I think the question has become more complicated than I realised.
Will a majority of either votes or seats (or possibly both) mean that we can assert our Sovereignty as something supported by a majority in Scotland. Then, on that basis either appeal to the UN for help in freeing ourselves from being a colony of England or be able to hold a referendum ourselves with our choice of franchise, date and question with UN help to prevent interference, last minute 'vows' or press bias from outside Scotland.
The plan is to have all pro-independence parties incorporate the Manifesto for Independence into their election manifestos. This means that every vote for any of these parties in the next Scottish Parliament election becomes a vote for the process set out in the Manifesto for Independence.
A majority of votes for the Manifesto for Independence creates an explicit mandate for the Scottish Parliament to assert legislative competence in constitutional matters so that it can enact a Bill dissolving the Union subject to a proper constitutional referendum - also legislated by the Scottish Parliament.
It's really quite straightforward. We act as the sovereign people of Scotland through our own democratic institutions to do the thing that international law says we are entitled to do but which we are currently being prevented from doing - exercising our right of self-determination.
This is #ScottishUDI. That is to say, a unilateral declaration of independence tailored to Scotland's circumstances and done in a way that makes the constitutional issue a human rights issue and therefor more difficult to challenge.
Beware of politicians telling you 'it's not that simple'. It is almost certainly a lot simpler than they would have us believe. It would suit them at all if we realised how straightforward it is. How would they then make themselves seem essential?
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."
The short answer, Alan, is political will - lack thereof. Without political will, nothing works. You can have the simplest, most obvious solution right in front of you, but if the politicians aren't minded to implement that solution, it might as well be no solution at all.
In theory, it is the will of the people that politicians act on. But if that ever happened at all the last time it did was maybe forty of fifty years ago. Since then, the disconnect between the political parties and the people they are supposed to act for has become complete and almost accepted as 'normal'. People have ceased to expect that political parties will honour the promises they lavish on us at election time.
We don't vote for the politicians with the best ideas. We vote for the politicians with the best lies. Electoral politics is properly a contest of ideas. It has become a battle of artful deception raised to the level of a science. Starmer's election campaign was a near-perfect example. The rule was, don't say what you mean; say whatever it is that will get you elected.
We, the people, for our part have become complacent and indolent. with all the usual caveats about generalisation, we are content with a system that allows us to signal our preferences in some vague way knowing that all we get afterwards is the right to say we voted for the right thing. We shrug and tell ourselves we'll fix it next time.
You'll have noticed, no doubt, that we seem to be in perpetual election mode these days. The period between elections has been eaten away so that one election campaign has barely ended before the next one begins. The media plays a major role in this, of course. But it suits the ruling elites very well in that it helps to convince people that the system is empowering them. If we are in permanent election mode, and if we are convinced that elections give us the chance to change things, we constantly feel like we are about to change things. So, we tolerate the status quo. We take whatever we are given and are content with that because we are convinced we'll soon have something better. The cycle continues.
The cycle will continue until it is broken. The rise of the likes of Nigel Farage can be explained by the appeal of something that appears to threaten the cycle. Populism might be simply defined as the notion of cost-free revolution. Farage's appeal is that he says he is going to break the cycle without causing any disruption in your life or demanding any more of you than putting your mark on a ballot paper.
New Scotland Party is far less appealing because we tell the truth. The truth is that we, the people, can break the cycle but only at some cost and with some effort. If we want politics that is responsive to our needs, priorities, and aspirations, we will have to work for it.
I think the question has become more complicated than I realised.
Will a majority of either votes or seats (or possibly both) mean that we can assert our Sovereignty as something supported by a majority in Scotland. Then, on that basis either appeal to the UN for help in freeing ourselves from being a colony of England or be able to hold a referendum ourselves with our choice of franchise, date and question with UN help to prevent interference, last minute 'vows' or press bias from outside Scotland.
The plan is to have all pro-independence parties incorporate the Manifesto for Independence into their election manifestos. This means that every vote for any of these parties in the next Scottish Parliament election becomes a vote for the process set out in the Manifesto for Independence.
A majority of votes for the Manifesto for Independence creates an explicit mandate for the Scottish Parliament to assert legislative competence in constitutional matters so that it can enact a Bill dissolving the Union subject to a proper constitutional referendum - also legislated by the Scottish Parliament.
It's really quite straightforward. We act as the sovereign people of Scotland through our own democratic institutions to do the thing that international law says we are entitled to do but which we are currently being prevented from doing - exercising our right of self-determination.
This is #ScottishUDI. That is to say, a unilateral declaration of independence tailored to Scotland's circumstances and done in a way that makes the constitutional issue a human rights issue and therefor more difficult to challenge.
Makes sense to me.... Sometimes we're inclined to overcomplicate things.... This doesn't do that.. 👍
Beware of politicians telling you 'it's not that simple'. It is almost certainly a lot simpler than they would have us believe. It would suit them at all if we realised how straightforward it is. How would they then make themselves seem essential?
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."
The short answer, Alan, is political will - lack thereof. Without political will, nothing works. You can have the simplest, most obvious solution right in front of you, but if the politicians aren't minded to implement that solution, it might as well be no solution at all.
In theory, it is the will of the people that politicians act on. But if that ever happened at all the last time it did was maybe forty of fifty years ago. Since then, the disconnect between the political parties and the people they are supposed to act for has become complete and almost accepted as 'normal'. People have ceased to expect that political parties will honour the promises they lavish on us at election time.
We don't vote for the politicians with the best ideas. We vote for the politicians with the best lies. Electoral politics is properly a contest of ideas. It has become a battle of artful deception raised to the level of a science. Starmer's election campaign was a near-perfect example. The rule was, don't say what you mean; say whatever it is that will get you elected.
We, the people, for our part have become complacent and indolent. with all the usual caveats about generalisation, we are content with a system that allows us to signal our preferences in some vague way knowing that all we get afterwards is the right to say we voted for the right thing. We shrug and tell ourselves we'll fix it next time.
You'll have noticed, no doubt, that we seem to be in perpetual election mode these days. The period between elections has been eaten away so that one election campaign has barely ended before the next one begins. The media plays a major role in this, of course. But it suits the ruling elites very well in that it helps to convince people that the system is empowering them. If we are in permanent election mode, and if we are convinced that elections give us the chance to change things, we constantly feel like we are about to change things. So, we tolerate the status quo. We take whatever we are given and are content with that because we are convinced we'll soon have something better. The cycle continues.
The cycle will continue until it is broken. The rise of the likes of Nigel Farage can be explained by the appeal of something that appears to threaten the cycle. Populism might be simply defined as the notion of cost-free revolution. Farage's appeal is that he says he is going to break the cycle without causing any disruption in your life or demanding any more of you than putting your mark on a ballot paper.
New Scotland Party is far less appealing because we tell the truth. The truth is that we, the people, can break the cycle but only at some cost and with some effort. If we want politics that is responsive to our needs, priorities, and aspirations, we will have to work for it.
And that was the short answer!!!