that purpose, as it did in many former colonies, and that is what an elected majority of nationalist representatives in a colony are for, i.e. to get independence done. They only have that one purpose!
'Let's get Independence done' is not all an independence movement needs, even if it may be all it says it wants. As well as wanting it done, the movement needs to know that it CAN be done. A credible strategy is currently the missing element. That is why support for independence isn't increasing but is not diminishing either. The persistent support is those who just want independence. The additional support that is required is those who also need to know that it can be done. After which, we get the ones who need to actually see it being done.
People do tend to "vote on the basis of their emotions". But something has to trigger the emotions. The emotional desire for independence is not enough. This must be augmented by an emotional belief that it is a real prospect.
A plebiscite election may have served in the circumstances of many former colonies. That tells us precisely nothing about its appropriateness in Scotland's circumstances. Each case is unique. Each requires a solution tailored to its circumstances. For a number of reasons, a plebiscite election is not appropriate to our circumstances. For one thing, too much effort has been put into telling people that a referendum is necessary. It might be possible in principle to alter that perception. In practice, however, it would be an uphill task. A very steep hill given that the SNP and the Scottish Government are saying a referendum is essential. And given the fact that Unionists and the British state concur with this. That's a strong wind of propaganda against which to pish.
For another thing, a plebiscite election can never be conclusive enough. I am a lifelong Scottish nationalist. But I am also a realist. If I can formulate a list of arguments as to why a plebiscite election doesn't settle the matter, then so can Unionists. We know that there are hard-line Unionists who will always oppose breaking the Union. We must 'disarm' them as much as possible. We must leave them with no rational justification for opposing - by whatever means available to them - the restoration of independence.
There will always be a hardcore rump of extremists prepared to resort to 'direct action' in defence of their precious Union. We would be well advised to minimise and isolate this hardcore to the greatest extent possible by making independence indisputably the expressed will of Scotland's people. That requires a conclusive choice in a proper constitutional referendum.
One distinct advantage of the confirmatory referendum proposed by the #ScottishUDI strategy is that it can be expected to increase support for independence simply by the fact that it is happening, while also lowering the bar for conclusiveness a little by virtue of the referendum being a vote on a detailed proposal.
A plebiscite election would suffice to provide a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to repossess the powers it requires in order to provide a proper constitutional referendum. That is what it should be used for. As things stand, we would struggle to get over 50% in a plebiscite election. A vote on 'more powers' would be much more likely to provide a clear mandate. Particularly if the campaign presented this as an opportunity to take back something that is rightfully ours, but which was stolen from us and is being withheld from us.
A positive result in that plebiscite election would then serve as an elevated launchpad for a Yes campaign in the runup to the confirmatory referendum. Success breeds success.
#ScottishUDI makes sense.
As a researcher I tend to look for evidence to ascertain the realities of a given situation or phenomenon:
The theoretical reality, as Albert Memmi reminds us, is that colonial domination means: "the colonizer denies the colonized the most precious right granted to most men: liberty. The colonized has no way out of his state of woe" (and is made to believe thus, and may even make such arguments, spurious or otherwise, in support of the colonizers domination).
The observed reality is that, whether we like it or not, no party is adopting #ScottishUDI.
The observed reality is that a few national parties (who, importantly, also understand our colonial reality, unlike the 'nominally' independence parties) are now unified and intend to fight the election as a plebiscite on independence under the 'Liberate Scotland' banner.
As you and others have astutely reminded us, independence must be taken, it will never be freely given by the oppressor power, and this also fits with the 'offer' of the unified independence parties.
The reality, then, is that the colonized who desires freedom can only support those who seek their liberation, and in this instance, at this election, that is the Liberate Scotland political alliance.
Aye Alf.
If only there was some way that the liberation parties could come out publicly offering a directly attainable goal.
The goal that a vote for them is a vote to take back the powers to OUR parliament and strike off the restrictive chains of devolution from our parliament.
What a wonderful thing that could be.
They would be in the vanguard.
Heroes, Liberators of the people.
Next years Holyrood election would be their big chance.
With a very simple and attractive electoral offer like that, there would be little to no room for misrepresentation in the media or misunderstanding on the doorsteps.
Scotlands liberation would be one step closer!
"If only there was some way that the liberation parties could come out publicly offering a directly attainable goal."
They already have.
The Liberate Scotland Alliance
"We will use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence, uniting pro independence candidates across Scotland under a single purpose, to end the Union and begin the rebirth of a free Scottish state"
Independence for Scotland
"ISP contest Scottish Parliament elections as plebiscites. It is the party’s stance that if a majority of seats return pro-independence MSPs, this is a binding expression of the Scottish people’s desire for independence from the United Kingdom. The Acts of Union were a bilateral treaty. In international law, such a treaty is annulled when one or both parties withdraw."
Sovereignty Party
"At a recent Sovereignty Congress, a motion declaring the members’ support for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) was debated and agreed by the membership. This is conditional on a majority of the Scottish electorate voting for parties that support withdrawing from the UK."
Independents4Independence
"Our message is simple: it is time to turn the upcoming Holyrood election in May 2026 into a decisive referendum on Scotland’s independence. We call for this election to be transformed into a plebiscite—an unmistakable mandate from the Scottish people to break free from the constraints of the British Union and to chart a new course as an independent nation. Our manifesto for the 2026 Holyrood election will be a bold declaration of independence. "
In 2014 there was an Independence Referendum organised after a Section 30 with the terms negotiated between Michael Moore and Nicola Sturgeon, and agreed by David Cameron and Alex Salmond. A Section 30 is, contrary to some people's mistaken beliefs, an Order in Council which is in this case secondary legislation passed by both Houses of the UK Parliament AND the Scottish Parliament, usually with little or no debate. In this case MPs thanked the UK Gov for an unusually long debate in the House of Commons, though not the usual parliamentary stages of course of primary legislation such as the Scotland Act itself - or permanent changes to it.
The Section 30 was preceded by the Edinburgh Agreement, signed by Cameron, Salmond, Moore and Sturgeon in October 2012. People like myself interested in the legality of these things, read all the articles on such as the Scottish Constitutional Futures Forum set up by a few experts on both sides of the constitutional divide, including an article on the Edinburgh Agreement - that conclusion way back then was that it wasn't enforceable, except politically.
However, the referendum went ahead and 3,623,344 voted out of a registered 4,283,392 - with very strong effort to get people registered who'd never voted before. The turnout was 84.59%. It would seem exceedingly unlikely that more than a handful of them didn't believe that they were voting FOR or AGAINST Independence. They - we - were exercising our self-determination.
Even if it had been a YES vote, there was no legal compulsion on "Westminster" to "give" Independence. But no serious and trained expert, or practicing politician before or after, has ever doubted that a YES vote would have led to Independence; the only question being WHEN not IF. Indeed, this is the reason for the refusal of Westminster so far to agree to a section 30 Order. Such as negotiations on the financial terms such as any debt were expected to continue long after Independence itself. In general the borders are clear except for the missing 6,000 square miles of the North Sea (yes, international law DOES support our claim - see EJIL). The agreement and referendum might not be enforceable - same as the EU Referendum - but politically, it was. Independence for Scotland would indeed have happened. As did unfortunately, Brexit.
That is the reality. And only this blogger seeks to deny it. On the other hand, many people in the Indy movement are sick of seeing the SNP, as they put it, sending out the begging bowl to Westminster begging for a Section 30 time and time again. Perhaps some unthinking people confuse being against begging bowls, with being against the Section 30 completely.
However, what many people including Swinney want, is for the powers to be permanently devolved, via a permanent change of the Scotland Act, which would be under Primary legislation and go through the stages and committees at the House of Commons and House of Lords, and also through the Scottish Parliament who would have to agree with it for Royal Assent to be given. That would then never ever involve a Section 30 Order in Council to approve a referendum - it would only be for the Scottish Parliament without reference to Westminster, though it would of course be polite, diplomatic and sensible to have such discussions as a YES vote would lead to negotiations on the terms of Independence.
And THAT is reality in a nutshell so to speak; E&OE excepted.
Just for some hardnosed stats, and just looking at the List.
In 2003 the SSP got 6 MSPs with 128,026 votes and 6.76%. They had Tommy Sheridan who was a hero to many (and still is for some, probably including me). In 2007 they got none with 13,096 and 0.6%; and with 31,096 votes and 1.5% of the vote, Solidarity got none.
In 2016 and with massive promotion by the National, columns and even TV appearances, and endorsement by Sillars amongs others, RISE with 10,911 and 0.5% got none (Solidarity with 14,333 and 0.6% got none), despite hope over fear etc). UKIP with 46,426 and 2.0% got - none).
In 2021 and a lot of hype and Alex Salmond, Alba with 44,913 and 1.66% got - none.
Alba are polling less, they have McAskill who was Justice Secretary under Salmond, they'll be lucky to get 40,000 votes and - no seats.
I4I, ISP, Liberate Scot, any others, don't appear on the polling, don't get backed by the National or any other news"paper", don't get on TV, nobody outside a small circle knows anyone from these other parties. They'll be lucky to get as many as 10,911 votes, and that's between the lot.
And from that point of view, why on earth would the SNP and Greens want to talk to noisy but very sparsely populated parties which, particularly for the SNP, are extremely anti-SNP? It would do them more harm than good, and probably destroy any credibility they had with the electorate.
Sorry, that's the reality as I see it.
UNITY PARTIES:
ISP
SOVEREIGNTY
I4I
ANTI-UNITY PARTIES:
SNP
GREEN
ALBA
With no evident sense of irony, you list three parties under the heading "UNITY PARTIES". Surely there should only be one.
The divide here is between parties which cynically use the notion of 'unity' as an electioneering device and those that don't. Or at least, not to the same extent. Because they all talk about unity. But they all want unity on their own terms. Hence, no unity.
The whole idea of gathering all the nominally pro-independence parties under one umbrella is nonsensical. It hasn't happened, despite the fact that they all say they want it. There's a reason for this. It's impossible! It hasn't happened because it can't happen. Human nature and the nature of politics militate against it.
The 'unity' schtick sounds good as part of the electioneering rhetoric. But like much besides, it is both cause and symptom of tribalism. Your divide is a manifestation of tribalism - "UNITY PARTIES" versus "ANTI-UNITY PARTIES". For the former, the most important and useful thing about the idea of "UNITY" is that allows them to accuse others of being "ANTI-UNITY".
What does it matter anyway? None of them has a clue about how to restore independence. So, it make absolutely no difference whether they are the "UNITY" tribe or the other tribe.
"#ScottishUDI and John Swinney’s proposal.... How can there be any compromise between these two positions"
Very easily. You drop the Section 30 rejection which only a few agree with, probably only 1,000 - and he endorses the:
"2. Declare the Scottish Parliament election a referendum on extending the powers of the Scottish parliament.
3. Seize the power over the constitution in the Scottish Parliament."
though "Assert power" is better IMHO than "Seize the power".
Amongst indy supporters 2 and 3 are increasingly popular - including with me.
It has been explained to you repeatedly why it is essential that the Section 30 process be repudiated. I see no point in explaining it again as you seem incapable of understanding.
It takes two to compromise. Even if Swinney was prepared to compromise, you aren't. You are uncompromising so there will NEVER be a compromise with you. You say in your article:
"The underlying — and entirely false — premise is that there is always a workable compromise."
and then you seem to be proud that YOU are the problem not Swinney!
If it happens that anyone new comes along and thinks to themselves
"I wonder what are these reasons that Peter says he has repeatedly explained?"
A quick search turned up these links:
"Why the Section 30 process must be repudiated"
https://peterabell.wordpress.com/2025/04/13/why-the-section-30-process-must-be-repudiated/
"Section 30 is not Scotland’s salvation
https://peterabell.wordpress.com/2019/07/30/section-30-is-not-scotlands-salvation/
"An act of heinous treachery!"
https://peterabell.wordpress.com/2024/03/30/an-act-of-heinous-treachery/
"Why S30 spells disaster for Scotland’s cause"
https://peterabell.wordpress.com/2024/04/03/why-s30-spells-disaster-for-scotlands-cause/
"Continuity of treachery"
https://peterabell.wordpress.com/2025/08/12/continuity-of-treachery/
So no lack of reading material, or lack of explanation for anyone to consider.
One can see that obviously, and human nature being what it is, that those who have not acknowledged the issues with the S30 process, may find it difficult to admit them now.
Especially if their public position depends on them not admitting that what they have been advocating FOR for all these years can be seen clearly now to have been the wrong thing.
Expecting any kind of 'mea culpa', 'I was wrong' or heaven forbid an admission that they had reservations but did not know what else they should do, well that would seem unlikely, wouldn't it?
So probably the best we might hope for is for certain people to accept that we need to 'move on' from the Section 30 process, that would be a start.
Of course privately they would have to accept that WHEN the British state comes calling with an OFFER of some sort of Section30 'compromise offer'
that it will be a trap, and has to be resisted.
Not just resisted, but utterly discarded.
The S30, or equivalent Westminster process, will not be our salvation and it could very well turn out to be our ruin.
THIS is what people need to understand.
If John Swinney or the SNP leadership refuse to acknowledge why this is so, then we face the prospect of ruin at their hands. :-(
I'm guessing you're one of the 1,000 that agrees with Peter after all these years!
Rather than a rhetorical reply, why don't you make an actual contribution by pointing out any error or flaw with the multiple points made.
There are so many of them.
Surely you must have at last one thing that you can say that gives evidence to or grounds for their dismissal?
You're not asking me to "compromise". You're asking me to wreck the #ScottishUDI strategy. You're just incapable of understanding that you are asking me to wreck it.
You can't see the strategy as a whole. You decided early on that you had to 'improve' it and latched onto the notion of dropping the repudiation of Section 30 as a way of making the strategy yours. Or more importantly, not mine. Having latched onto it, you now can't let go.
I fully understand the psychology at work here. Which is why I know that further discussion is pointless. It's not that you are intellectually incapable of understanding the reasons for repudiating the Section 30 process. But you are definitely psychologically incapable of doing so.
I shall, of course, ignore completely your inevitable petty and petulant response.
<weary sigh>
Oh dear, another tantrum. As I said, YOU are the problem.
1,000 people agree with you. Over 1 million at least agree with Swinney.
Less than a thousand of that million understand the implications of Swinney's 'strategy'. Evidently, you are not among that minority.
Good Heavens! You do have a sense of humour!
" How can there be any compromise between these two positions? " . Obviously, there can't be any compromise in that instance; but this is an uncharacteristically " straw mannish " example, P. The kind of " we can work it out " proposals being mooted involve people and ideas not nearly as far apart in plausibility, conception/perception and, crucially....honesty as you & Swinney
We now know, incontrovertibly, that Swiinney/SNP are not serious about the Constitutional Question; but there are plenty of good, hardworking, committed people who are.
I get what you're saying, eg about power differentials, divergent positions & willingness/reluctance to compromise: at the same time though, it's not as if people with a shared aim but different approach have NEVER got together and worked-out ways to optimize their energies to achieve, or at least progress. their common ambition.
If that was the case, ie people with common interest/different ideas pooling resources, no battle would ever have been won and many of the civilisational/technological advances have been accomplished. Mavericks have often been massively, game-changingly important: but so have Team Players
But none of those "good, hardworking, committed people" has come up with a strategy that actually leads to the proper constitutional referendum which must happen. The only thing that happens when you make compromises with people who haven't a clue but just want to be part of it is that their bad thinking subtracts from the good thinking.
If somebody came up with a better strategy that #ScottishUDI then I would abandon #ScottishUDI immediately and support the other thing. But nobody has come up with such a plan.
If somebody discovered a fatal flaw in #ScottishUDI that wasn't amenable to some fix or workaround, I'd stop promoting it. But nobody has found such a flaw. In fact, nobody has even tried to find it. All the opposition to #ScottishUDI has been at the level of personal insult.
If somebody came up with an improvement to #ScottishUDI, I'd seize it with both hands. I'm not in the slightest bit precious about it. But this hasn't happened either.
So, I'm left with something that I am totally persuaded is the right way to go, and I'm asked to enter into discussions with people who want me to change various things in ways that I know will fuck the strategy completely. Why would I do that?
This is like science. I'm right until I'm proved wrong. I can do no other than defend what I reason is the best strategy. Somebody asking me to compromise this strategy is like them asking me to consider a 'federal solution' rather than independence. Why would I do that?
The only "strategy" that's been around for any length of time and has been "stuck" with is Salvo and Liberation Scotland. Whether this will eventually achieve its existence remains to be seen. However, it does have more substance where independence is concerned than anything Swinney has never put forward or thinks he has put forward.
Your own argument about independence groups/parties getting together like King Arthur's knights around the table in order to come up with a way forward independence agreement has one fundamental problem. No-one asked them to. Said groups are not sovereign in terms of representation of all the people.
I am totally amenable to a round table as long as I can bring my Lchaber..pike...mills bomb...I'd even go for a folding table cos I could get to the foreign english/traitors even faster.
We know that the ONLY way is the Scottish UDI Manifesto....the fact that swiney turns his head away from it let's you know he is betraying us.
I don't think the quisling would want to sit down and thrash things oot wi' the likes o' me and others of similar homicidal inclinations towards traitors.
We produce so many quislings ..I wonder if there is something in the water that encourages growth of these parasitic organisms? ..but more importantly have we a cure....Let's ask the free Irish...
For OUR? Scotland and her weans.
I was just thinking that Catherine - the chairperson at the round table needs to have a gun - & know how to use it - what are we saying here ????
I have two guns Geoff...
Cheers