I see in the Sunday National that the old ‘devo max’ idea has cropped up again (Could a written UK constitution help or hinder Scottish independence?).
I wouldn't subscribe to the national even if it was free. This paper has spent its entire life trying to persuade us the SNP was actively working towards the goal of Independence, when they weren't.
Prior to the 2014 Referendum the state English was mentioned in every avenue of our lives to know it's not mention at all, its constantly British this and that.
I like others, have trying to educate the glakit who have been for years saying the SNP are the biggest party and the only party who can delivery Independence!!! Well that myth has now been quashed after this years Holyrood election when our very own FM has done F-all for Scotland or its people. Swinney standing and shouting at the top of his voice god safe the king when the Song is about the demise of Scotland and it people, sum this moron up entirely.
Only the people of Scotland can safe Scotland, the rest of the world isn't going to do it.
Forget about Devo-Madmax this subject isn't about that its entirely about "strengthen the case for a written constitution for the UK with no exit for these Celtic nations.
The Scotland act has a lot in it, but their is only one part of it of importance to anyone who's British and that's the SNP Gold Standard, which we now know isn't its Scotland's ball and chain (Section 30 Order). I could never understand why the SNP at the time allow the Scotland act to happen or why Salmond didn't do anything about it when he was FM.
I am totally convinced now Salvo is making more progress than we know and the pressure is mounting on England to act, let know walk into the Scotland act again for something that just isn't there.
STOP believing the SNP is Scotland savour and the National is a Pro-indy paper it isn't, its a business end of.
Scotland becoming Independent strengthens Scotland and wakens England, this is a fact. The Scots even with our own life's should never allow a British written constitution its not for the UK its for England.
I say F*ck England because England has been f*cking Scotland for 300+ yrs and it isn't going to stop. Our time is now and it isn't going to come from a party who's been stealing form the nationalist for decades.
That the SNP is the only party that CAN deliver independence is not a myth. Currently, it is a fact. They CAN. But they won't! Which means that if we want independence delivered, we must do one of two things. Either we force the SNP to act, or we create a new party-political and parliamentary arm of the independence movement.
The time to force the SNP to change its approach to the constitutional issue was BEFORE this year's election when we had leverage. Evidently, the independence movement wasn't interested, preferring fantasy politics and magical thinking.
We must now accept that the SNP has abandoned the role of party of independence. We need a new party. We should be building support for this new party NOW so that it can be an electoral threat to the SNP at the 2031 Scottish general election.
The UN initiative is not going to restore Scotland's independence. For that to happen, we first need to form a party that is genuinely committed to a specified strategy. Then, we need to elect enough of the party's candidates to put serious pressure on the SNP.
A couple of years ago, I launched New Scotland Party for this very purpose. I then put development of the party on hiatus so I could concentrate on the campaign to force the SNP and other nominally pro-independence parties to adopt the Manifsto for Independence. By far the largest part of the independence movement declined to support this effort.
New Scotland Party could be revived. But I just don't have the resources or the heart for the task. I don't believe either the independence movement or the independence industry has learned any lessons from the last twelve years. It is all but certain the 2031 election will simply repeat the pattern. Scotland will once again elect an SNP government which will then sit on the constitutional issue for a further five years.
As for the National, I have known or at least met a few of the people who work on the paper. I know that they are as pro-independence as anyone in the independence movement. It is true that the National was getting to be to the SNP what the Daily Record is to British Labour in Scotland. That was because the SNP was the only party that could restore independence. I strongly suspect the National will be getting less and less sympathetic towards the SNP over the coming months. We'll see.
As I asked at the time, ie before the last S.E, by what means could anyone/group force the SNP to change? The only group that MIGHT have had a chance of doing that was the SNP Membership, and we saw how totally ineffectual even the few dissident, quickly/easily abandoned faux-insurrectionists fared.
I agree having an SNP worthy of the name - and history - would be the optimum scenario; we don't, and I've seen nothing to dissuade me that the ONLY way that party will change is after suffering electoral defeat: and even then..........?
There was a resolution submitted which would have had the SNP adopt the Manifesto for independence. I urged people outside the party to back the resolution in every way possible. Only a handful of people could be bothered.
Do you mean the Newington Resolution? That was strangled at birth if I remember correctly. Do you think the SNP Management would have given any " outside " backing of that ( excellent ) proposal even the slightest consideration when they don't take the slightest influence from the Membership? Maybe at this year's Party Conference there will be real rebellion; last year there was a sense that with a S.E imminent the Wheesht Mandate ruled. There is no such excuse this year
Maybe someone still in the membership could propose that the SNP change its name to the 'Scottish Devolutionist Party'?
At least this would cause a stir, and get in the papers, any rebel members should throw their weight behind it!
If it passed then at last there would be an end to the long running deception being perpetrated on the voting public.
When as would seem likely the whole member-power-seeks-reform idea is again demonstrated to be a complete non starter, then perhaps some people might have learnt something useful.
One might title the motion 'A modest proposal to more clearly align the name of the party with the aims of the party polit bureau'
Ah! Look skywards to the * Indy * Firmament, witness, glowing dully amidst the Cosmic Debris, the recurrent spectacle of that Hale Bopp of witless Yoonery in all it's Proud Scot Butt finery - ecce Devoid Maximus: gasp.......
Maybe someone should check to see if all is well @ Jackson's Entry, if there have been any suspiciously large orders of Indy Irn Kool Aid delivered of late.
Anyone seen GimMicK recently? Has Swindler been particularly busy @ The Funeral Parlour or a notably stronger than usual odour of formaldehyde around that Anti-Bruce?
Could it be possible that the now reactivated Sturgeon Death Star is casting it's malign rays from the profoundly shallow bowels of the Constellation Londinium, causing the denizens of Planet Indy Industry to behave in strange and unfathomably bizarre ways? That is to say, more strange and unfathomably bizarre ways than usual.
Oh, shhhh........can you hear that haunting refrain?..........
" never a, never a, never a, never a frown.....with Gordy Brown ". Quick! to the Bat-Cave!
There's definitely room for a bit of humour in these grim times. Very drole Robert, even the Strangled reference at the end.
But, not so fast!
I think you might have missed a few trick(sters) in your character designations. May I suggest that there are some independence industry players that could take up roles to enhance that your DC rogues gallery, some of which may be:
The Joker:
So much strength in depth but I'm going with Stephen Flynn on account of his perma-fixed grin-cum-grimace. Bam!
Two-Face:
Many worthy candidates but Angus Robertson's mug fits best. Biff!
Poison Ivy:
No contest, it's got to be Shirley-Anne-Somerville (SAS motto: 'who cares who sins'). Pow!
Harley Quinn:
Angela Constance (hair colouring) just pips Kaukab Stewart (rainbow laces). Wham!
etc
I note that you have included The Swindler but may I suggest that he may double as The Riddler on account of his undeniably implausible doubletalk over 'Independence'. Kapow!
I was slaughtered by Robert the Bruce in the opening scene of our Bannockburn recreation. Primary 4 still casts a dark shadow. Sir Henry de Bohun was not my ideal casting.
Still, it was a long time ago. I'm over it now.
Some have clearly had a far more traumatic experience growing up in Scotland. The funny thing is, I can't remember anyone banging on about it until fairly recently. I'm going to find out who is really to blame...
Tony Blair, born in Edinburgh, but who were his accomplices? Gordon Brown, Donald Dewar, Robin Cook, George Robertson, Alistair Darling... in fact, let's just blame all 56 Labour MPs from 1997. Throw in the other 16 too, 10 Liberals and 6 SNP. The majority of these people supported devolution. It's their fault!
Excellent piece as usual Peter.....amazingly your narrative chimed nicely with my recent reading... especially when you mentioned 'the problem of Scotland'.
I always wondered why Scotland has endured 300 years of an assault on her democracy and why we have so many traitors willing to collude with our enemies.
I've been reading Robert Jay Lifton (MD) .an American psychiatrist..National Book Award winning author..and leading public intellectual.(died at 99yrs.. 2025)
The article he had written was in relation to America and Trump called ..'An Assault on Democracy.
Reading it I immediately saw a connection to the predicament that the Scottish people find themselves in..This especially obvious when Burnham the foreign english PM stated unequivocally that Scotland would not have a referendum.
I saw immediately 'an assault on Scotland's democracy and according to Lifton in his treatise 'an assault on REALITY'.
He talks of the recovery from a catastrophe (Hiroshima,Auschwitz)..and as far as I am concerned also the catastrophe of the 'Union'...suffered by us for 300 years..and counting.According to Lifton survivors and witnesses have suffered the trauma of Loss. In our case..
* Loss of culture and national identity..(ban on wearing tartan and Gaelic.)
*Loss of resources ..pillaged by the occupying foreign english
*Loss of our land ..owned by foreigners as investment portfolios
*Loss of freedom and self respect.
According to Lifton we can derive 'crucial knowledge from that experience' and this can give rise to SURVIVOR WISDOM...The Scots have witnessed
*Lying
* Conspiracism
So we can transition from helpless victims to active survivors. He says we need to 're-tool'..a term that becomes a metaphor for spiritual and psychological energies. We need knowledge..we need to gather information and establish REALITY. So when we see or read on the media that
Scotland is supported by england...Scottish NHS is the worst in the Uk or Scottish education is failing we need to recognise manipulated conspiracism qnd make use of this as a direct reversal of truth.
This involves calling on every possible resource by exposing falsehoods and asserting a new narrative.
All very well but we have a SG who do nothing to react to falsehoods and ONE independent based newspaper...and in fact our SG are actively involved in 'manipulated conspiracism.'
We appear to stand no chance and remain helpless raged and alienated..like the one million Scots disengaged from independence.
Lifton was known for his studies on war and political violence..which is what Scotland has endured for 300 years. He says people are brilliant at adaptation and that is what has happened to the Scots..they have adapted to a 'malignant normality'...ie the Union...while we have well educated Scots willing to collude with the enemy by remuneration of gongs and ermine capes.
So how do I sum up ? thank you Lifton..very interesting...now let's investigate the Irish way...worked for them.
devo max is not genuine federalism while Westminster retains the power to rewrite the settlement unilaterally. But federalism is not inherently something that can only arise when sovereign states come together. Belgium evolved from a unitary into a federal state. The real test is sovereignty, entrenchment and exit: are Scotland’s powers guaranteed, can they be altered without Scottish consent, and can Scotland initiate a referendum? Nor does building Scottish institutions under devolution mean expecting devolution to grow into independence. It means building the capacity required to exercise greater self-government if Scotland chooses it
I think we broadly agree. My concern is that Scottish institutions are not being designed coherently for either a more autonomous Scotland under devolution or the possibility of independence.
I understand the symbolic power of describing Holyrood as the old Parliament returned. But in democratic terms, what we are discussing has little precedent. The pre-1707 Parliament represented a narrow political community, not the Scottish population in the modern democratic sense. This would be less an institutional restoration than a democratic construction.
That is where I find the safety-net-and-ceiling analogy useful. Devolution provides enough autonomy to build institutions, demonstrate competence and show people the practical difference that self-government makes. But it also imposes a ceiling, which becomes clearer as Scotland works up to its limits.
Use the powers. Prove the model. Expose the limits. Build the mandate. Demonstrating what autonomy changes is surely an easier sell than asking people to accept the constitutional case entirely in the abstract.
I can’t really argue with the twelve or thirteen years late part. Much of this should have followed 2014, if not devolution itself.
But late is not quite the same as too late. Scotland still needs institutions capable of using the autonomy it has and demonstrating what greater autonomy could achieve. If independence never comes, we still end up with a more capable and resilient Scotland. If it does, we are far better prepared.
The lost years make that harder and more urgent. They don’t make it pointless.
I think it's fair to say that Belgium is a bit of a special case.
The problem, as I see it, is that institutions are not being built with independence in mind. They are being built to support devolution.
To a very great degree, it's a matter of mindset. For example, many people are unable or disinclined to think of the Scottish Parliament as an executive arm of Westminster. Which it is, of course. But I find it more helpful to think of it as the ancient parliament of Scotland stole from us in 1707 and returned in 1999 bound in the chains of devolution.
Many people can't envisage the Scottish Parliament being the real and normal parliament of an independent Scotland. I have that picture in my mind all the time. I say the Scottish Parliament can be whatever the sovereign people of Scotland say it is. We won't restore Scotland's independence until we are ready to take back our parliament.
"David Kauders FRSA was educated at ... Jesus College Cambridge"
where Jason Arday was made a professor. And that's all I need to say about THAT.
As for this: 'Sturgeon pointed to the Irish border poll, adding that what that looks like in Scotland would “need debate”, and possibly for independence to “remain at a specified level for a set period of time”. '
I have assumed for years that a Federal proposition would emerge as the last throw of the dice as Independence became closer. We saw that in the infamous VOW a couple of days before the referendum. Of course never implemented. It has re emerged...I think as SALVO bypass Westminster And appeal to the UN...Its purpose IMHO..is to negate the Acts of Union...a Federal UK would include an INDIVISABILITY clause. A constitution agreed by a majority in Scotland would make the Acts of Union void!!! right now we have power of self determination as the Union was an International treaty between two sovereign states and can be revoked jointly or severally.
The danger of Federalism is clear...and would gain popular support....which is why its mooted now and before the Unionist tenuous majority disappears.
I seem to recall Alex was aware of the danger and sought to have it included in the referendum question a three or 4 part ballot decided by STV...thus maximizing the vote for Independence over the union or Federalism. The proposal was disallowed by the electoral commission as I remember.
I always thought Alex Salmond only hinted at a 'third option' on the 2014 ballot because he knew David Cameron would reflexively nix the idea. He knew how popular the option might be and wanted to get rid of it without him being the one who denied the choice.
That may not be what actually happened. But I suspect Alex would prefer my version.
David Kauders comments in the National article left me feeling that I was at the bottom of a deep pit of despair wrapped in a suffocating cloak of despond.
Any reformed constitutional arrangements that leaves Scotland under British/London/Westminster rule will make it impossible to restore Scotland’s full self-government.
The British will be obliged to ensure that English parliamentary sovereignty prevails over Scottish popular sovereignty and that the path to leave the UK is permanently and forever blocked.
After all this time, witnessing the actions and behaviour of the British why is it that people can't understand this?
..as you travail up the Sunlit Slopes of Success. SD..having disposed of Giant Despair. and survived the Slough of Despair...to the Celestial City you will see the other name on the door..INDEPENDENCE!
I wouldn't subscribe to the national even if it was free. This paper has spent its entire life trying to persuade us the SNP was actively working towards the goal of Independence, when they weren't.
Prior to the 2014 Referendum the state English was mentioned in every avenue of our lives to know it's not mention at all, its constantly British this and that.
I like others, have trying to educate the glakit who have been for years saying the SNP are the biggest party and the only party who can delivery Independence!!! Well that myth has now been quashed after this years Holyrood election when our very own FM has done F-all for Scotland or its people. Swinney standing and shouting at the top of his voice god safe the king when the Song is about the demise of Scotland and it people, sum this moron up entirely.
Only the people of Scotland can safe Scotland, the rest of the world isn't going to do it.
Forget about Devo-Madmax this subject isn't about that its entirely about "strengthen the case for a written constitution for the UK with no exit for these Celtic nations.
The Scotland act has a lot in it, but their is only one part of it of importance to anyone who's British and that's the SNP Gold Standard, which we now know isn't its Scotland's ball and chain (Section 30 Order). I could never understand why the SNP at the time allow the Scotland act to happen or why Salmond didn't do anything about it when he was FM.
I am totally convinced now Salvo is making more progress than we know and the pressure is mounting on England to act, let know walk into the Scotland act again for something that just isn't there.
STOP believing the SNP is Scotland savour and the National is a Pro-indy paper it isn't, its a business end of.
Scotland becoming Independent strengthens Scotland and wakens England, this is a fact. The Scots even with our own life's should never allow a British written constitution its not for the UK its for England.
I say F*ck England because England has been f*cking Scotland for 300+ yrs and it isn't going to stop. Our time is now and it isn't going to come from a party who's been stealing form the nationalist for decades.
That the SNP is the only party that CAN deliver independence is not a myth. Currently, it is a fact. They CAN. But they won't! Which means that if we want independence delivered, we must do one of two things. Either we force the SNP to act, or we create a new party-political and parliamentary arm of the independence movement.
The time to force the SNP to change its approach to the constitutional issue was BEFORE this year's election when we had leverage. Evidently, the independence movement wasn't interested, preferring fantasy politics and magical thinking.
We must now accept that the SNP has abandoned the role of party of independence. We need a new party. We should be building support for this new party NOW so that it can be an electoral threat to the SNP at the 2031 Scottish general election.
The UN initiative is not going to restore Scotland's independence. For that to happen, we first need to form a party that is genuinely committed to a specified strategy. Then, we need to elect enough of the party's candidates to put serious pressure on the SNP.
A couple of years ago, I launched New Scotland Party for this very purpose. I then put development of the party on hiatus so I could concentrate on the campaign to force the SNP and other nominally pro-independence parties to adopt the Manifsto for Independence. By far the largest part of the independence movement declined to support this effort.
New Scotland Party could be revived. But I just don't have the resources or the heart for the task. I don't believe either the independence movement or the independence industry has learned any lessons from the last twelve years. It is all but certain the 2031 election will simply repeat the pattern. Scotland will once again elect an SNP government which will then sit on the constitutional issue for a further five years.
As for the National, I have known or at least met a few of the people who work on the paper. I know that they are as pro-independence as anyone in the independence movement. It is true that the National was getting to be to the SNP what the Daily Record is to British Labour in Scotland. That was because the SNP was the only party that could restore independence. I strongly suspect the National will be getting less and less sympathetic towards the SNP over the coming months. We'll see.
As I asked at the time, ie before the last S.E, by what means could anyone/group force the SNP to change? The only group that MIGHT have had a chance of doing that was the SNP Membership, and we saw how totally ineffectual even the few dissident, quickly/easily abandoned faux-insurrectionists fared.
I agree having an SNP worthy of the name - and history - would be the optimum scenario; we don't, and I've seen nothing to dissuade me that the ONLY way that party will change is after suffering electoral defeat: and even then..........?
There was a resolution submitted which would have had the SNP adopt the Manifesto for independence. I urged people outside the party to back the resolution in every way possible. Only a handful of people could be bothered.
Do you mean the Newington Resolution? That was strangled at birth if I remember correctly. Do you think the SNP Management would have given any " outside " backing of that ( excellent ) proposal even the slightest consideration when they don't take the slightest influence from the Membership? Maybe at this year's Party Conference there will be real rebellion; last year there was a sense that with a S.E imminent the Wheesht Mandate ruled. There is no such excuse this year
Maybe someone still in the membership could propose that the SNP change its name to the 'Scottish Devolutionist Party'?
At least this would cause a stir, and get in the papers, any rebel members should throw their weight behind it!
If it passed then at last there would be an end to the long running deception being perpetrated on the voting public.
When as would seem likely the whole member-power-seeks-reform idea is again demonstrated to be a complete non starter, then perhaps some people might have learnt something useful.
One might title the motion 'A modest proposal to more clearly align the name of the party with the aims of the party polit bureau'
We live in hope.
;-)
Ah! Look skywards to the * Indy * Firmament, witness, glowing dully amidst the Cosmic Debris, the recurrent spectacle of that Hale Bopp of witless Yoonery in all it's Proud Scot Butt finery - ecce Devoid Maximus: gasp.......
Maybe someone should check to see if all is well @ Jackson's Entry, if there have been any suspiciously large orders of Indy Irn Kool Aid delivered of late.
Anyone seen GimMicK recently? Has Swindler been particularly busy @ The Funeral Parlour or a notably stronger than usual odour of formaldehyde around that Anti-Bruce?
Could it be possible that the now reactivated Sturgeon Death Star is casting it's malign rays from the profoundly shallow bowels of the Constellation Londinium, causing the denizens of Planet Indy Industry to behave in strange and unfathomably bizarre ways? That is to say, more strange and unfathomably bizarre ways than usual.
Oh, shhhh........can you hear that haunting refrain?..........
" never a, never a, never a, never a frown.....with Gordy Brown ". Quick! to the Bat-Cave!
There's definitely room for a bit of humour in these grim times. Very drole Robert, even the Strangled reference at the end.
But, not so fast!
I think you might have missed a few trick(sters) in your character designations. May I suggest that there are some independence industry players that could take up roles to enhance that your DC rogues gallery, some of which may be:
The Joker:
So much strength in depth but I'm going with Stephen Flynn on account of his perma-fixed grin-cum-grimace. Bam!
Two-Face:
Many worthy candidates but Angus Robertson's mug fits best. Biff!
Poison Ivy:
No contest, it's got to be Shirley-Anne-Somerville (SAS motto: 'who cares who sins'). Pow!
Harley Quinn:
Angela Constance (hair colouring) just pips Kaukab Stewart (rainbow laces). Wham!
etc
I note that you have included The Swindler but may I suggest that he may double as The Riddler on account of his undeniably implausible doubletalk over 'Independence'. Kapow!
Excellent suggestions, Stephen: a formidable cadre of Super-Zeroes for sure. KAPOW! indeed mon frere :)
I was slaughtered by Robert the Bruce in the opening scene of our Bannockburn recreation. Primary 4 still casts a dark shadow. Sir Henry de Bohun was not my ideal casting.
Still, it was a long time ago. I'm over it now.
Some have clearly had a far more traumatic experience growing up in Scotland. The funny thing is, I can't remember anyone banging on about it until fairly recently. I'm going to find out who is really to blame...
Tony Blair, born in Edinburgh, but who were his accomplices? Gordon Brown, Donald Dewar, Robin Cook, George Robertson, Alistair Darling... in fact, let's just blame all 56 Labour MPs from 1997. Throw in the other 16 too, 10 Liberals and 6 SNP. The majority of these people supported devolution. It's their fault!
Excellent piece as usual Peter.....amazingly your narrative chimed nicely with my recent reading... especially when you mentioned 'the problem of Scotland'.
I always wondered why Scotland has endured 300 years of an assault on her democracy and why we have so many traitors willing to collude with our enemies.
I've been reading Robert Jay Lifton (MD) .an American psychiatrist..National Book Award winning author..and leading public intellectual.(died at 99yrs.. 2025)
The article he had written was in relation to America and Trump called ..'An Assault on Democracy.
Reading it I immediately saw a connection to the predicament that the Scottish people find themselves in..This especially obvious when Burnham the foreign english PM stated unequivocally that Scotland would not have a referendum.
I saw immediately 'an assault on Scotland's democracy and according to Lifton in his treatise 'an assault on REALITY'.
He talks of the recovery from a catastrophe (Hiroshima,Auschwitz)..and as far as I am concerned also the catastrophe of the 'Union'...suffered by us for 300 years..and counting.According to Lifton survivors and witnesses have suffered the trauma of Loss. In our case..
* Loss of culture and national identity..(ban on wearing tartan and Gaelic.)
*Loss of resources ..pillaged by the occupying foreign english
*Loss of our land ..owned by foreigners as investment portfolios
*Loss of freedom and self respect.
According to Lifton we can derive 'crucial knowledge from that experience' and this can give rise to SURVIVOR WISDOM...The Scots have witnessed
*Lying
* Conspiracism
So we can transition from helpless victims to active survivors. He says we need to 're-tool'..a term that becomes a metaphor for spiritual and psychological energies. We need knowledge..we need to gather information and establish REALITY. So when we see or read on the media that
Scotland is supported by england...Scottish NHS is the worst in the Uk or Scottish education is failing we need to recognise manipulated conspiracism qnd make use of this as a direct reversal of truth.
This involves calling on every possible resource by exposing falsehoods and asserting a new narrative.
All very well but we have a SG who do nothing to react to falsehoods and ONE independent based newspaper...and in fact our SG are actively involved in 'manipulated conspiracism.'
We appear to stand no chance and remain helpless raged and alienated..like the one million Scots disengaged from independence.
Lifton was known for his studies on war and political violence..which is what Scotland has endured for 300 years. He says people are brilliant at adaptation and that is what has happened to the Scots..they have adapted to a 'malignant normality'...ie the Union...while we have well educated Scots willing to collude with the enemy by remuneration of gongs and ermine capes.
So how do I sum up ? thank you Lifton..very interesting...now let's investigate the Irish way...worked for them.
For OUR Scotland and her weans.
Lifton sounds like someone I should read.
https://www.robertjaylifton.com/articles/blog-post-title-two-r723y
I think you would chime with his thinking....watch his interviews...one at 91yrs...had seen a lot ...
devo max is not genuine federalism while Westminster retains the power to rewrite the settlement unilaterally. But federalism is not inherently something that can only arise when sovereign states come together. Belgium evolved from a unitary into a federal state. The real test is sovereignty, entrenchment and exit: are Scotland’s powers guaranteed, can they be altered without Scottish consent, and can Scotland initiate a referendum? Nor does building Scottish institutions under devolution mean expecting devolution to grow into independence. It means building the capacity required to exercise greater self-government if Scotland chooses it
I think we broadly agree. My concern is that Scottish institutions are not being designed coherently for either a more autonomous Scotland under devolution or the possibility of independence.
I understand the symbolic power of describing Holyrood as the old Parliament returned. But in democratic terms, what we are discussing has little precedent. The pre-1707 Parliament represented a narrow political community, not the Scottish population in the modern democratic sense. This would be less an institutional restoration than a democratic construction.
That is where I find the safety-net-and-ceiling analogy useful. Devolution provides enough autonomy to build institutions, demonstrate competence and show people the practical difference that self-government makes. But it also imposes a ceiling, which becomes clearer as Scotland works up to its limits.
Use the powers. Prove the model. Expose the limits. Build the mandate. Demonstrating what autonomy changes is surely an easier sell than asking people to accept the constitutional case entirely in the abstract.
It sounds like you're 12 or 13 years too late. Not that I have a better idea. I don't think anyone does.
I can’t really argue with the twelve or thirteen years late part. Much of this should have followed 2014, if not devolution itself.
But late is not quite the same as too late. Scotland still needs institutions capable of using the autonomy it has and demonstrating what greater autonomy could achieve. If independence never comes, we still end up with a more capable and resilient Scotland. If it does, we are far better prepared.
The lost years make that harder and more urgent. They don’t make it pointless.
Improving devolution makes continued devolution more likely.
That used to be a difficult argument to make. Not anymore. It's now blatantly obvious!
I think it's fair to say that Belgium is a bit of a special case.
The problem, as I see it, is that institutions are not being built with independence in mind. They are being built to support devolution.
To a very great degree, it's a matter of mindset. For example, many people are unable or disinclined to think of the Scottish Parliament as an executive arm of Westminster. Which it is, of course. But I find it more helpful to think of it as the ancient parliament of Scotland stole from us in 1707 and returned in 1999 bound in the chains of devolution.
Many people can't envisage the Scottish Parliament being the real and normal parliament of an independent Scotland. I have that picture in my mind all the time. I say the Scottish Parliament can be whatever the sovereign people of Scotland say it is. We won't restore Scotland's independence until we are ready to take back our parliament.
"David Kauders FRSA was educated at ... Jesus College Cambridge"
where Jason Arday was made a professor. And that's all I need to say about THAT.
As for this: 'Sturgeon pointed to the Irish border poll, adding that what that looks like in Scotland would “need debate”, and possibly for independence to “remain at a specified level for a set period of time”. '
GTF
Scotland has a written constitution (its own) and should NEVER change it with our oppressor !
We will update after we are free as only the people that can change it is our reborn parliment and not our Westminster Scottish branch office.
I have assumed for years that a Federal proposition would emerge as the last throw of the dice as Independence became closer. We saw that in the infamous VOW a couple of days before the referendum. Of course never implemented. It has re emerged...I think as SALVO bypass Westminster And appeal to the UN...Its purpose IMHO..is to negate the Acts of Union...a Federal UK would include an INDIVISABILITY clause. A constitution agreed by a majority in Scotland would make the Acts of Union void!!! right now we have power of self determination as the Union was an International treaty between two sovereign states and can be revoked jointly or severally.
The danger of Federalism is clear...and would gain popular support....which is why its mooted now and before the Unionist tenuous majority disappears.
I seem to recall Alex was aware of the danger and sought to have it included in the referendum question a three or 4 part ballot decided by STV...thus maximizing the vote for Independence over the union or Federalism. The proposal was disallowed by the electoral commission as I remember.
I always thought Alex Salmond only hinted at a 'third option' on the 2014 ballot because he knew David Cameron would reflexively nix the idea. He knew how popular the option might be and wanted to get rid of it without him being the one who denied the choice.
That may not be what actually happened. But I suspect Alex would prefer my version.
David Kauders comments in the National article left me feeling that I was at the bottom of a deep pit of despair wrapped in a suffocating cloak of despond.
Any reformed constitutional arrangements that leaves Scotland under British/London/Westminster rule will make it impossible to restore Scotland’s full self-government.
The British will be obliged to ensure that English parliamentary sovereignty prevails over Scottish popular sovereignty and that the path to leave the UK is permanently and forever blocked.
After all this time, witnessing the actions and behaviour of the British why is it that people can't understand this?
..as you travail up the Sunlit Slopes of Success. SD..having disposed of Giant Despair. and survived the Slough of Despair...to the Celestial City you will see the other name on the door..INDEPENDENCE!
Keep going Pilgrim..
Jings. I have absolutely no choice but to upvote that. And THAT is progress!