I'm sure it's just a coincidence that all the 'plans' by the various parties and politicians supposedly of Independence - Section 30, Super-Majority, de-facto referendums - are put forward for endorsement in elections where parliamentary representation, and all the associated trappings, for successful candidates is the immediate upshot and reward.
As I think I mentioned in the article, it is only natural that professional politicians should think of any and all positions in terms of their impact on their electability. The matter of principle tends to be subordinated to the perceived popularity of the policy or position. This is also true of activists. We all, I'm sure, have encountered pro-independence activists who say we must set aside the issue of the monarchy lest advocating abolition should deter some voters. But we have also come across those who say Scotland must be a republic. Which option do we go with?
For long enough, I was in agreement with Alex Salmond and his 'five continuing unions' position (https://academic.oup.com/edinburgh-scholarship-online/book/38015/chapter-abstract/332570607?redirectedFrom=fulltext). I no longer subscribe to that view. Salmond had good reasons for adopting this position. The anti-independence campaign was portraying independence as a 'leap in the dark' and implying that it meant total isolation. Apparently, even TV and radio broadcast signals were going to stop at the border.
Salmond saw the priority being to avoid scaring the horses. He wanted people to think independence wasn't going to mean drastic change. The anti-independence campaign was saying we would lose everything. Salmond sought to counter this with the idea that we would lose only the grasping hand of Westminster.
Was he right to do this? There's no clear-cut answer to that question. The only sensible answer is 'maybe' or 'partly'. Taking that position may well have been good for the 'Yes' campaign. But only at the cost of compromising certain principles.
I later came to the conclusion that there are some horses that need scaring. Salmond may have been sincere about the monarchy, for example. In the long school day after the vote, I began to revise my view. In fact, it wasn't my view; it was Alex's. I was just going along with it for the sake of the campaign. It was time to develop a position of my own.
I gradually came to the conclusion that restoring our independence required as clean and comprehensive a break as might be practicable. My educated and considered view now is that the monarchy is incompatible with the principle that the people are sovereign. It was never that I liked or wanted to keep the monarchy. It was just that I didn't consider it necessary to take an explicitly republican position.
As I saw it, Scotland's new written constitution would be unacceptable to the institution that is the monarchy. Sovereignty is absolute and indivisible. There cannot be two sovereigns. A constitutional provision enshrining a modern Claim of Right would relegate the monarchy to the rank of ceremonial trappings. If the monarchy accepted this in Scotland, it would seriously undermine its status in the rest of the UK. My view then was that the issue would be resolved by the monarchy declining to accept the new constitution. In effect, the monarchy would leave Scotland rather than us leaving the monarchy.
My view now is that a break-and-remake approach will work best. We sever all six unions as defined by Alex Salmond and remake only those we want to keep but on our own terms. We must negotiate all our national associations anew as an independent nation.
And we must be honest with the people. We shouldn't pretend that the monarchy can survive. It can't.
Thanks for you detailed and supplementary response Peter.
For the avoidance of doubt I am in favour of a complete break with the British and the establishment of a genuinely Scottish state, one that leaves ultimate power with the people via a 21st century constitution based on the traditions and concepts outlined in the Declaration of Arbroath and Claim of Right.
This, therefore, can never be include the retention of an English monarch as head of state. At best that would result in a continuing fudged sham that has been on-going since at least 1707 when the Treaty of Union was implemented to create the 'United Kingdom(s). That is, the arrangement that was based on the continuation of the English Bill of Rights (1689) in England (& Wales) and the Scottish Claim of Right (1689) in Scotland. They were/are, of course, totally incompatible so I'm not surprised that there is no written UK constitution ... that would have codified the contradiction.
The confusion allowed the British state to simply ignore the Scottish component upon which the treaty, and thus, 'British' Parliament was based.
We should make it clear that it is the people who are the boss and ultimate authority (in line with our uniquely historical traditions) not some individual who places a bejewelled headpiece for political ceremonial occasions.
As for the 'social union' that simply refers to relationships among 'the people of these islands' i.e. family and friends across the two jurisdictions. We should scoff at any suggestions that friendships and familial connections would not continue, as they do with folks in other countries across the World.
Regarding EU and NATO, well we're not in the former anymore so that one is taken care of in the immediate future. We need to be clear that commercial trading and military relationships would by necessity be something that would have to be discussed and re-negotiated according to the prevailing circumstances of the day. These are quite different now to what they were in 2014 and are forever evolving.
We cannot be truly independent within a monetary union that would always put rUK economic priorities ahead of ours. In addition fiscal policy i.e. government spending and taxation would be impacted by monetary constraints placed on us by a foreign country's central bank. That would be 'Devo Max' under another disguise.
Basically, our argument should be 'why would we want to have restore our independence just to keep everything as is?'
Our values are different. And we shouldn't be afraid to say so.
Unfortunately I am no longer lucid. Here's my take..remove all who wish to keep Scotland in this evil toxic union...that benefits only the parasitic hostile foreign english...simples! Clear oot the Aegean Stales otherwise known as Unholyrood....Did I hear ye say the Scottish people are sovereign?..right burn doon the f****n ' place doon.....an we start again...
Blast o' the pipes and a steady drumbeat signifying all foreign english proceed to the border..wait for the pibroch tae sound the removal o' electronic tags......then aff ye go ya pitiful wee nasty nation that's polluted and abused oor land for 300 years..... back tae dear auld shighty .an' don't come back ...unless ye want tae spend some money oan holiday.( I'm ok wi that)..but ye huv tae leave at the end of yer stay.. ken that? ...cos ye didnae before....by the way we're sending in the bill for 300 years o' reparations...the oil bill will huv ye wettin' yerselves..but we're no a' bad so we'll sell ye some water..cos oor water is clean and yours is filthy...reasonable price..unless ye annoy us again ..then the price triples..so watch yer wee mooths.
Well that's the foreign english turd FINALLY flushed awa'......it's a bit like a boil ye huv tae keep lancin'...noo let's get the quislings....
Independence has got to feel real and immediate to our people at the moment it does not.... It did in the pre referendum campaign. Procrastination puts the reality of independence further back in voters minds. There are many things the Scottish SNP government could do now. To make independence seem real and immediate. The issue of a Central Bank and currency could be brought forward as an actual bill to be enacted on independence. Similarly plans to nationalize the production of energy could be a bill.
Referendum, de factotherwise is not the way forward. A vote in the Scottish parliament is. If independence is about other States recognizing Scotland as a sovereign state then that is the way to go.
We are being boxed in to a referenfum ... Yet most States in a colonial situation have won the freedom not by referenda . But by aggregating power. Then bringing the colonial power into conflict with the people... That way would ensure s clear support backing independence.
Comparison with "most states" is misleading. Each case is unique. The circumstances in Scotland mean that a referendum is essential. But it has to be the right kind of referendum. It has to be a proper constitutional referendum.
When people think of a referendum, they naturally think of the 2014 vote. They are right to think we must not do that again. The mistake is to dismiss all referendums just because the 2014 one was so flawed.
A confirmatory referendum is the best way to ensure Scotland's independence is restored in such a way as to leave no grounds for dispute. I should probably write something about this.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that all the 'plans' by the various parties and politicians supposedly of Independence - Section 30, Super-Majority, de-facto referendums - are put forward for endorsement in elections where parliamentary representation, and all the associated trappings, for successful candidates is the immediate upshot and reward.
As I think I mentioned in the article, it is only natural that professional politicians should think of any and all positions in terms of their impact on their electability. The matter of principle tends to be subordinated to the perceived popularity of the policy or position. This is also true of activists. We all, I'm sure, have encountered pro-independence activists who say we must set aside the issue of the monarchy lest advocating abolition should deter some voters. But we have also come across those who say Scotland must be a republic. Which option do we go with?
For long enough, I was in agreement with Alex Salmond and his 'five continuing unions' position (https://academic.oup.com/edinburgh-scholarship-online/book/38015/chapter-abstract/332570607?redirectedFrom=fulltext). I no longer subscribe to that view. Salmond had good reasons for adopting this position. The anti-independence campaign was portraying independence as a 'leap in the dark' and implying that it meant total isolation. Apparently, even TV and radio broadcast signals were going to stop at the border.
Salmond saw the priority being to avoid scaring the horses. He wanted people to think independence wasn't going to mean drastic change. The anti-independence campaign was saying we would lose everything. Salmond sought to counter this with the idea that we would lose only the grasping hand of Westminster.
Was he right to do this? There's no clear-cut answer to that question. The only sensible answer is 'maybe' or 'partly'. Taking that position may well have been good for the 'Yes' campaign. But only at the cost of compromising certain principles.
I later came to the conclusion that there are some horses that need scaring. Salmond may have been sincere about the monarchy, for example. In the long school day after the vote, I began to revise my view. In fact, it wasn't my view; it was Alex's. I was just going along with it for the sake of the campaign. It was time to develop a position of my own.
I gradually came to the conclusion that restoring our independence required as clean and comprehensive a break as might be practicable. My educated and considered view now is that the monarchy is incompatible with the principle that the people are sovereign. It was never that I liked or wanted to keep the monarchy. It was just that I didn't consider it necessary to take an explicitly republican position.
As I saw it, Scotland's new written constitution would be unacceptable to the institution that is the monarchy. Sovereignty is absolute and indivisible. There cannot be two sovereigns. A constitutional provision enshrining a modern Claim of Right would relegate the monarchy to the rank of ceremonial trappings. If the monarchy accepted this in Scotland, it would seriously undermine its status in the rest of the UK. My view then was that the issue would be resolved by the monarchy declining to accept the new constitution. In effect, the monarchy would leave Scotland rather than us leaving the monarchy.
My view now is that a break-and-remake approach will work best. We sever all six unions as defined by Alex Salmond and remake only those we want to keep but on our own terms. We must negotiate all our national associations anew as an independent nation.
And we must be honest with the people. We shouldn't pretend that the monarchy can survive. It can't.
Thanks for you detailed and supplementary response Peter.
For the avoidance of doubt I am in favour of a complete break with the British and the establishment of a genuinely Scottish state, one that leaves ultimate power with the people via a 21st century constitution based on the traditions and concepts outlined in the Declaration of Arbroath and Claim of Right.
This, therefore, can never be include the retention of an English monarch as head of state. At best that would result in a continuing fudged sham that has been on-going since at least 1707 when the Treaty of Union was implemented to create the 'United Kingdom(s). That is, the arrangement that was based on the continuation of the English Bill of Rights (1689) in England (& Wales) and the Scottish Claim of Right (1689) in Scotland. They were/are, of course, totally incompatible so I'm not surprised that there is no written UK constitution ... that would have codified the contradiction.
The confusion allowed the British state to simply ignore the Scottish component upon which the treaty, and thus, 'British' Parliament was based.
We should make it clear that it is the people who are the boss and ultimate authority (in line with our uniquely historical traditions) not some individual who places a bejewelled headpiece for political ceremonial occasions.
As for the 'social union' that simply refers to relationships among 'the people of these islands' i.e. family and friends across the two jurisdictions. We should scoff at any suggestions that friendships and familial connections would not continue, as they do with folks in other countries across the World.
Regarding EU and NATO, well we're not in the former anymore so that one is taken care of in the immediate future. We need to be clear that commercial trading and military relationships would by necessity be something that would have to be discussed and re-negotiated according to the prevailing circumstances of the day. These are quite different now to what they were in 2014 and are forever evolving.
We cannot be truly independent within a monetary union that would always put rUK economic priorities ahead of ours. In addition fiscal policy i.e. government spending and taxation would be impacted by monetary constraints placed on us by a foreign country's central bank. That would be 'Devo Max' under another disguise.
Basically, our argument should be 'why would we want to have restore our independence just to keep everything as is?'
Our values are different. And we shouldn't be afraid to say so.
Brilliantly lucid Peter.
Unfortunately I am no longer lucid. Here's my take..remove all who wish to keep Scotland in this evil toxic union...that benefits only the parasitic hostile foreign english...simples! Clear oot the Aegean Stales otherwise known as Unholyrood....Did I hear ye say the Scottish people are sovereign?..right burn doon the f****n ' place doon.....an we start again...
Blast o' the pipes and a steady drumbeat signifying all foreign english proceed to the border..wait for the pibroch tae sound the removal o' electronic tags......then aff ye go ya pitiful wee nasty nation that's polluted and abused oor land for 300 years..... back tae dear auld shighty .an' don't come back ...unless ye want tae spend some money oan holiday.( I'm ok wi that)..but ye huv tae leave at the end of yer stay.. ken that? ...cos ye didnae before....by the way we're sending in the bill for 300 years o' reparations...the oil bill will huv ye wettin' yerselves..but we're no a' bad so we'll sell ye some water..cos oor water is clean and yours is filthy...reasonable price..unless ye annoy us again ..then the price triples..so watch yer wee mooths.
Well that's the foreign english turd FINALLY flushed awa'......it's a bit like a boil ye huv tae keep lancin'...noo let's get the quislings....
For OUR Scotland and her finally free weans...
Independence has got to feel real and immediate to our people at the moment it does not.... It did in the pre referendum campaign. Procrastination puts the reality of independence further back in voters minds. There are many things the Scottish SNP government could do now. To make independence seem real and immediate. The issue of a Central Bank and currency could be brought forward as an actual bill to be enacted on independence. Similarly plans to nationalize the production of energy could be a bill.
Referendum, de factotherwise is not the way forward. A vote in the Scottish parliament is. If independence is about other States recognizing Scotland as a sovereign state then that is the way to go.
We are being boxed in to a referenfum ... Yet most States in a colonial situation have won the freedom not by referenda . But by aggregating power. Then bringing the colonial power into conflict with the people... That way would ensure s clear support backing independence.
Comparison with "most states" is misleading. Each case is unique. The circumstances in Scotland mean that a referendum is essential. But it has to be the right kind of referendum. It has to be a proper constitutional referendum.
When people think of a referendum, they naturally think of the 2014 vote. They are right to think we must not do that again. The mistake is to dismiss all referendums just because the 2014 one was so flawed.
A confirmatory referendum is the best way to ensure Scotland's independence is restored in such a way as to leave no grounds for dispute. I should probably write something about this.