The following was written in response to questions asked by someone posting in the New Scotland Party Facebook Group. I reproduce it here as it may help others to understand both what the Manifesto for Independence is and the extent to which it is misrepresented by people who haven't even bothered to read it.
I'm reading the "Manifesto for Independence" and wondering who wrote it and what their qualifications are? And I'm wondering what it means in plain English.
On using the Scottish Parlliament elections as a plebicite, that's saying that majority support for independence - as a demonstration of the settled will of the Scottish people - allows all the steps below that to happen? How is that majority support to be demonstrated? Seats? Votes?
In point 4, why a provisional constitution? Would this be subjected to a public vote?
So after the "referendum on the Union", and 48% of the Scottish voters vote in favour, what next?
Or if 51% vote in favour, what next?
The Manifesto for Independence is the product of a joint exercise by myself and Geoff Bush and was first published about five years ago. Geoff went on to develop a different version of the document with lots of policy stuff tacked on. I stuck with the original, which was always intended to be the most stripped-down description possible of a process by which Scotland's independence might be restored. There have been some - mostly minor - revisions over the years, most notably the reference to the human rights aspect of the issue.
What we were aiming for was a process that any politician or party could commit to in their election manifestos without compromising their positions and proposals on diverse matters of policy. The idea was - and remains - that while genuinely pro-independence parties might disagree on matters such as monetary policy or environmental policy, they all should be able to agree on a common approach to the constitutional issue. So long as the constitutional issue was burdened with policy issues, there could never be agreement. There could never be 'unity'.
What was true for the politicians and parties also held for voters. Since people are understandably divided on matters of policy, if those matters of policy were inextricably bound up with the idea of independence, disagreement on policy would inevitably be carried over to the constitutional issue. Decorating independence with milk-and-honey baubles to make it more appealing seems like a great idea - until you realise that a lot of people don't like milk, or honey, or both.
The Manifesto for Independence frees the constitutional issue from all of that. It approaches the constitutional issue not as a matter of policy, but of principle.
Over the years, as I worked on the Manifesto for Independence and my thinking on the constitutional issue developed through reading and discussions etc., I came to realise that #ScottishUDI - the name given to the process described in the Manifesto for Independence - was not merely one way of restoring Scotland's independence, it is the only way. Which explains why nobody has been able to set out any alternative process.
As to qualifications, what qualifications are required? I have been studying the constitutional issue for sixty years. During that time, I have read widely on the topic. I have attended countless gatherings of various kinds, listened to and talked with hundreds if not thousands of people including acknowledged experts in relevant fields and I have been involved in every form of campaigning activity imaginable.
Where others have pretty certificates hanging on their walls, I have two framed, autographed song-sheets gifted to me by Edward Cairney as a token of his appreciation of my work for Scotland's cause. That'll do for me.
The Manifesto for Independence is written in plain English. As plain as it can be when it relates to constitutional matters, parliamentary procedure, and the like.
You say you're "reading" the Manifesto for Independence. But then you say -
On using the Scottish Parliament elections as a plebiscite, that's saying that majority support for independence - as a demonstration of the settled will of the Scottish people - allows all the steps below that to happen?
The Manifesto for Independence does not say this. The second bullet point states very clearly -
Declare one or all future Scottish Parliament elections to be a plebiscite on the question of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to facilitate the exercise of Scotland’s right of self- determination.
As I have explained innumerable times in the screeds of commentary I've written on this matter, an election cannot be a 'de facto' referendum on independence. (It can't be a proper constitutional referendum at all. But that's not directly relevant here.) The 2026 Scottish Parliament election, for example, cannot be a referendum on independence because it makes less than no sense to have a referendum on something which cannot be delivered.
In an Appendix to the Stirling Directive, I presented for the purposes of prompting discussion, some suggested criteria for a proper constitutional referendum such as might stand as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination. The first few lines of this document read as follows -
A proper constitutional referendum must be binary. There can be only two options. The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable." [emphasis added)
Independence per se is not deliverable. As stated in the Manifesto for Independence, the Scottish Parliament does not possess the legislative competence to hold a proper constitutional referendum. According to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC), Holyrood can't even legislate for a 2014-style referendum - which is most assuredly not a proper constitutional referendum.
This is why #ScottishUDI is the only process that can restore Scotland's independence. The problem is not that we don't have the right of self-determination. We do! We must! It is arguably the most fundamental human right. The problem is that we are prevented from exercising that right. It is this problem which must be addressed first. Thus, all self-styled 'routes' to independence converge at a single point. The point at which the Scottish Parliament has to do something that the British state maintains it does not have the legal authority to do. The ONLY way the Scottish Parliament can acquire that legal authority (legislative competence) is by taking it. Real power is NEVER given. It is only taken.
What is written in the Manifesto for Independence is entirely and plainly different from what you are "reading". It is not for me to explain this discrepancy.
You ask, "How is that majority support to be demonstrated?".
Answering this question is made a little awkward by the fact that it is based on an entirely false premise, as described above. But I will respond as if you were referring to support for what the Manifesto for Independence actually says, rather than your idiosyncratic "reading" of the document. I will respond as if we were talking about support for the Scottish Parliament asserting its legislative competence in all matters relating to the constitution.
In fact, the answer is the same regardless. A referendum can only be decided on votes. There are no "seats" being contested in a referendum. So, even if it is an election pretending to be a referendum, the referendum aspect of it must be decided on votes.
If the 2026 election is to be any kind of 'de facto' referendum at all, it has to be an informal plebiscite on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The aim would be to obtain a mandate from the people of Scotland for the Scottish Parliament to assert the legislative competence required in order that it can then legislate for a proper constitutional referendum.
If a politician is talking about using the 2026 election as a 'de facto' referendum on independence, this tells us that they are simply using the language of Scotland's cause as an electioneering device, and we should therefore shun them come the vote.
You ask, ". . . why a provisional constitution?".
On day one of independence, there must be a constitution in place which deals with the most fundamental matters such as what the nation is to be called. This 'keystone' constitution is required in order to give the provisional parliament and government the basic legitimacy they need to speak and act for Scotland until such time as a full constitution is in place and elections are held. This is almost a pro forma exercise and should not be at all controversial.
You ask, "Would this [provisional constitution] be subjected to a public vote?".
Short answer, yes! I must leave it there as I've hit the character limit.
Makes sense to me.... Sometimes we're inclined to overcomplicate things.... This doesn't do that.. 👍
Love your explanation to the questioner. However, he might come back on the copied extraction below .
If we have a fundamental right to self-determination, it could be argued as to why we have not exercised that right already, and, what is it that is preventing us?
I appreciate you have made various references used by the English courts etc. Some, here in Scotland, have argued using Scottish jurisdiction as being paramount thus nullifying English laws.
Can you mebby apply your response for himself and others here such as myself?
"The problem is not that we don't have the right of self-determination. We do! We must! It is arguably the most fundamental human right. The problem is that we are prevented from exercising that right. It is this problem which must be addressed first. Thus, all self-styled 'routes' to independence converge at a single point. The point at which the Scottish Parliament has to do something that the British state maintains it does not have the legal authority to do. The ONLY way the Scottish Parliament can acquire that legal authority (legislative competence) is by taking it. Real power is NEVER given. It is only taken."