If anyone still doubts that the #ScottishUDI process is the only way Scotland’s independence will be restored, that doubt must surely be dispelled by the UK Government’s peremptory, single-page submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee
The result in 2014 was not the will of 'the people of Scotland' as is often claimed but of 'the people in Scotland', some of whom were there by an accident of work placement or by gaining a last minute student place after disappointing A-level results and had no real connection to Scotland.
The difference us crucial and one of the reasons for Salvo/liberation.scot's appeal to the UN to be recognised as a nonself governing territory is that that status would give us the right to a referendum under its rules, which would rule out interference by the external governing state and its media, along with a UN approved franchise with a strong residence qualification.
The only way out of this I can see is for the spineless SNP to actively colaborate with all other Independence parties and groups to call a Constitutional Convention and for the next Westminster Parliament, to stand one Independence candidate in every Scottish seat. To campaign on a manifesto stating exactly what they intend to do if elected by a majority - walk out of Westminster as vocally and in a way guaranteed to attract as much foreign and domestic media attention as possible, to take a seat in Holyrood and to proceed to form a Scottish Parliament working in conjunction with the the Constitutional Convention to resume Scotland’s Independence. Sealing the deal with a snap referendum if felt necessary.
I have no doubt at all that if the SNP and other Independence parties win a majority at the May election to Holyrood AND if they immediately form a government of ALL the talents they could do this.
The question is will they want to. I’m very afraid the answer is no - they’re either too feart or too indoctrinated with UK knows best or too in thrall to an easy life to try.
We must proceed on the basis that the next democratic event offering an opportunity to trigger the process of restoring independence will be the last such opportunity. It is never safe to assume that there will be another opportunity.
We must assume that the UK Government will at any moment, put in place measures which make the restoration of independence at least much more difficult, or even impossible. The nature of the Union means that they can alter Scotland's constitutional status in any way they choose.
We cannot risk a failed attempt to restore Scotland's independence. This would provide the UK Government with a 'justification' for clamping down on 'separatist' movements.
The gauntlet has been thrown down! I wondered what the next game would be before the elections..and here it is. Have we a Scottish Government with backbone to refute this and put a 'secret plan ' into operation?....silence...
As the cowardly America accompanied by their little creepy friend ( who does has nuclear weapons)..suddenly attack Iran without warning the world looks on. Well I hope the SG does NOT look on when our freedom is wrenched away from us in no uncertain terms by the now obviously HOSTILE foreign england. ..all that's missing SD is... 'you are defeated you little colony and england owns you...shut up.'
This is a declaration of hostile intent against Scotland. If we don't respond to this ..we are finished.On the news this morning a foreign english military expert admitted that the Americans must ask for permission to use UK bases to attack others...but DON'T always ..they just go ahead anyway...Think about that. Scotland has already been used as a base without even BEING TOLD.We face the possibility of being dragged into a war of Trump's making..with our nuclear subs sitting in Faslane ..targets....while being told you are not independent and never will be.Next move Mr Swinney?
For OUR Scotland ( not little foreign englands) and her threatened weans WHO MUST WAKEN UP.....
Scotland wanted devolution in 1997. Now we're stuck with it. We are a devolved nation.
The SNP wanted devolution in 1997. Their devolutionists, including Nicola Sturgeon, won. Their devolutionists won again in 2014. Nicola was in hiding for three days before the 2014 referendum. She admitted it on The Rest Is Politics podcast. She was hiding as she was scared that Alex Salmond might win.
Nicola Sturgeon became leader, lied to a bunch of fools, the fools campaigned for further referenda on various dates, before Nicola settled the issue by going to the Supreme Court to ensure it was ruled as illegal. Oh, what a relief! She'd finally settled the score with the independence supporters. Holyrood cannot legally hold an independence referendum.
Now John Swinney is treading the same path and 34% of us are fools again!
Yes, it's a very clear denial by the UK Government, the argument they might use in a putative court, of the right to self-determination of the People of Scotland.
Who it calls "people in Scotland" in two cases including one relating to our exercise of self-determination in the referendum of 2014 - recognised as such universally. Whereas it actually refers to us as "The people of Scotland" in its final dismissive paragraph. On such slender uses of language whole empires can be gained - or lost. And note carefully - not once does it mention "self-determination". Their submission could of course be quoted in that putative court.
On the other hand, the Scottish Government's argument might be (4 Sep 2025):
"In 1997, following the election of a Labour UK Government with a manifesto commitment to holding referendums on devolution, a referendum was held on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland chose devolution.[37]
In 2014, following the election of a Scottish Government with a manifesto commitment to giving the people of Scotland the choice of independence, an independence referendum was held. Every vote in that referendum, whether for Scotland to become independent or not, was part of an act of self-determination by the people of Scotland. At that time, the people of Scotland chose to stay part of the United Kingdom.
Both of these votes were exercises of the people of Scotland’s right to decide their constitutional future."
I think the way it works now is something like this.
1. Before the election a request for a section 30 or permanent change to the Scotland Act.
2. After the election, another written request, with a press conference.
3. If a refusal or the UKG ignores it, a written reminder, with a press conference.
4. If another refusal or the UKG ignores it, a final request with a clear ultimatum and date, with a press conference.
5. Following the unsatisfactory expiry of the ultimatum, this to a press conference:
"The Government of Scotland, having received no satisfactory response from the Government of the United Kingdom by noon on the 8th June 2026, to our demands for the right to exercise our right of self-determination on behalf of the People of Scotland through a referendum by the Parliament of Scotland, has no choice but to secede from the United Kingdom with immediate effect, to give democratic effect to their right to Self-determination in a duly constituted referendum organised by the duly elected Parliament of Scotland, with international observers".
Tell that to all the actual genuine experts. I'm sure you can educate them and they'll bow down and thank you profusely for correcting their incredible illiterate ignorance.
On reflection, that was a bit unfair. It's not that you are keen on betraying Scotland's cause. It's just that you aren't capable of comprehending the implications of what you suggest. Or the fact that your suggestion makes no sense at all here in the real world.
EDIT: On further reflection, you are even worse than John Swinney. As far as we know, he only intends to concede a veto once. You want to do it three times!
I don't think you'll find any actual constitutional or legal expert to agree with your eccentric view on not having some form of agreed route to an independence referendum, like the one in 2014 - if possible.
I've read just about all there is by real ones out "here in the real world" - you should try it some time! A bit of reading might edumicate you.
I seem to have arrived somewhat late to this discussion.
I can completely see the point that yesindyref2 is making,
with the clear comparison to a simple civil debt recovery case.
When yesindyref2 says "some form of agreed route"
I take it as implicit from reading with the context that in his mind the 'agreed route' has to be agreed with Westminster.
This it appears is the fundamental implicit assumption that Peter seems to be forever pointing out.
It is quite reasonable to suggest the WE (the Scottish voter) should have an agreed route, so that we know what exactly is being proposed to happen.
But WHO is this 'route' to be agreed with?
The Scottish people are sovereign.
We decide what we are going to do.
If the Scottish Executive wish to be 'good neighbours' and inform the English Regime what it is that WE are going to do, then by all means, one could reasonably suggest that the Scottish Executive could hold some sort of consultative exercise on that topic. ;-)
If I have misread the implicit assumption that yesindyref2 seems to be making, then now would certainly be a good time to disabuse me of that impression.
The result in 2014 was not the will of 'the people of Scotland' as is often claimed but of 'the people in Scotland', some of whom were there by an accident of work placement or by gaining a last minute student place after disappointing A-level results and had no real connection to Scotland.
The difference us crucial and one of the reasons for Salvo/liberation.scot's appeal to the UN to be recognised as a nonself governing territory is that that status would give us the right to a referendum under its rules, which would rule out interference by the external governing state and its media, along with a UN approved franchise with a strong residence qualification.
The only way out of this I can see is for the spineless SNP to actively colaborate with all other Independence parties and groups to call a Constitutional Convention and for the next Westminster Parliament, to stand one Independence candidate in every Scottish seat. To campaign on a manifesto stating exactly what they intend to do if elected by a majority - walk out of Westminster as vocally and in a way guaranteed to attract as much foreign and domestic media attention as possible, to take a seat in Holyrood and to proceed to form a Scottish Parliament working in conjunction with the the Constitutional Convention to resume Scotland’s Independence. Sealing the deal with a snap referendum if felt necessary.
I have no doubt at all that if the SNP and other Independence parties win a majority at the May election to Holyrood AND if they immediately form a government of ALL the talents they could do this.
The question is will they want to. I’m very afraid the answer is no - they’re either too feart or too indoctrinated with UK knows best or too in thrall to an easy life to try.
Country over Party please!
We must proceed on the basis that the next democratic event offering an opportunity to trigger the process of restoring independence will be the last such opportunity. It is never safe to assume that there will be another opportunity.
We must assume that the UK Government will at any moment, put in place measures which make the restoration of independence at least much more difficult, or even impossible. The nature of the Union means that they can alter Scotland's constitutional status in any way they choose.
We cannot risk a failed attempt to restore Scotland's independence. This would provide the UK Government with a 'justification' for clamping down on 'separatist' movements.
The gauntlet has been thrown down! I wondered what the next game would be before the elections..and here it is. Have we a Scottish Government with backbone to refute this and put a 'secret plan ' into operation?....silence...
As the cowardly America accompanied by their little creepy friend ( who does has nuclear weapons)..suddenly attack Iran without warning the world looks on. Well I hope the SG does NOT look on when our freedom is wrenched away from us in no uncertain terms by the now obviously HOSTILE foreign england. ..all that's missing SD is... 'you are defeated you little colony and england owns you...shut up.'
This is a declaration of hostile intent against Scotland. If we don't respond to this ..we are finished.On the news this morning a foreign english military expert admitted that the Americans must ask for permission to use UK bases to attack others...but DON'T always ..they just go ahead anyway...Think about that. Scotland has already been used as a base without even BEING TOLD.We face the possibility of being dragged into a war of Trump's making..with our nuclear subs sitting in Faslane ..targets....while being told you are not independent and never will be.Next move Mr Swinney?
For OUR Scotland ( not little foreign englands) and her threatened weans WHO MUST WAKEN UP.....
Scotland wanted devolution in 1997. Now we're stuck with it. We are a devolved nation.
The SNP wanted devolution in 1997. Their devolutionists, including Nicola Sturgeon, won. Their devolutionists won again in 2014. Nicola was in hiding for three days before the 2014 referendum. She admitted it on The Rest Is Politics podcast. She was hiding as she was scared that Alex Salmond might win.
Nicola Sturgeon became leader, lied to a bunch of fools, the fools campaigned for further referenda on various dates, before Nicola settled the issue by going to the Supreme Court to ensure it was ruled as illegal. Oh, what a relief! She'd finally settled the score with the independence supporters. Holyrood cannot legally hold an independence referendum.
Now John Swinney is treading the same path and 34% of us are fools again!
Yes, it's a very clear denial by the UK Government, the argument they might use in a putative court, of the right to self-determination of the People of Scotland.
Who it calls "people in Scotland" in two cases including one relating to our exercise of self-determination in the referendum of 2014 - recognised as such universally. Whereas it actually refers to us as "The people of Scotland" in its final dismissive paragraph. On such slender uses of language whole empires can be gained - or lost. And note carefully - not once does it mention "self-determination". Their submission could of course be quoted in that putative court.
On the other hand, the Scottish Government's argument might be (4 Sep 2025):
"In 1997, following the election of a Labour UK Government with a manifesto commitment to holding referendums on devolution, a referendum was held on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland chose devolution.[37]
In 2014, following the election of a Scottish Government with a manifesto commitment to giving the people of Scotland the choice of independence, an independence referendum was held. Every vote in that referendum, whether for Scotland to become independent or not, was part of an act of self-determination by the people of Scotland. At that time, the people of Scotland chose to stay part of the United Kingdom.
Both of these votes were exercises of the people of Scotland’s right to decide their constitutional future."
https://www.gov.scot/publications/right-decide/pages/3/
I think the way it works now is something like this.
1. Before the election a request for a section 30 or permanent change to the Scotland Act.
2. After the election, another written request, with a press conference.
3. If a refusal or the UKG ignores it, a written reminder, with a press conference.
4. If another refusal or the UKG ignores it, a final request with a clear ultimatum and date, with a press conference.
5. Following the unsatisfactory expiry of the ultimatum, this to a press conference:
"The Government of Scotland, having received no satisfactory response from the Government of the United Kingdom by noon on the 8th June 2026, to our demands for the right to exercise our right of self-determination on behalf of the People of Scotland through a referendum by the Parliament of Scotland, has no choice but to secede from the United Kingdom with immediate effect, to give democratic effect to their right to Self-determination in a duly constituted referendum organised by the duly elected Parliament of Scotland, with international observers".
I'd like to give that comment multiple likes, if thst were possible!
Neither the UK Government nor Westminster has any legitimate role in the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination.
NO ROLE!!¬!
Tell that to all the actual genuine experts. I'm sure you can educate them and they'll bow down and thank you profusely for correcting their incredible illiterate ignorance.
I see you are as keen on betraying Scotland's cause as Swinney is.
Oh dear. You only have eyes for your own mirror.
On reflection, that was a bit unfair. It's not that you are keen on betraying Scotland's cause. It's just that you aren't capable of comprehending the implications of what you suggest. Or the fact that your suggestion makes no sense at all here in the real world.
EDIT: On further reflection, you are even worse than John Swinney. As far as we know, he only intends to concede a veto once. You want to do it three times!
I don't think you'll find any actual constitutional or legal expert to agree with your eccentric view on not having some form of agreed route to an independence referendum, like the one in 2014 - if possible.
I've read just about all there is by real ones out "here in the real world" - you should try it some time! A bit of reading might edumicate you.
I seem to have arrived somewhat late to this discussion.
I can completely see the point that yesindyref2 is making,
with the clear comparison to a simple civil debt recovery case.
When yesindyref2 says "some form of agreed route"
I take it as implicit from reading with the context that in his mind the 'agreed route' has to be agreed with Westminster.
This it appears is the fundamental implicit assumption that Peter seems to be forever pointing out.
It is quite reasonable to suggest the WE (the Scottish voter) should have an agreed route, so that we know what exactly is being proposed to happen.
But WHO is this 'route' to be agreed with?
The Scottish people are sovereign.
We decide what we are going to do.
If the Scottish Executive wish to be 'good neighbours' and inform the English Regime what it is that WE are going to do, then by all means, one could reasonably suggest that the Scottish Executive could hold some sort of consultative exercise on that topic. ;-)
If I have misread the implicit assumption that yesindyref2 seems to be making, then now would certainly be a good time to disabuse me of that impression.
I long since resigned myself to the fact that you are ineducable. A text-book example of the colonised mind.
All that's missing from the statement is
'Signed, Douglas Alexander"