The possible explanation for why many Scots might think of foreign, trade, currency, economic matters as "trimmings" we can leave in the hands of a UK govt is that we've hardly begun to think about them from the POV of an independent state. Instead of thinking about the "big stuff" in any more that abstract aspirational ideas, the national "debate" is too mired in currently devolved issues.
As you imply, Peter, "The British people" is a false persona and a cultural illusion, as the Indians, Irish and many other colonised peoples eventually discovered, and the Scots are rapidly realising.
As Rees-Mogg stated what it really means: "to be British or, if you like, English".
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of Britain where the Unionists lie.
Spot on Peter! For me, the fact that Mr Kauder can’t see the flaws you so accurately list reeks of that arrogance which has always unfortunately reflected the the sense of entitlement by England that it must always lead and control.
I haven’t read his conceot but would be interested to hear if he even adddressed the problems of the two party dominance and the role of the House of Lords?
Brilliant piece of writing Peter. Just in from working in the garden..light rain..sun peeping thro..plants loving it..insects slugs snails happily wet and slimy..birds yelling for food ..my two seagulls Jessie and Jimmy brought the new arrivals to me for feeding...twins... a verdant place..that's OUR Scotland....and we have absolutely no need for any deals with our colonial occupiers and their burnt land who have been trashing Scotland for more than 300 years.
Your crit of the Kauders book was perfect. Couldn't find anything to criticise..except ye read it!I would have been tempted to wipe the nether regions with it or even keep ma scraps in it.
I sense the foreign english are becoming nervous....to the point that they MIGHT share some powers wi us...but they still get the final say.... Gee ta...but in best of east end Glesga vernacular..tongs ya bass!
I read about the Boer War...family were involved...the foreign english as mythical 'Britain' yelled for help ..the Commonwealth responded ...to fight a wee bunch of Dutch farmers who gave them a run for their money...stuck the Boer women and children in concentration camps where they starved to death....shot their animals..burned their homesteads...saw the pics...
They have been doing the same to us.....we are stuck in a concentration camp where well heeled sh*te come and 'shoot ' our animals...and totally ignore the peasants who should own this land.
..your piece was absolutely perfect.....noo sharpen yer Lochaber...
For OUR Scotland and her weans just needing an excuse for mayhem..
Any proposal for 'Near Federalism', 'Home-ish Rule' or 'Maximalist Devolution' is just another offering describing the means by which the British state retains control. That's it.
Such proposals offer reform when we need revolution and decentralisation when we need de-coupling.
It' not up to David Kauders, the British state or anyone else to decide to permit Scottish people the 'right to an independence vote' - we already have that (self-determination) right, as laid out in the UN Charter that has been extant since 1945.
Sovereignty is everything or it is nothing.
Therefore:
No British Involvement! No British Interference! No British Influence!
It doesn't matter what high quality silks & satins they're adorned with, what exotic perfumes they're sprinkled with, all these proposed alternatives to Independence can't disguise the fact that underneath them lies the tattered rags & stale sweat of English possessiveness and desire to always have and be in control of what it still considers it's Dominion.
THAT is what we want to be free of: and no amount of seductive sophistry will be sufficient to dissuade us from our goal of complete, unqualified Scottish Independence
Well said and I agree 100%. I fear not many folk are awake to just how much Scotland is dictated to by our current overlords. Having been brought up in a SNP household and had an uncle who stood for them, I wish nothing other than being Independent and stopping further imposition from an English parliament. I hope the further theft of our resources, mainly our water for unwanted Data centres and the noise levels near them does not happen and us Scots wake up and show opposition to them. Soar Alba Gu Brath.🏴🏴🏴🏴
I think such a federal UK would last no more than 2 months before England screamed blue murder and dissolved the Union for us, so I guess I would be tempted to welcome it with wide open arms!
Wiki gets ripped apart by competing editors, so here's the wiki bit about a journal under Mar's direction:
"When the journal came into Defoe's possession in England, he substantially revised the content to serve as a piece of anti-Jacobite propaganda. Defoe altered key details, such as diminishing Mar's titles and criticizing his leadership, to portray the Jacobite cause as futile and poorly managed. His version of the journal was widely circulated and effectively overshadowed the original, influencing public perception by framing the Jacobite leaders, including Mar, as ineffectual and misguided."
I found the same about Bonnie Prince Charlie - portrayed as a fop, poor leader, partying before Culloden, coward even - a guy who lost the two boats of French troops in a storm, carried on all the same, had just the seven men of Moidart when he raised his standard and nearly took over the whole of Britain. Should have stopped at the border!
I would still vote against it by the way. I don't normally talk about "The British State", but I wouldn't trust it one single solitary inch. Having visited Bannockburn over the weekend, and managed to fit in Alloa Tower, the history you find is very different at times from the "known" history, and it seems "Bobbing John" has been slandered wholesale by one Daniel Defoe. As in this wiki entry, though that is not by any means a very good reference medium:
The British State (English basically) always did rewrite Scottish History; there is no reason to think it wouldn't rewrite the future given half a chance.
He might. Back in the day, Iain McWhirter was a devout devo-maxxer, partly LibDem I guess. Myself mostly did point out below the line the problem with devo-max, FFA right up to federalism - it would explode with justifiable resentment by England. He accepted that after a time and came out for a YES to Indy. But I think he's reverted to "More powers" these days!
Thank you for a comprehensive review of Reinventing Democracy from your viewpoint, that Scotland must be completely independent, and also for describing the book as "... an impressive piece of work. If I had any interest at all in making the British state function better, I would reach for this volume. There is much to commend the federal setup described."
I will make one late change to the second edition text as a result of your points.
From a practical point of view, I question whether you - or your successors - will ever achieve your objective of complete independence. Reinventing Democracy highlights two routes to independence, the constitutional one (because I include the right to an independence vote in the text) and the practical one of waiting for Northern Ireland to leave, which would make it impossible for London to refuse a Scottish independence vote. Surely you have to follow the constitutional route, then show the Scottish people that it is still inadequate? Otherwise, how will you convince a majority - bar waiting for Westminster government to collapse?
"Surely you have to follow the constitutional route, then show the Scottish people that it is still inadequate?"
You are making the assumption "the constitutional route" is something that exists via WM. It cant, because that places control with WM. So its not "inadequate". It is not a route. I think this realisation is beginning to take a haud in Scotland.
Like John Swinney and the rest of the independence industry in Scotland, you put Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue. In fact, Westminster has no role in the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination. Only the people of Scotland belong at the centre of the constitutional issue.
Westminster-- effectively the British Prime Minister -- only has a veto over the will of Scotland's people because our craven political leaders permit it. They give the British state that veto. It must be so, because there is no other way that the British state could acquire a veto power that prevents us exercising our inalienable human right of self-determination.
You talk of "the constitutional route". What constitution are you referring to? I assume it is the ephemeral British constitution. But Scotland has its own constitution. The continuity of that constitution is guaranteed by the Treaty of Union. As with so much else, the British state simply disregards any treaty provisions it finds inconvenient.
There is no route to a proper constitutional referendum and hence the restoration of independence through the British legal and constitutional framework that has developed under the pressure of an imperative to reserve the Union. This should surprise noone. Why would the British state provide an easy escape route for its most precious annexed territory?
The route to a proper constitutional referendum and independence must lie in the space beyond the strictures of the British legal and constitutional framework but within the fundamental principles of international laws, conventions, and accepted norms.
The #ScottishUDI process takes that path. Recognising that we cannot hope to break the Union while abiding by the rules that preserve and protect it, we must accept that the rules must be broken. As things stand, we can decide which rules to break and when. Very much like Norway in the early years of the last century.
Support for a proper constitutional referendum and independence will increase when that referendum or something similar becomes real. Just as happened with the surge in support for Yes during the campaign for the 2014 sham referendum.
Briefly, we use a democratic event -- preferably a Scottish general election but possibly a UK general election -- to generate a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to repossess legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution. We cite as the primary but not sole justification for this unilateral action the fact that this is the only way we can fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination. We take the legal, constitutional, and moral high ground and defy the British state to try and stop us.
Once the Scottish Parliament has asserted the appropriate legislative competence, the Scottish Government presents a Bill of Dissolution which takes the form of a proposal to end the Union and restore Scotland's rightful status as an independent nation. The proposal will be subject to the approval of parliament and ratification by the people of Scotland in a proper constitutional referendum. That is to say, a referendum which is determinative and self-executing, with clear information about exactly what ensues from a Yes vote.
As well as the legislation for this referendum, the Bill of Dissolution will include an interim constitution and, most importantly, the date on which independence is restored. Subsequent to this, negotiations can begin to find a just settlement between the two former parties to the Union.
Power is not given. Power is only taken. That which is given under the name of power is no more than an affirmation of the givers' superiority. Scotland has everything it needs to be an independent nation. Everything except the bold and imaginative political leadership we so desperately need.
One of the many issues that I address in Reinventing Democracy is absolute power, which my ideas turn upside down by handing power to the people. It's your choice what course you wish to follow. I just hope it doesn't result in a 1916-lookalike. The British state never does anything until it is forced into action, and the first response is always to defend the status quo.
"... my ideas turn upside down by handing power to the people."
Except they don't, since they reserve so many powers to Westminster - foreign policy (right to declare war), defence policy (weapons on the Clyde), currency (and, therefore, monetary policy), monarchy (when Scottish folk might wish to have a republic) etc.
It doesn't work. Compromised sovereignty is no sovereignty at all.
" I just hope it doesn't result in a 1916-lookalike."
I presume that you are referring to the Easter Rising in Ireland.
From my historical reading it is estimated that only a relatively small proportion of the population wanted Independence and they certainly didn't support violent insurrection. That only changed (radically) after the British reprisals and the executions of the leaders in Kilmainham gaol.
The Scottish situation over a century later is completely different: around half the population are in favour right now for independent statehood and there are no troops on the street as a matter of course as there were in Ireland at that time due to the on-going trouble from isolated rebellious behaviour from pockets of the population over many, many years.
It's not impossible of course - we've seen what has happened more recently in the occupied 6 counties of Ulster also known as Northern Ireland.
"The British state never does anything until it is forced into action, and the first response is always to defend the status quo."
I'll be generous and take that as a warning rather than a threat.
Again, I observe that you haven't read the book. EVERYTHING can be challenged by the people. The mechanisms are there. Please don't jump to conclusions without reading the detail. And yes, I was referring to the Easter rising and it is a warning not a threat.
It is clear you have put laudable thought into working through how a federal settlement might work out. But I dont wish to spend the rest of my life in energy-sapping attempts to challenge a UK govt in reserved areas, which is in effect what it would be. I wish to concentrate on building Scottish statehood to take our place on the world stage, not hand in hand with England, even if she was lead by Gandhi.
" Except they don't, since they reserve so many powers to Westminster - foreign policy (right to declare war), defence policy (weapons on the Clyde), currency (and, therefore, monetary policy), monarchy (when Scottish folk might wish to have a republic) etc."
Ah! but Scotland would have more control over, eg shortbread supplies to the BBC & * Scottish * MSM; exclusive Intellectual Property rights over tartan, eg if another country wanted to make them they'd have to be marketed as " Jock-Style Sporran - ditto for kilts and skean dhu etc; um.....anything else.....? Nope, think that's about it.
Kiddin' aside, when you see the list of things that would remain under England-as-Britain control, ie ALL the most important aspects of any country's functioning, no offence to David, and fair enough for engaging here " in person " - something not a single Scottish Politician has ever done - but for all the reasons Peter and others have delineated, no-one serious about achieving Scottish Independence will be persuaded by your core proposals. Honestly, you would probably have more success with the current SNP
Yes it is rational. Rational from a UK perspective, presented as ultimate authority.
But when Scotland was annexed in 1707, her parliament 'suspended' (ref Winnie Ewing) and the English parliament continued on, there remained, by necessity for the annexing power, a constitutional contradiction/incompatibility.
From a Scottish perspective ultimate authority resides with the people, not any parliament or court. So it would be entirely irrational to accept the English framing of the matter as authoritative. The fact it is endorsed in some Scottish circles is more symptomatic of an affliction than a truth.
But what matters is that the contradiction is unresolvable. Its one or the other. For Scots its "Are you a country with its own constitutional foundations or an English region?"
It is a point worth repeating. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are wholly incompatible and entirely irreconcilable. They cannot coexist within the same constitutional framework.
This must have been known at the time of the Union being imposed on Scotland. The issue was never resolved. It was buried under a mountain of British propaganda. England-as-Britain simply proceeded as if there were no disjuncture at all. England-as-Britain proceeded as if the Scottish constitutional tradition didn't exist. It proceeded as if parliamentary sovereignty were the 'natural order'.
Over time, Scots came to accept this 'natural order'. New generations were born knowing nothing but the 'natural order' imposed by England-as-Britain. People were born into this 'natural order' and died never knowing the truth of Scotland's situation.
But still the awareness did not fade. There were always some in each generation who heard stories. Stories which contradicted what they were being taught in school. For example, we were taught that William Wallace was a traitor. Today, he would be branded a terrorist. But there were always pockets of knowledge among the enforced ignorance of what Scotand is.
Today, more and more people are realising that there is a Scotland which has been hidden from them. More and more of them want that Scotland back. They want the real Scotland. Not the Scotland that has been moulded by propaganda into an uncomplaining asset to be used by England-as-Britain in whatever manner serves England-as-Britain's interests.
While your book reading list is no doubt very interesting, it does not relate to the point that people should not presume to know the contents of a book they have not read. Evading the point by bringing up a different one is a speciality of politicians.
It's up to you to make your points WITHOUT anyone having to read your book. You replied to someone: "Again, I observe that you haven't read the book." and "Please don't jump to conclusions without reading the detail."
We are - quite rightly - commenting on articles and your own postings here. This is a forum not a book-reading club!
So what exactly has ' rational argument ' achieved so far?..... more talk?... pretty wee speeches?... a realisation that the Scottish Government has achieved with their hands tied that our social framework is improving?... and thats about all.... they have tinkered with social policy... yet even part of that was subject to westminster disapproval.... as against....mouth watering.... Norways financial revolution for it's citizens... its place in the world order.... its confidence.... voiding the indignity of having to tell the Chinese that they could not build a wind turbine facility in Scotland because westminster said ... no
You are so right! Best to remain rational..sensible..calm ..while pillaging Scotland's resources..insulting her people ( turds that won't flush away)..handing her land to a foreign country ( America) to attack another country ( Iran)and not even tell the Scottish Government ..dumping nuclear weapons in Scotland even when the Scots object...You are correct and so typically foreign english. Wonder if that foreign english rationale will be apparent when the Scots decide enough is enough and prepare to remove ...with deadly calm... the parasitic foreign english tic embedded in their land........
The possible explanation for why many Scots might think of foreign, trade, currency, economic matters as "trimmings" we can leave in the hands of a UK govt is that we've hardly begun to think about them from the POV of an independent state. Instead of thinking about the "big stuff" in any more that abstract aspirational ideas, the national "debate" is too mired in currently devolved issues.
As you imply, Peter, "The British people" is a false persona and a cultural illusion, as the Indians, Irish and many other colonised peoples eventually discovered, and the Scots are rapidly realising.
As Rees-Mogg stated what it really means: "to be British or, if you like, English".
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of Britain where the Unionists lie.
Spot on Peter! For me, the fact that Mr Kauder can’t see the flaws you so accurately list reeks of that arrogance which has always unfortunately reflected the the sense of entitlement by England that it must always lead and control.
I haven’t read his conceot but would be interested to hear if he even adddressed the problems of the two party dominance and the role of the House of Lords?
Peter--Could you and Craig Murray get together and form a new party. No career politicians. One fight and its done. Could be the dream team.
Brilliant piece of writing Peter. Just in from working in the garden..light rain..sun peeping thro..plants loving it..insects slugs snails happily wet and slimy..birds yelling for food ..my two seagulls Jessie and Jimmy brought the new arrivals to me for feeding...twins... a verdant place..that's OUR Scotland....and we have absolutely no need for any deals with our colonial occupiers and their burnt land who have been trashing Scotland for more than 300 years.
Your crit of the Kauders book was perfect. Couldn't find anything to criticise..except ye read it!I would have been tempted to wipe the nether regions with it or even keep ma scraps in it.
I sense the foreign english are becoming nervous....to the point that they MIGHT share some powers wi us...but they still get the final say.... Gee ta...but in best of east end Glesga vernacular..tongs ya bass!
I read about the Boer War...family were involved...the foreign english as mythical 'Britain' yelled for help ..the Commonwealth responded ...to fight a wee bunch of Dutch farmers who gave them a run for their money...stuck the Boer women and children in concentration camps where they starved to death....shot their animals..burned their homesteads...saw the pics...
They have been doing the same to us.....we are stuck in a concentration camp where well heeled sh*te come and 'shoot ' our animals...and totally ignore the peasants who should own this land.
..your piece was absolutely perfect.....noo sharpen yer Lochaber...
For OUR Scotland and her weans just needing an excuse for mayhem..
I agree with every word, especially: I am a Scottish nationalist, after all. By definition, I have zero interest in “improving British governance”.
You are not alone...
For OUR Scotland and her weans
You are correct Peter.
Any proposal for 'Near Federalism', 'Home-ish Rule' or 'Maximalist Devolution' is just another offering describing the means by which the British state retains control. That's it.
Such proposals offer reform when we need revolution and decentralisation when we need de-coupling.
It' not up to David Kauders, the British state or anyone else to decide to permit Scottish people the 'right to an independence vote' - we already have that (self-determination) right, as laid out in the UN Charter that has been extant since 1945.
Sovereignty is everything or it is nothing.
Therefore:
No British Involvement! No British Interference! No British Influence!
Excellent .
For OUR Scotland and her weans
And so do I.
It doesn't matter what high quality silks & satins they're adorned with, what exotic perfumes they're sprinkled with, all these proposed alternatives to Independence can't disguise the fact that underneath them lies the tattered rags & stale sweat of English possessiveness and desire to always have and be in control of what it still considers it's Dominion.
THAT is what we want to be free of: and no amount of seductive sophistry will be sufficient to dissuade us from our goal of complete, unqualified Scottish Independence
Agreed.
For OUR Scotland and her weans
Well said and I agree 100%. I fear not many folk are awake to just how much Scotland is dictated to by our current overlords. Having been brought up in a SNP household and had an uncle who stood for them, I wish nothing other than being Independent and stopping further imposition from an English parliament. I hope the further theft of our resources, mainly our water for unwanted Data centres and the noise levels near them does not happen and us Scots wake up and show opposition to them. Soar Alba Gu Brath.🏴🏴🏴🏴
Well spoken.
For OUR Scotland and her weans.
I think such a federal UK would last no more than 2 months before England screamed blue murder and dissolved the Union for us, so I guess I would be tempted to welcome it with wide open arms!
Wiki gets ripped apart by competing editors, so here's the wiki bit about a journal under Mar's direction:
"When the journal came into Defoe's possession in England, he substantially revised the content to serve as a piece of anti-Jacobite propaganda. Defoe altered key details, such as diminishing Mar's titles and criticizing his leadership, to portray the Jacobite cause as futile and poorly managed. His version of the journal was widely circulated and effectively overshadowed the original, influencing public perception by framing the Jacobite leaders, including Mar, as ineffectual and misguided."
I found the same about Bonnie Prince Charlie - portrayed as a fop, poor leader, partying before Culloden, coward even - a guy who lost the two boats of French troops in a storm, carried on all the same, had just the seven men of Moidart when he raised his standard and nearly took over the whole of Britain. Should have stopped at the border!
I would still vote against it by the way. I don't normally talk about "The British State", but I wouldn't trust it one single solitary inch. Having visited Bannockburn over the weekend, and managed to fit in Alloa Tower, the history you find is very different at times from the "known" history, and it seems "Bobbing John" has been slandered wholesale by one Daniel Defoe. As in this wiki entry, though that is not by any means a very good reference medium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Erskine,_Earl_of_Mar_(1675%E2%80%931732)t
The British State (English basically) always did rewrite Scottish History; there is no reason to think it wouldn't rewrite the future given half a chance.
I am fairly certain John Swinney would grab it as well. He is dangerous in that sense.
Uriah Swinney would grab that * solution * with both hands and quicker than you can say " much 'bliged, kind Sir "
He might. Back in the day, Iain McWhirter was a devout devo-maxxer, partly LibDem I guess. Myself mostly did point out below the line the problem with devo-max, FFA right up to federalism - it would explode with justifiable resentment by England. He accepted that after a time and came out for a YES to Indy. But I think he's reverted to "More powers" these days!
Thank you for a comprehensive review of Reinventing Democracy from your viewpoint, that Scotland must be completely independent, and also for describing the book as "... an impressive piece of work. If I had any interest at all in making the British state function better, I would reach for this volume. There is much to commend the federal setup described."
I will make one late change to the second edition text as a result of your points.
From a practical point of view, I question whether you - or your successors - will ever achieve your objective of complete independence. Reinventing Democracy highlights two routes to independence, the constitutional one (because I include the right to an independence vote in the text) and the practical one of waiting for Northern Ireland to leave, which would make it impossible for London to refuse a Scottish independence vote. Surely you have to follow the constitutional route, then show the Scottish people that it is still inadequate? Otherwise, how will you convince a majority - bar waiting for Westminster government to collapse?
"Surely you have to follow the constitutional route, then show the Scottish people that it is still inadequate?"
You are making the assumption "the constitutional route" is something that exists via WM. It cant, because that places control with WM. So its not "inadequate". It is not a route. I think this realisation is beginning to take a haud in Scotland.
Like John Swinney and the rest of the independence industry in Scotland, you put Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue. In fact, Westminster has no role in the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination. Only the people of Scotland belong at the centre of the constitutional issue.
Westminster-- effectively the British Prime Minister -- only has a veto over the will of Scotland's people because our craven political leaders permit it. They give the British state that veto. It must be so, because there is no other way that the British state could acquire a veto power that prevents us exercising our inalienable human right of self-determination.
You talk of "the constitutional route". What constitution are you referring to? I assume it is the ephemeral British constitution. But Scotland has its own constitution. The continuity of that constitution is guaranteed by the Treaty of Union. As with so much else, the British state simply disregards any treaty provisions it finds inconvenient.
There is no route to a proper constitutional referendum and hence the restoration of independence through the British legal and constitutional framework that has developed under the pressure of an imperative to reserve the Union. This should surprise noone. Why would the British state provide an easy escape route for its most precious annexed territory?
The route to a proper constitutional referendum and independence must lie in the space beyond the strictures of the British legal and constitutional framework but within the fundamental principles of international laws, conventions, and accepted norms.
The #ScottishUDI process takes that path. Recognising that we cannot hope to break the Union while abiding by the rules that preserve and protect it, we must accept that the rules must be broken. As things stand, we can decide which rules to break and when. Very much like Norway in the early years of the last century.
Support for a proper constitutional referendum and independence will increase when that referendum or something similar becomes real. Just as happened with the surge in support for Yes during the campaign for the 2014 sham referendum.
Briefly, we use a democratic event -- preferably a Scottish general election but possibly a UK general election -- to generate a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to repossess legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution. We cite as the primary but not sole justification for this unilateral action the fact that this is the only way we can fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination. We take the legal, constitutional, and moral high ground and defy the British state to try and stop us.
Once the Scottish Parliament has asserted the appropriate legislative competence, the Scottish Government presents a Bill of Dissolution which takes the form of a proposal to end the Union and restore Scotland's rightful status as an independent nation. The proposal will be subject to the approval of parliament and ratification by the people of Scotland in a proper constitutional referendum. That is to say, a referendum which is determinative and self-executing, with clear information about exactly what ensues from a Yes vote.
As well as the legislation for this referendum, the Bill of Dissolution will include an interim constitution and, most importantly, the date on which independence is restored. Subsequent to this, negotiations can begin to find a just settlement between the two former parties to the Union.
Power is not given. Power is only taken. That which is given under the name of power is no more than an affirmation of the givers' superiority. Scotland has everything it needs to be an independent nation. Everything except the bold and imaginative political leadership we so desperately need.
One of the many issues that I address in Reinventing Democracy is absolute power, which my ideas turn upside down by handing power to the people. It's your choice what course you wish to follow. I just hope it doesn't result in a 1916-lookalike. The British state never does anything until it is forced into action, and the first response is always to defend the status quo.
"... my ideas turn upside down by handing power to the people."
Except they don't, since they reserve so many powers to Westminster - foreign policy (right to declare war), defence policy (weapons on the Clyde), currency (and, therefore, monetary policy), monarchy (when Scottish folk might wish to have a republic) etc.
It doesn't work. Compromised sovereignty is no sovereignty at all.
" I just hope it doesn't result in a 1916-lookalike."
I presume that you are referring to the Easter Rising in Ireland.
From my historical reading it is estimated that only a relatively small proportion of the population wanted Independence and they certainly didn't support violent insurrection. That only changed (radically) after the British reprisals and the executions of the leaders in Kilmainham gaol.
The Scottish situation over a century later is completely different: around half the population are in favour right now for independent statehood and there are no troops on the street as a matter of course as there were in Ireland at that time due to the on-going trouble from isolated rebellious behaviour from pockets of the population over many, many years.
It's not impossible of course - we've seen what has happened more recently in the occupied 6 counties of Ulster also known as Northern Ireland.
"The British state never does anything until it is forced into action, and the first response is always to defend the status quo."
I'll be generous and take that as a warning rather than a threat.
Again, I observe that you haven't read the book. EVERYTHING can be challenged by the people. The mechanisms are there. Please don't jump to conclusions without reading the detail. And yes, I was referring to the Easter rising and it is a warning not a threat.
It is clear you have put laudable thought into working through how a federal settlement might work out. But I dont wish to spend the rest of my life in energy-sapping attempts to challenge a UK govt in reserved areas, which is in effect what it would be. I wish to concentrate on building Scottish statehood to take our place on the world stage, not hand in hand with England, even if she was lead by Gandhi.
I have replied to your comments.
I observe that you haven't replied to mine.
Sorry I cannot reply to every single point. Silence can mean acquiescence.
" Except they don't, since they reserve so many powers to Westminster - foreign policy (right to declare war), defence policy (weapons on the Clyde), currency (and, therefore, monetary policy), monarchy (when Scottish folk might wish to have a republic) etc."
Ah! but Scotland would have more control over, eg shortbread supplies to the BBC & * Scottish * MSM; exclusive Intellectual Property rights over tartan, eg if another country wanted to make them they'd have to be marketed as " Jock-Style Sporran - ditto for kilts and skean dhu etc; um.....anything else.....? Nope, think that's about it.
Kiddin' aside, when you see the list of things that would remain under England-as-Britain control, ie ALL the most important aspects of any country's functioning, no offence to David, and fair enough for engaging here " in person " - something not a single Scottish Politician has ever done - but for all the reasons Peter and others have delineated, no-one serious about achieving Scottish Independence will be persuaded by your core proposals. Honestly, you would probably have more success with the current SNP
I agree with you..we should jist go an' pick a fight ..whit dae ye think foreign englishman?
For OUR Scotland and her weans
My style is rational argument, not emotion.
Yes it is rational. Rational from a UK perspective, presented as ultimate authority.
But when Scotland was annexed in 1707, her parliament 'suspended' (ref Winnie Ewing) and the English parliament continued on, there remained, by necessity for the annexing power, a constitutional contradiction/incompatibility.
From a Scottish perspective ultimate authority resides with the people, not any parliament or court. So it would be entirely irrational to accept the English framing of the matter as authoritative. The fact it is endorsed in some Scottish circles is more symptomatic of an affliction than a truth.
But what matters is that the contradiction is unresolvable. Its one or the other. For Scots its "Are you a country with its own constitutional foundations or an English region?"
It is a point worth repeating. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are wholly incompatible and entirely irreconcilable. They cannot coexist within the same constitutional framework.
This must have been known at the time of the Union being imposed on Scotland. The issue was never resolved. It was buried under a mountain of British propaganda. England-as-Britain simply proceeded as if there were no disjuncture at all. England-as-Britain proceeded as if the Scottish constitutional tradition didn't exist. It proceeded as if parliamentary sovereignty were the 'natural order'.
Over time, Scots came to accept this 'natural order'. New generations were born knowing nothing but the 'natural order' imposed by England-as-Britain. People were born into this 'natural order' and died never knowing the truth of Scotland's situation.
But still the awareness did not fade. There were always some in each generation who heard stories. Stories which contradicted what they were being taught in school. For example, we were taught that William Wallace was a traitor. Today, he would be branded a terrorist. But there were always pockets of knowledge among the enforced ignorance of what Scotand is.
Today, more and more people are realising that there is a Scotland which has been hidden from them. More and more of them want that Scotland back. They want the real Scotland. Not the Scotland that has been moulded by propaganda into an uncomplaining asset to be used by England-as-Britain in whatever manner serves England-as-Britain's interests.
I do not dispute your point
Your style of debate is "read my book". So for your reading list before you have any right to debate: google "100 books on Scottish and Irish history"
No need to thank me!
While your book reading list is no doubt very interesting, it does not relate to the point that people should not presume to know the contents of a book they have not read. Evading the point by bringing up a different one is a speciality of politicians.
It's up to you to make your points WITHOUT anyone having to read your book. You replied to someone: "Again, I observe that you haven't read the book." and "Please don't jump to conclusions without reading the detail."
We are - quite rightly - commenting on articles and your own postings here. This is a forum not a book-reading club!
So what exactly has ' rational argument ' achieved so far?..... more talk?... pretty wee speeches?... a realisation that the Scottish Government has achieved with their hands tied that our social framework is improving?... and thats about all.... they have tinkered with social policy... yet even part of that was subject to westminster disapproval.... as against....mouth watering.... Norways financial revolution for it's citizens... its place in the world order.... its confidence.... voiding the indignity of having to tell the Chinese that they could not build a wind turbine facility in Scotland because westminster said ... no
There has been little achievement, I agree
You are so right! Best to remain rational..sensible..calm ..while pillaging Scotland's resources..insulting her people ( turds that won't flush away)..handing her land to a foreign country ( America) to attack another country ( Iran)and not even tell the Scottish Government ..dumping nuclear weapons in Scotland even when the Scots object...You are correct and so typically foreign english. Wonder if that foreign english rationale will be apparent when the Scots decide enough is enough and prepare to remove ...with deadly calm... the parasitic foreign english tic embedded in their land........
For OUR Scotland and her sensible weans