Peter, the instinct is right but, I would suggest, aimed at the wrong target. The blank page in this story does not belong to the convention argument. It belongs to Westminster, whose entire claim to Scotland rests on the most audacious blank page in constitutional history: the assertion that in 1707 two ancient kingdoms were extinguished and a new state written fresh over their erasure. That is the raze-and-rebuild story. The continuity position needs no blank page at all, because nothing was lawfully erased.
The record carries this. The Crown of Scotland is not an institution sitting above the people; its legal identity is the Community of the Realm, the people themselves, a sovereignty declared and codified in 1320 and confirmed in the Claim of Right 1689. The community of the realm is the oldest political institution this country possesses, older than any parliament that ever spoke in its name. The 1455 Act of Annexation required the consent of the three estates and the whole parliament for any disposal of the people's patrimony and wrote that requirement into the coronation oath itself. The act of 1594 goes further, and answers the very question this thread keeps circling: it declares void dispositions null even where later "ratified in parliament in their majority." Even parliament's own ratification cannot cure a taking of what belongs to the community. Consent lives in the people; institutions only ever channel it, and only while acting on the people's valid authority.
This is why your two best instincts are not in tension with the convention argument; they complete it. If the parliament truly is the people sitting in it, then the mandates belong to those people and travel with their representatives wherever the community requires them to sit. If Holyrood has a natural status waiting beneath the statutory fetters, then what actually reverts is not a creature of a 1998 Act, which can never rise above its author, but the community's own capacity to assemble, which was born of ancient cultural practice and never extinguished. The rules of our sovereignty were codified from 1320 onward, in acts that still stand; they have been waiting three centuries for us to take them seriously.
In terms of achieving public acceptance at home and abroad, I would argue that the directly elected Scottish Parliament is the critical and credible body. The Holyrood building did not exist until after the parliament first sat in 1999, in borrowed accommodation at the Mound, and the staff (apart from being part of the UK civil service) are ancillary.
I have long had doubts about the Salvo/Liberation proposal for a new body to be formed and to take the lead on the basis of our old Scottish constitution, as the process of achieving that stage would seem to me to be too much of an unnecessary political minefield.
One aspect of our political existence not mentioned so far in this thread is the cohort of MPs elected to serve at Westminster. I seem to recall that, in the 1980s and therefore pre-devolution, Prime Minister Thatcher stated that a majority of the MPs from Scotland being elected on an independence “ticket” would would be sufficient to achieve that objective. She may even have stated that those MPs simply walking out of Westminster would be enough.
Yes, that practical assertion of sovereignty would take courage, both to do it and to follow through, but that is what we need.
Thatcher did say all that was needed was for Scotland to elect a majority of pro-independence MPs. But that was then, and this is now. The Scottish Parliament is now where we do our politics. It is the national parliament of Scotland but bound in the chains of devolution. It is not 'naturally' a devolved assembly. Its 'natural' status is as the national parliament of Scotland with all that this entails for its competences. It can revert to its 'natural' state at any time simply by shrugging off the fetters preventing it from functioning as a national parliament should.
In referring to our elected Westminster MPs, I was wondering if a suggestion might be forthcoming as to what constructive role they might play other than the kind of disruption which might result in them being excluded or suspended. I reckon they should stop being well-behaved members of that English institution. At least they could aim for publicity. Yes, the Scottish Parliament is now the most important, but not the only, place where we do our politics and, yes, it should now adopt its 'natural' state as a real, national parliament and not merely a branch of the English parliament. No waiting required.
In referring to Thatcher and what she said then, I was perhaps being too subtle in hoping to highlight that Scotland's constitutional position was exactly the same then as it had been since 1707, and is now. I think it reasonable to believe that Thatcher was referring to the "received wisdom" of a voluntary union in which, like a marriage, either party is free to leave, to just "walk out the door" and then discuss any arrangements such as division of assets and any future, formal relationship.
Just seen Craig Murrays take on what the Scots should do to finally wrench independence into their own hands and kick the foreign english out....Brilliant..have you read it Peter. It could cause war with the uk .....At last someone sees the path....How about you do a comment on his ideas...I would be interested in your take...and reading other comments. I imagine the SNP will literally sh*t themselves....'oooo ye canny do that.'...
I am quite encouraged by some of the comments below the line in the National report. There is a much more robust feel to the remarks published regarding confronting Westminster by way of some form of UDI. Even #ScottishUDI and #ManifestoForIndependence gets a mention and reference!
Craig Murray has stated in response to comments on his own blogged article that he doesn't expect Swinney's SNP to adopt any of his proposals.
No doubt we will all have our quibbles: my main one is that he commences by seeming to imply that permission to hold a referendum would initially be sought from Burnham/Westminster to hold a referendum and when they refuse (a fairly sound assumption) set a date for a UDI. Why involve Westminster/Burnham at all if the Scottish people are sovereign and have the right of self-determination?
But the real merit of Craig Murray's blueprint is that it may have triggered a larger scale discussion on a more vigorous approach to restoring Scotland's full self-government.
Well balanced comment..I like ....... 'it may have triggered a larger scale discussion on a more vigorous approach to restoring Scotland's full self government' (.Ref SD) Couldn't agree more.
For OUR Scotland and her weans and those still to come
I agree with the warning against the blank page. Scotland should not throw away institutional capacity it already possesses. But Holyrood is not simply whatever its members declare it to be. Its democratic legitimacy comes from the Scottish people, while its present legal competence remains bounded by the Scotland Act. A civic commission could not legislate in its place either. The task is to build capacity and legitimacy through Holyrood, supported by wider civic institutions, without confusing an inherited platform for sovereignty with sovereignty itself.
Perhaps this link would be appropriately posted as a reply to 'colonial mindset'.
;-)
(The comment threading on this platform is so poor that I honestly cannot tell which comments in particular your last two were intended to be in 'reply' to. :-(
I think at this point I’m replying to 3-4 people so I just dumped those there to explain my position and bow out of an increasingly heated debate with people who I broadly agree with, it’s soul destroying
I would genuinely welcome someone of your commitment, and energy to read through the details of what is, at this moment in time, still the only end to end description of how we might get from where we are to where we want to be that I am aware of.
I speak of course of the Manifesto for Independence. (abbreviated M4I)
All suggestions are up for debate on here and, who knows, if you can persuade our host Peter that a particular suggestion is a good one it could even become incorporated as a worthwhile addition!
I think that conflates democratic legitimacy with legal competence. An election can give Holyrood a mandate, but it does not amend section 29 or Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act. If that mandate forces an agreed transfer, that is my first route. If Holyrood claims authority beyond the existing law, that is constitutional rupture, however democratically justified. The gap has not disappeared; it has merely been renamed.
My provisional answer is that no single institution can bridge the gap alone.
A civic convention could draft a constitution, prepare the transition and build consent without possessing legislative competence. Holyrood would provide democratic and institutional continuity, use its existing powers to build capacity, and seek a negotiated transfer. The Scottish people would then need to confer an explicit mandate for a defined constitutional transition.
If that mandate existed and legal transfer was still refused, activating a provisional constitutional order would indeed be a rupture. Its success would depend upon public consent, Scottish institutions accepting the new authority and sufficient external recognition. The preparatory stages would not make that rupture legal under the Scotland Act. They would make it democratically legitimate and capable of implementation.
I do not claim to have settled the precise trigger. That still requires serious design. But I would rather acknowledge an unresolved bridge than rename the gap as the solution.
That is fair. I was referring to the proposition discussed throughout this thread: that the gap between Holyrood’s present competence and sovereign authority can be overcome simply by “taking” or “repossessing” that competence.
The gap is between asserting authority and making it effective. Describing the assertion as “empowering Parliament” does not explain how Scottish institutions come to recognise and implement it.
So I was criticising that proposition, not insinuating that some unnamed person had used those exact words. I should have made the referent clearer.
I don’t disagree that the Scottish people could establish a new constitutional order and confer authority on a future body. I explicitly said legitimacy comes from the Scottish people.
But that is different from its competence within the present order. Holyrood cannot delegate powers it does not possess. If a civic commission instead claims authority directly from the people, outside that order, it becomes part of a constitutional rupture and would require a demonstrable mandate and institutional recognition.
A sovereign future Parliament could certainly empower such a commission, but only because the question we are discussing had already been resolved. That identifies the ultimate source of authority, not the mechanism by which it becomes effective.
" that is different from its competence within the present order. Holyrood cannot delegate powers it does not possess. If a civic commission instead claims authority directly from the people, outside that order, it becomes part of a constitutional rupture and would require a demonstrable mandate and institutional recognition."
What is your suggestion for how the gap is to be bridged?
" Scotland should not throw away institutional capacity it already possesses."
Is this intended to be in rebuttal of Sara Salyers suggestion that we must create a new body because the existing one is irredeemable, or if not, what is it that you are trying to imply?
It was intended as a distinction rather than a complete endorsement of either position.
I agree with Peter that Scotland should retain the institutional capacity already built around Holyrood. I also agree with Sara that a devolved parliament does not become sovereign merely because its members declare it so. A sovereign Scottish Parliament would have to inherit and transform Holyrood, not discard it or pretend it is already something it is not.
As I see it, its legal competence can change in only two ways: through an agreed legal transfer or through a constitutional rupture. The latter would require much more than a parliamentary assertion. It would need an unmistakable public mandate, prepared institutions, effective control and external recognition.
My suggestion is therefore to use Holyrood’s existing powers to build governing capacity and public trust, while wider civic institutions prepare the constitutional and operational transition. Formal transfers of authority should continue to be sought and refusals made visible.
I am not claiming that supplies a shortcut. I am saying there is no shortcut.
"As I see it, its legal competence can change in only two ways: through an agreed legal transfer or through a constitutional rupture."
An argument I would make, and one made by Aidan O'Neill in hi opinion for Martin Keatings, is that it is elections that give a Parliament its legitimacy, and every election empowers that Parliament. The Parliament therefore evolves in lines with the wishes of the people, expressed in the way we vote according to a Party's manifesto.
The Scotland Act may have started (restarted) the Scottish Parliament. but it can not halter or limit its legal competence.
Same argument is actually made by AV Dicey, though not in those words.
And hence the gap disappears with suitably manifestoed elections.
Whether the one in 2026 is one, with Swinney's statements, time will tell.
Would it be too forward of me to suggest that you start to treat other posters with some respect for a welcome change? I can only assume you are incapable.
"My suggestion is therefore to use Holyrood’s existing powers to build governing capacity and public trust, while wider civic institutions prepare the constitutional and operational transition. Formal transfers of authority should continue to be sought and refusals made visible.
I am not claiming that supplies a shortcut. I am saying there is no shortcut."
You are correct, your suggestion is not a shortcut.
Only if institution-building becomes a substitute for decision. I am not proposing that.
The paragraph immediately above explicitly identifies constitutional rupture as the alternative when agreed transfer is refused. Formal requests are not about waiting indefinitely for permission. Repeated refusals establish that the legal route has been closed. Building public consent, institutional capacity and operational readiness is what makes the alternative effective rather than merely rhetorical.
I accept that a clear trigger for moving from preparation to constitutional action must still be defined. But “assert competence” does not solve that problem by itself. A declaration without the capacity to implement it is the dead end.
You recognise "legal" as being the domestic (British) version.
I don't.
The circle cannot be squared until you shake off a bit more of what 3 centuries plus of British propaganda has indoctrinated us all with (to a greater or lesser extent), namely your colonial mindset.
course I recognise that I was referring to the present UK domestic legal order. I have repeatedly distinguished that from democratic legitimacy, constitutional rupture and international recognition.
You may regard that order as illegitimate, but Holyrood, the courts, civil service and police presently operate within it. Any strategy for replacing it must explain how a new authority becomes accepted and effective.
International law does not make that practical question disappear. A declaration may not itself be prohibited, but that is not the same as an automatic right to secede, effective control or international recognition.
Describing my refusal to ignore those realities as a “colonial mindset” does not answer the argument.
Peters argument cannot be reduced to "Holyrood is not simply whatever its members declare it to be." since there exists a substantial body of his writing on the issue.
Have you read about #ScottishUDI and #ManifestoForIndependence ?
To oversimplify, the first parts of the proposals are to first empower our existing parliament and then take back the machinery of government.
"Fanon synthesised Freud, Marxism, and anti-colonialism by arguing that colonial rule simultaneously exploits people economically, dominates them politically, and wounds them psychologically, so genuine liberation must transform both social structures and human consciousness." (Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh)
So the main thing that a liberated people must do is: 1. totally transform our (colonial) institutions, and: 2. get rid of our colonial mindset.
There does not seem to be more there than what Peter has reported in the article. :-(
Sara said:
"The only problem with this is that Holyrood cannot declare UDI nor legally hold a referendum."
This is a fundamental issue that we can all see.
We can deduce that when writing 'legally' Sara must mean under existing domestic ("British") law.
Obviously Sara canot be referring to international law, because obviously there is nothing in international law that would prevent us from holding a referendum.
Similarly Sara cannot be referring to our Scottish constitutional tradition, which she has been instrumental in revealing to us, because again there is nothing that I am aware of in Scottish constitutional law that would prevent us from consulting the people.
Therefore we can make that deduction and assume this is what Sara meant there, as she is very well versed in all of the details.
"It is the Westminster created, Westminster Administration in Scotland."
Agree. Yes it is.
" The Kosovo ruling - replying to the Serbian govt’s submission - addresses this exactly."
But we are not an ex Soviet republic and the USA and the UK will not be using our situation to try to get one over on Russia, so the situation is also entirely different.
On the one hand one can point to some historical UN decision, on the other one must acknowledge that Scotland is seeking _restoration_ of our statehood for an ancient and long recognised nation, not recognition for a secession.
So a unique situation and not directly comparable to the breakup of the artificial composite state of Yugoslavia in crucial aspects.
" So it has to be a civic convention. "
This is a logical non-sequitor.
The conclusion does not follow automatically from the premise.
What can be stated is "so it can not be the existing 'Scottish' parliament"
or
"so one obvious option is to replace the existing 'Scottish' parliament with a more suitable body not bound by those constraints".
Those would be entirely reasonable and logical progressions of the argument.
The first one does not add much that usefully advances the conversation, so let us examine the second.
Taking the 2nd lets expand on that.
"to replace the existing 'Scottish' parliament with a more suitable body not bound by those constraints"
Obviously both of the proposed solutions could fit within that description.
In summary:
Sara proposes 'replacement'
Peter proposes 'reformation'
On initial reading there are some points concerning ommisions in these (brief) arguments that ought be at least explicitly considered.
Firstly when Peter discusses 'the parliament' he rightly points that there are 2 aspects that should be considered separately.
The parliament is the physical building etc. AND the people we put in it.
At this point it would be useful to explicitly accept that this rhetorical bifurcation elides a third and perhaps the most important aspect.
We should regard 'the parliament' in our discourse as 3 things:
1) The building and fixtures and fittings which obviously CAN be repurposed. There can be no argument against that.
2) The people. Obviously we chose who to elect and who to employ. Obviously all of this evolves over time as a matter of normal operation, and can be changed by us if and when we choose to do so.
I can see no argument against that either.
The 3rd aspect is the institutional aspect.
The rules and traditions.
The laws and the basis for those laws. The foundational legitimacy.
All of these 'institutional' or historical and cultural factors.
From the point that Sara makes we see that THIS is where the problematic issues lie.
If we assert that the basis on which the current institution is founded and operates is immutable then one is compelled to therefore insist that we have little option but to replace the existing institution as it is unfit for purpose.
If on the other hand we analyse these institutional components and foundations both individually and collectively, it becomes apparent that it is a perfectly reasonable idea to consider how those components could be modified or replaced.
As this post is already too long, I will stop there.
With this framing we can subdivide any criticisms that the existing 'Scottish Parliament' cannot be reformed.
Each time that someone asserts that something cannot be improved, reformed or replaced, if we analyse what they mean we should be able to split each objection into an issue that is capable of resolution, and / or perhaps leave some remainder as the part that then deserves further discussion.
Sara Salyers and you are, in my opinion, two of our strongest and most articulate proponents of the new-thinking, but in this instance I'm forced to come-down on your side, Peter, if only because Hollyrood and it's ancillary institutions are already in concrete existence and for that reason hold the real possibility of being reformed and harnessed in the cause of national-liberation. That said, Salyers is right to point-out the extreme difficulties of selling UDI to our, to be charitable: career-bound, much less than radical political class. Some of whom remain in therapy over the loss of Rhodesia to the Empire.
I'm not saying you are pretending, but Holyrood, the devolved Scottish parliament building, has been the scene of such elaborate pretending for such a long time - 27 years! - that it can't be expected to play a serious part in a future independent Scotland.
I reckon it just makes me someone who adheres to the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that the parliament the sovereign people elect is whatever the sovereign people want it to be.
This is The Thing!
It's what Westminster does...now is not the time is their opinion but they make it real by force of will.
This should be the attitude of the "new" Holyrood...whatever Holyrood decides as the democratic representative of the sovereign people is what we want it to be.
No oath of accession Charlie not our king so no official ceremonies
T of Union was not a territorial Treaty so UK has no right to oil or anything else.
Here's my take on Scotland's freedom ......We ignore all traitors,grifters,foreign occupying english, quisling influencers, hidden foreign investors..ad infinitum. I have never had a blank page or hesitation when it comes to my freedom and that of Scotland and her future.
Look there's France..should they vote if they want to remain independent?..look over there Ukraine..should they have a vote to see if they want to remain an independent country?..there's Ireland..should they....oops!...go no further ..I think they've already proved
(decisively) what they want and took it..nae vote....So does any country want to hold a vote?..anybody?...( of course not..just sad wee Scotland)
Here's my question...So why OUR Scotland? Why do we have to prove we want freedom from the occupying foreign hostile parasitic english sh*t...and traitorous so called 'aristocrats'..
Ah well you see...
1. You've got to have 51% ..who says?
2. you've got to jump over this hurdle..or that one if the other one fails...who says?
3. ask the rest of the world ( who are free) if they approve of us being free...who cares..
4. 'You cannot have it jocks/turds ..is that clear you cringing little nation'......ah now we are getting to the root of the problem.....our FOREIGN occupiers...led by burn'em in his £1,000 outfit.
This is where Scotland must find her resolve backed up by murderous intent. Let the skin fall from your eyes Scotland ..we are no different from any nation on the planet..we don't need a scam election held by quisling traitors and occupying forces..we must defend our land like other nations ( Ukraine)and remove foreign invaders from OUR land ( like Ireland).....no discussion ..just as other countries would do. Tell me or my nation that we cannot be free unless you agree and I'll tell you to get ready to fight to the death.
I'm quite sure Peter you have never had a moment's hesitation in Scotland's freedom...keep going..an I'll keep my murderous intentions to those who invade and hollow out our land..just as all nations on the planet would do to those intent on destroying them.
For OUR Scotland and her weans and those yet tae come.
The building that houses the Parliament is immaterial. More specifically, it is the people that compose that Parliament that is of importance. Or, to be more precise still, it is the prospectus on, and purpose for, which the candidates stood for election that matters.
The parliament of politicians, composed of elected representatives, has legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Since 1999 there have been 7 elections for the Scottish Parliament with an average turnout of 55% ... that's not as high as I'd like it to but consistently a majority of registered electors view Holyrood as worthwhile voting for.
A commission of appointees on the other hand don't have that democratic endorsement and, assuming I have understood Sara Salyers point correctly, would run a real risk of being seen to impose independent statehood on people unfairly.
The path to restore Scotland's full self-government must be scrupulously fair as well as transparently and unambiguously the will of the people.
Peter, the instinct is right but, I would suggest, aimed at the wrong target. The blank page in this story does not belong to the convention argument. It belongs to Westminster, whose entire claim to Scotland rests on the most audacious blank page in constitutional history: the assertion that in 1707 two ancient kingdoms were extinguished and a new state written fresh over their erasure. That is the raze-and-rebuild story. The continuity position needs no blank page at all, because nothing was lawfully erased.
The record carries this. The Crown of Scotland is not an institution sitting above the people; its legal identity is the Community of the Realm, the people themselves, a sovereignty declared and codified in 1320 and confirmed in the Claim of Right 1689. The community of the realm is the oldest political institution this country possesses, older than any parliament that ever spoke in its name. The 1455 Act of Annexation required the consent of the three estates and the whole parliament for any disposal of the people's patrimony and wrote that requirement into the coronation oath itself. The act of 1594 goes further, and answers the very question this thread keeps circling: it declares void dispositions null even where later "ratified in parliament in their majority." Even parliament's own ratification cannot cure a taking of what belongs to the community. Consent lives in the people; institutions only ever channel it, and only while acting on the people's valid authority.
This is why your two best instincts are not in tension with the convention argument; they complete it. If the parliament truly is the people sitting in it, then the mandates belong to those people and travel with their representatives wherever the community requires them to sit. If Holyrood has a natural status waiting beneath the statutory fetters, then what actually reverts is not a creature of a 1998 Act, which can never rise above its author, but the community's own capacity to assemble, which was born of ancient cultural practice and never extinguished. The rules of our sovereignty were codified from 1320 onward, in acts that still stand; they have been waiting three centuries for us to take them seriously.
This is an interesting and essential discussion.
In terms of achieving public acceptance at home and abroad, I would argue that the directly elected Scottish Parliament is the critical and credible body. The Holyrood building did not exist until after the parliament first sat in 1999, in borrowed accommodation at the Mound, and the staff (apart from being part of the UK civil service) are ancillary.
I have long had doubts about the Salvo/Liberation proposal for a new body to be formed and to take the lead on the basis of our old Scottish constitution, as the process of achieving that stage would seem to me to be too much of an unnecessary political minefield.
One aspect of our political existence not mentioned so far in this thread is the cohort of MPs elected to serve at Westminster. I seem to recall that, in the 1980s and therefore pre-devolution, Prime Minister Thatcher stated that a majority of the MPs from Scotland being elected on an independence “ticket” would would be sufficient to achieve that objective. She may even have stated that those MPs simply walking out of Westminster would be enough.
Yes, that practical assertion of sovereignty would take courage, both to do it and to follow through, but that is what we need.
Thatcher did say all that was needed was for Scotland to elect a majority of pro-independence MPs. But that was then, and this is now. The Scottish Parliament is now where we do our politics. It is the national parliament of Scotland but bound in the chains of devolution. It is not 'naturally' a devolved assembly. Its 'natural' status is as the national parliament of Scotland with all that this entails for its competences. It can revert to its 'natural' state at any time simply by shrugging off the fetters preventing it from functioning as a national parliament should.
In referring to our elected Westminster MPs, I was wondering if a suggestion might be forthcoming as to what constructive role they might play other than the kind of disruption which might result in them being excluded or suspended. I reckon they should stop being well-behaved members of that English institution. At least they could aim for publicity. Yes, the Scottish Parliament is now the most important, but not the only, place where we do our politics and, yes, it should now adopt its 'natural' state as a real, national parliament and not merely a branch of the English parliament. No waiting required.
In referring to Thatcher and what she said then, I was perhaps being too subtle in hoping to highlight that Scotland's constitutional position was exactly the same then as it had been since 1707, and is now. I think it reasonable to believe that Thatcher was referring to the "received wisdom" of a voluntary union in which, like a marriage, either party is free to leave, to just "walk out the door" and then discuss any arrangements such as division of assets and any future, formal relationship.
Just seen Craig Murrays take on what the Scots should do to finally wrench independence into their own hands and kick the foreign english out....Brilliant..have you read it Peter. It could cause war with the uk .....At last someone sees the path....How about you do a comment on his ideas...I would be interested in your take...and reading other comments. I imagine the SNP will literally sh*t themselves....'oooo ye canny do that.'...
For OUR Scotland and her weans ready to fight
made me look!
;-)
"Craig Murray unveils Scottish independence plan that could trigger war"
https://www.thenational.scot/comments/26427127/
I am quite encouraged by some of the comments below the line in the National report. There is a much more robust feel to the remarks published regarding confronting Westminster by way of some form of UDI. Even #ScottishUDI and #ManifestoForIndependence gets a mention and reference!
Craig Murray has stated in response to comments on his own blogged article that he doesn't expect Swinney's SNP to adopt any of his proposals.
No doubt we will all have our quibbles: my main one is that he commences by seeming to imply that permission to hold a referendum would initially be sought from Burnham/Westminster to hold a referendum and when they refuse (a fairly sound assumption) set a date for a UDI. Why involve Westminster/Burnham at all if the Scottish people are sovereign and have the right of self-determination?
But the real merit of Craig Murray's blueprint is that it may have triggered a larger scale discussion on a more vigorous approach to restoring Scotland's full self-government.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/07/scottish-independence-set-the-date/comment-page-1/#comments
Well balanced comment..I like ....... 'it may have triggered a larger scale discussion on a more vigorous approach to restoring Scotland's full self government' (.Ref SD) Couldn't agree more.
For OUR Scotland and her weans and those still to come
I agree with the warning against the blank page. Scotland should not throw away institutional capacity it already possesses. But Holyrood is not simply whatever its members declare it to be. Its democratic legitimacy comes from the Scottish people, while its present legal competence remains bounded by the Scotland Act. A civic commission could not legislate in its place either. The task is to build capacity and legitimacy through Holyrood, supported by wider civic institutions, without confusing an inherited platform for sovereignty with sovereignty itself.
https://davidmcwilliam.substack.com/p/scotlands-parochial-trap?r=67qx5k&utm_medium=ios
https://davidmcwilliam.substack.com/p/managed-region-comfort-zone?r=67qx5k&utm_medium=ios
Perhaps this link would be appropriately posted as a reply to 'colonial mindset'.
;-)
(The comment threading on this platform is so poor that I honestly cannot tell which comments in particular your last two were intended to be in 'reply' to. :-(
I think at this point I’m replying to 3-4 people so I just dumped those there to explain my position and bow out of an increasingly heated debate with people who I broadly agree with, it’s soul destroying
You tend to make a lot of points in each comment, so it there is a lot to reply to!
:-)
Maybe I over explain myself but I think details are better than consigning the project to pipe dream
As I said before, I applaud you for your efforts.
I would genuinely welcome someone of your commitment, and energy to read through the details of what is, at this moment in time, still the only end to end description of how we might get from where we are to where we want to be that I am aware of.
I speak of course of the Manifesto for Independence. (abbreviated M4I)
hence the short URL M4I.scot
All suggestions are up for debate on here and, who knows, if you can persuade our host Peter that a particular suggestion is a good one it could even become incorporated as a worthwhile addition!
Thanks for your time.
I think that conflates democratic legitimacy with legal competence. An election can give Holyrood a mandate, but it does not amend section 29 or Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act. If that mandate forces an agreed transfer, that is my first route. If Holyrood claims authority beyond the existing law, that is constitutional rupture, however democratically justified. The gap has not disappeared; it has merely been renamed.
My provisional answer is that no single institution can bridge the gap alone.
A civic convention could draft a constitution, prepare the transition and build consent without possessing legislative competence. Holyrood would provide democratic and institutional continuity, use its existing powers to build capacity, and seek a negotiated transfer. The Scottish people would then need to confer an explicit mandate for a defined constitutional transition.
If that mandate existed and legal transfer was still refused, activating a provisional constitutional order would indeed be a rupture. Its success would depend upon public consent, Scottish institutions accepting the new authority and sufficient external recognition. The preparatory stages would not make that rupture legal under the Scotland Act. They would make it democratically legitimate and capable of implementation.
I do not claim to have settled the precise trigger. That still requires serious design. But I would rather acknowledge an unresolved bridge than rename the gap as the solution.
I just don't undesrand what it is that you are trying to say when you use rhetorical tactics like the last bit:
" I would rather acknowledge an unresolved bridge than rename the gap as the solution."
You are implying that someone is 'renaming' "the gap as the solution"
Who is this person? Where are they doing this thing?
That is fair. I was referring to the proposition discussed throughout this thread: that the gap between Holyrood’s present competence and sovereign authority can be overcome simply by “taking” or “repossessing” that competence.
The gap is between asserting authority and making it effective. Describing the assertion as “empowering Parliament” does not explain how Scottish institutions come to recognise and implement it.
So I was criticising that proposition, not insinuating that some unnamed person had used those exact words. I should have made the referent clearer.
Ah, so your proposition appears to be faulty.
So one might deduce that either
1) your understanding of what was being proposed was faulty
or
2) you were feigning a simplistic understanding as a rhetorical device.
I have little means to evaluate those options.
"A civic commission could not legislate in its place either."
If we follow 'always question the assumptions'
then
This is not necessarily correct.
even "As things stand now" would not be sufficient qualification here, as there currently is no civic commission.
One can envisage a circumstance whereby a future civic commission be given competence.
Of course the question then is 'how would it be given competence'
which then follows naturally on to:
surely either by the Scottish people or a future Scottish Parliament, or both.
I don’t disagree that the Scottish people could establish a new constitutional order and confer authority on a future body. I explicitly said legitimacy comes from the Scottish people.
But that is different from its competence within the present order. Holyrood cannot delegate powers it does not possess. If a civic commission instead claims authority directly from the people, outside that order, it becomes part of a constitutional rupture and would require a demonstrable mandate and institutional recognition.
A sovereign future Parliament could certainly empower such a commission, but only because the question we are discussing had already been resolved. That identifies the ultimate source of authority, not the mechanism by which it becomes effective.
" that is different from its competence within the present order. Holyrood cannot delegate powers it does not possess. If a civic commission instead claims authority directly from the people, outside that order, it becomes part of a constitutional rupture and would require a demonstrable mandate and institutional recognition."
What is your suggestion for how the gap is to be bridged?
" Scotland should not throw away institutional capacity it already possesses."
Is this intended to be in rebuttal of Sara Salyers suggestion that we must create a new body because the existing one is irredeemable, or if not, what is it that you are trying to imply?
It was intended as a distinction rather than a complete endorsement of either position.
I agree with Peter that Scotland should retain the institutional capacity already built around Holyrood. I also agree with Sara that a devolved parliament does not become sovereign merely because its members declare it so. A sovereign Scottish Parliament would have to inherit and transform Holyrood, not discard it or pretend it is already something it is not.
As I see it, its legal competence can change in only two ways: through an agreed legal transfer or through a constitutional rupture. The latter would require much more than a parliamentary assertion. It would need an unmistakable public mandate, prepared institutions, effective control and external recognition.
My suggestion is therefore to use Holyrood’s existing powers to build governing capacity and public trust, while wider civic institutions prepare the constitutional and operational transition. Formal transfers of authority should continue to be sought and refusals made visible.
I am not claiming that supplies a shortcut. I am saying there is no shortcut.
"As I see it, its legal competence can change in only two ways: through an agreed legal transfer or through a constitutional rupture."
An argument I would make, and one made by Aidan O'Neill in hi opinion for Martin Keatings, is that it is elections that give a Parliament its legitimacy, and every election empowers that Parliament. The Parliament therefore evolves in lines with the wishes of the people, expressed in the way we vote according to a Party's manifesto.
The Scotland Act may have started (restarted) the Scottish Parliament. but it can not halter or limit its legal competence.
Same argument is actually made by AV Dicey, though not in those words.
And hence the gap disappears with suitably manifestoed elections.
Whether the one in 2026 is one, with Swinney's statements, time will tell.
I can only assume that either:
1) you have not yet read
or
2) you have read but not fully understood the mechanisms described in
#ScottishUDI and #ManifestoForIndependence
Would it be too forward of me to suggest that you go and devote some time to reading and understanding them?
Would it be too forward of me to suggest that you start to treat other posters with some respect for a welcome change? I can only assume you are incapable.
"My suggestion is therefore to use Holyrood’s existing powers to build governing capacity and public trust, while wider civic institutions prepare the constitutional and operational transition. Formal transfers of authority should continue to be sought and refusals made visible.
I am not claiming that supplies a shortcut. I am saying there is no shortcut."
You are correct, your suggestion is not a shortcut.
It is a dead end.
Only if institution-building becomes a substitute for decision. I am not proposing that.
The paragraph immediately above explicitly identifies constitutional rupture as the alternative when agreed transfer is refused. Formal requests are not about waiting indefinitely for permission. Repeated refusals establish that the legal route has been closed. Building public consent, institutional capacity and operational readiness is what makes the alternative effective rather than merely rhetorical.
I accept that a clear trigger for moving from preparation to constitutional action must still be defined. But “assert competence” does not solve that problem by itself. A declaration without the capacity to implement it is the dead end.
"that the legal route has been closed"
Only within the Scotland Act, not "New Common Law" to coin a phrase.
You recognise "legal" as being the domestic (British) version.
I don't.
The circle cannot be squared until you shake off a bit more of what 3 centuries plus of British propaganda has indoctrinated us all with (to a greater or lesser extent), namely your colonial mindset.
course I recognise that I was referring to the present UK domestic legal order. I have repeatedly distinguished that from democratic legitimacy, constitutional rupture and international recognition.
You may regard that order as illegitimate, but Holyrood, the courts, civil service and police presently operate within it. Any strategy for replacing it must explain how a new authority becomes accepted and effective.
International law does not make that practical question disappear. A declaration may not itself be prohibited, but that is not the same as an automatic right to secede, effective control or international recognition.
Describing my refusal to ignore those realities as a “colonial mindset” does not answer the argument.
" its present legal competence remains bounded by the Scotland Act."
We know that.
The issue under discussion is how best to change that.
Do you have any suggestions on that issue?
Hi David.
Peters argument cannot be reduced to "Holyrood is not simply whatever its members declare it to be." since there exists a substantial body of his writing on the issue.
Have you read about #ScottishUDI and #ManifestoForIndependence ?
To oversimplify, the first parts of the proposals are to first empower our existing parliament and then take back the machinery of government.
https://manifestoforindependence.scot/manifesto-for-independence/
"Fanon synthesised Freud, Marxism, and anti-colonialism by arguing that colonial rule simultaneously exploits people economically, dominates them politically, and wounds them psychologically, so genuine liberation must transform both social structures and human consciousness." (Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh)
So the main thing that a liberated people must do is: 1. totally transform our (colonial) institutions, and: 2. get rid of our colonial mindset.
Not having seen the full exchange, it might be missing the point to comment on those things without a fuller appreciation of the exchange.
So I shall look for the original first.
...
https://nitter.net/Peter__A__Bell/status/2083091658170565116#m
There does not seem to be more there than what Peter has reported in the article. :-(
Sara said:
"The only problem with this is that Holyrood cannot declare UDI nor legally hold a referendum."
This is a fundamental issue that we can all see.
We can deduce that when writing 'legally' Sara must mean under existing domestic ("British") law.
Obviously Sara canot be referring to international law, because obviously there is nothing in international law that would prevent us from holding a referendum.
Similarly Sara cannot be referring to our Scottish constitutional tradition, which she has been instrumental in revealing to us, because again there is nothing that I am aware of in Scottish constitutional law that would prevent us from consulting the people.
Therefore we can make that deduction and assume this is what Sara meant there, as she is very well versed in all of the details.
"It is the Westminster created, Westminster Administration in Scotland."
Agree. Yes it is.
" The Kosovo ruling - replying to the Serbian govt’s submission - addresses this exactly."
But we are not an ex Soviet republic and the USA and the UK will not be using our situation to try to get one over on Russia, so the situation is also entirely different.
On the one hand one can point to some historical UN decision, on the other one must acknowledge that Scotland is seeking _restoration_ of our statehood for an ancient and long recognised nation, not recognition for a secession.
So a unique situation and not directly comparable to the breakup of the artificial composite state of Yugoslavia in crucial aspects.
" So it has to be a civic convention. "
This is a logical non-sequitor.
The conclusion does not follow automatically from the premise.
What can be stated is "so it can not be the existing 'Scottish' parliament"
or
"so one obvious option is to replace the existing 'Scottish' parliament with a more suitable body not bound by those constraints".
Those would be entirely reasonable and logical progressions of the argument.
The first one does not add much that usefully advances the conversation, so let us examine the second.
Taking the 2nd lets expand on that.
"to replace the existing 'Scottish' parliament with a more suitable body not bound by those constraints"
Obviously both of the proposed solutions could fit within that description.
In summary:
Sara proposes 'replacement'
Peter proposes 'reformation'
On initial reading there are some points concerning ommisions in these (brief) arguments that ought be at least explicitly considered.
Firstly when Peter discusses 'the parliament' he rightly points that there are 2 aspects that should be considered separately.
The parliament is the physical building etc. AND the people we put in it.
At this point it would be useful to explicitly accept that this rhetorical bifurcation elides a third and perhaps the most important aspect.
We should regard 'the parliament' in our discourse as 3 things:
1) The building and fixtures and fittings which obviously CAN be repurposed. There can be no argument against that.
2) The people. Obviously we chose who to elect and who to employ. Obviously all of this evolves over time as a matter of normal operation, and can be changed by us if and when we choose to do so.
I can see no argument against that either.
The 3rd aspect is the institutional aspect.
The rules and traditions.
The laws and the basis for those laws. The foundational legitimacy.
All of these 'institutional' or historical and cultural factors.
From the point that Sara makes we see that THIS is where the problematic issues lie.
If we assert that the basis on which the current institution is founded and operates is immutable then one is compelled to therefore insist that we have little option but to replace the existing institution as it is unfit for purpose.
If on the other hand we analyse these institutional components and foundations both individually and collectively, it becomes apparent that it is a perfectly reasonable idea to consider how those components could be modified or replaced.
As this post is already too long, I will stop there.
With this framing we can subdivide any criticisms that the existing 'Scottish Parliament' cannot be reformed.
Each time that someone asserts that something cannot be improved, reformed or replaced, if we analyse what they mean we should be able to split each objection into an issue that is capable of resolution, and / or perhaps leave some remainder as the part that then deserves further discussion.
;-)
Sara Salyers and you are, in my opinion, two of our strongest and most articulate proponents of the new-thinking, but in this instance I'm forced to come-down on your side, Peter, if only because Hollyrood and it's ancillary institutions are already in concrete existence and for that reason hold the real possibility of being reformed and harnessed in the cause of national-liberation. That said, Salyers is right to point-out the extreme difficulties of selling UDI to our, to be charitable: career-bound, much less than radical political class. Some of whom remain in therapy over the loss of Rhodesia to the Empire.
I'm not saying you are pretending, but Holyrood, the devolved Scottish parliament building, has been the scene of such elaborate pretending for such a long time - 27 years! - that it can't be expected to play a serious part in a future independent Scotland.
The situation requires a fresh start.
I reckon it just makes me someone who adheres to the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that the parliament the sovereign people elect is whatever the sovereign people want it to be.
This is The Thing!
It's what Westminster does...now is not the time is their opinion but they make it real by force of will.
This should be the attitude of the "new" Holyrood...whatever Holyrood decides as the democratic representative of the sovereign people is what we want it to be.
No oath of accession Charlie not our king so no official ceremonies
T of Union was not a territorial Treaty so UK has no right to oil or anything else.
We have the right to run our own referendum.
So WM wot you gonnae do about it
Interesting discussion as per usual Peter...
Here's my take on Scotland's freedom ......We ignore all traitors,grifters,foreign occupying english, quisling influencers, hidden foreign investors..ad infinitum. I have never had a blank page or hesitation when it comes to my freedom and that of Scotland and her future.
Look there's France..should they vote if they want to remain independent?..look over there Ukraine..should they have a vote to see if they want to remain an independent country?..there's Ireland..should they....oops!...go no further ..I think they've already proved
(decisively) what they want and took it..nae vote....So does any country want to hold a vote?..anybody?...( of course not..just sad wee Scotland)
Here's my question...So why OUR Scotland? Why do we have to prove we want freedom from the occupying foreign hostile parasitic english sh*t...and traitorous so called 'aristocrats'..
Ah well you see...
1. You've got to have 51% ..who says?
2. you've got to jump over this hurdle..or that one if the other one fails...who says?
3. ask the rest of the world ( who are free) if they approve of us being free...who cares..
4. 'You cannot have it jocks/turds ..is that clear you cringing little nation'......ah now we are getting to the root of the problem.....our FOREIGN occupiers...led by burn'em in his £1,000 outfit.
This is where Scotland must find her resolve backed up by murderous intent. Let the skin fall from your eyes Scotland ..we are no different from any nation on the planet..we don't need a scam election held by quisling traitors and occupying forces..we must defend our land like other nations ( Ukraine)and remove foreign invaders from OUR land ( like Ireland).....no discussion ..just as other countries would do. Tell me or my nation that we cannot be free unless you agree and I'll tell you to get ready to fight to the death.
I'm quite sure Peter you have never had a moment's hesitation in Scotland's freedom...keep going..an I'll keep my murderous intentions to those who invade and hollow out our land..just as all nations on the planet would do to those intent on destroying them.
For OUR Scotland and her weans and those yet tae come.
The building that houses the Parliament is immaterial. More specifically, it is the people that compose that Parliament that is of importance. Or, to be more precise still, it is the prospectus on, and purpose for, which the candidates stood for election that matters.
The parliament of politicians, composed of elected representatives, has legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Since 1999 there have been 7 elections for the Scottish Parliament with an average turnout of 55% ... that's not as high as I'd like it to but consistently a majority of registered electors view Holyrood as worthwhile voting for.
A commission of appointees on the other hand don't have that democratic endorsement and, assuming I have understood Sara Salyers point correctly, would run a real risk of being seen to impose independent statehood on people unfairly.
The path to restore Scotland's full self-government must be scrupulously fair as well as transparently and unambiguously the will of the people.
50-50. By which I mean nothing is certain until it is tried and succeeds - or fails.
Failure is not always benign.