Once again, our old friend James Murphy makes a very pertinent observation in a below-the-line comment on an item in The National (Economic case for UK ‘torn apart’ by Labour Budget, Stephen Flynn says).
Okey-doke. I said in my earlier post "So if the desired outcome is for the UN General Assembly to agree to Scotland's addition to the list of NSGTs - or even take it forward and look likely to do so ..."
Note that the C-24 will probably meet in May and thru to July 2026, and the UN General Assembly would then meet in September. Also that the Security Council of which the UK is a permanent member at the moment (see India) does not have a veto on GA Resolutions. Just any implementation of them - for a time.
So - the UK could be looking at the C-24 deciding or looking to decide, to put forward Scotland for the NSGT list. What does the UK make of this - does it sit back and wait to be made a complete embarrassing BUTTOCK of? Or does it try to head this off by "offering" a Section 30 and Edinburgh Agreement with a date of end 2028, same terms as last time?
I think the S30 and first the ScotGov should at least use its then strong negotiating position to push for a permanent change to the Scotland Act. I think it should even though it would take a bit longer pushing that through Westminster (3 stages + committee + HOL). That would give self-determination at last on the constitutional issue.
And secondly, what does the Independence movement make of it? I think if say 100,000 are active these days, you'd get maybe 1,000 who'd say "S30 is poison", another up to 1,000 who despise the SNP so much they'd continue whatever they're doing at the moment. But then there'd be 98,000 who'd almost certainly leap at the chance of Indy Ref 2 - and call Swinney a treacherous traitor if he turned it down for any reason.
And that is RealPolitik! And simultaneously, my opinion, and has been for many months.
We're getting there. Well, most of us.
edit Disclaimer: I have no connection with Salvo, Liberation Scotland, JPTI, ScotGov, or any political party at all
This is primarily about the list of NSGTs, and getting Scotland onto the list as we don't have self-determination. What happens after that is up to us. And even once on the list it would be a slow process. The UN doesn't liberate any NSGT. This second posting above explores the possibility of the UK Government trying to head off the absolute shameful worldwide embarrassment it would face holding us in an enforced so-called "Union", by offering voluntarily what it should be providing anyway - self-determination.
Same as it was for Gibraltar put on the NSGT list soon after the second world war, which in 1967 voted in a referendum to remain in the UK by 99.6%. In 2002 Gibraltar voted by 99% for the UK NOT to share sovereignty with Spain. The people of Gibraltar exercised their self-determination twice, and it's likely they'll do so again soon, though this time they might accept the shared sovereignty as they voted nearly 100% to remain in the EU.
I don't speak for all the 5,546,900 people of Scotland, nor does the SNP, nor does the UK, nor do you.
Enforced Independence by a few militants would be totally undemocratic. The only democratic way to determine the Will of the Peoples of Scotland is in a referendum. Currently denied by the UK. And it should be possible any time we want to hold one, not just a one off.
‘The question evidently has never even occurred to Stephen Flynn and his colleagues in the upper echelons of the SNP.’
This may be true but I find it unlikely.
Has it ever occurred to you that the last thing Stephen Flynn etc want is independence for Scotland?
Has it ever occurred to you that stopping the gravy train is anathema to Stephen Flynn etc?
Has it ever occurred to you that when young Master Flynn looks in his crystal ball he doesn’t see the saltire flying over Edinburgh Castle but red leather benches, an ermine cloak and a life long stipend?
A technique is to look to the future for a desired outcome, and then work backwards towards the present to see what might be needed to be done to support that outcome.
So if the desired outcome is for the UN General Assembly to agree to Scotland's addition to the list of NSGTs - or even take it forward and look likely to do so - then the ScotGov and the SNP MPs should even now, be doing all they can to support that outcome, even if not officially being involved in it.
Number 1 of this is to highlight refusal by the UK Government in any way, to provide an internal method of self-determination. As per Quebec and also Falklands and Gibraltar, not to mention the ones JPTI mentioned. Well, that is being done by pointing out Rachel Reeves' public refusal (though in fact she is not speaking officially for the UK Gov).
Number 2 of this is to point out that a referendum is due - and that even if the generation nonsense had any grounding, that generation has passed. Much as I think Flynn is all out for himself and doesn't have a lot of interest in Indy, THAT is exactly what he did in his speech.
Same for another non-self-governing argument - where the economy of Scotland is being held back by the colonial power, the UK. Flynn covered this by damning the UK budget. And no, his target isn't us at all, it's not even really the undecideds or soft noes, this statement was to AP which was covering the budget which is of worldwide interest to politicos and economists.
In this particular case, Flynn was doing EXACTLY what he should be doing.
Another apologia for the SNP. They're getting tedious now.
This one is particularly silly. You are not expected to understand what follows, but others will.
What you say about the SNP Scottish Government supporting the Liberation Scotland UN initiative makes absolutely no sense. That initiative can't aid Scotland's cause without an internal political and parliamentary process that exploits Scotland's recognition by the UN as a non-self-governing territory (NSGT). The SNP Scottish Government has spent eleven years assiduously avoiding setting up such a process and is now proposing to scupper any prospect of this process for the foreseeable future.
That is the reality that SNP loyalists and apologists are unwilling and unable to accept.
A lot of repetitive stuff about Murphy, Flynn and Swinney, all of which we have heard before and again in your response. Some constitutional progress is be being made with Liberation Scotland albeit that the United Nations wheels turn slowly. But progress there is which is more than has been suggested here.
Other issues from other external groups such as the Scottish Currency Group and nuclear disarmament group continually publish in the National which, again, is specific and important information for the people of Scotland , those who read the National of course.
And not all the SNP follow Swinney several branches at its last conference attempted to defy Swinney by submitting a motion for an all independence party majority as opposed to Swinney's SNP majority. And we all know how that ended.
Attempted and failed. The delegates voted to follow Swinney down the path to ruin. That makes it official. The entire party is now officially in favour of Swinney's traitorous 'strategy'. The only way to break that association is to quit the party.
No "constitutional progress" is being made. No constitutional progress is possible so long as the SNP remains committed to the Sturgeon doctrine. Swinney's 'strategy' makes progress impossible.
Another good comment by James Murphy and another good comment on it by yourself. Alas, like all the other good comments in the National ( not that there is an surfeit of such in that location ) & elsewhere, they amount to the sum total of fuck-all; as will any amount of good comments between now & May '26; for the simple reason, which you already know, there's zero chance of the SNP acting on what these good comments are critiquing and proposing alternatives to.
The faint glimmer of hope that the recent SNP Conference might produce something resembling a challenge to the SNP * Leadership * anal retentives was stillborn before that event even started and dribbling idiocy from the likes of Flynn only serve to confirm that nothing will change.
The current Management have their claws deeply imbedded in that Party and total control over it & the Membership are hopelessly addicted to the dopium the Management peddles: ergo.....stasis. In fact, on current trajectory, they will be lucky if the prevailing stasis continues; I can quite easily see them going into an unstoppable reverse. I could fairly be said this is already the case.
No mind, though, only a tiny group of people want to actually do something about the current impasse and try to salvage something from HE26: the majority are either like the SNP Membership described above; infatuated by the contents of their own umbilicus; have a " My way/Highway " inflexibility or, when it comes right down to it.....don't really give much of fuck what happens, eg " if it ( Independence ) happens it happens, but don't ask me to make any effort to make it happen ".
Yes the SNP has to be challenged to answer that question. What is the process of achieving independence, if we vote SNP? Are they willing to support Salvo to gain liberation/ decolonisation?
Another question that needs to be answered is do we have free speech in Scotland? and do we have a right to protest? If the answer is no to both questions, then there is no point in having a Scottish government because they are not working for us.
The Scottish Government should at least acknowledge the Salvo/Liberation Scotland initiative. Although it could be argued that the initiative is better off without the involvement of this particular Scottish Government. But it must be understood that the UN initiative alone will not further Scotland's cause. For that to happen there must be an internal political and parliamentary process in place ready to use Scotland's classification as a non-self-governing territory. That is the SNP's job. They aren't doing it. They aren't planning to do it.
Arguably an elected nationalist government in a colony should already have long since been knocking on the UN door. Salvo/Liberation Scotland are doing what the SNP should have been doing. UN membership is effectively independence efter aw!
The notion of Scotland as a colony is a recent concept from Sarah Salyers via Liberation Scotland. The SNP has never been aware of the fact as described by Sarah Salyers.
It was Alf who posted on it and kept patiently on, back maybe 9 or 10 years ago below the line on Wings. I'd looked at it back in 2012 because of the Falklands which I found were a thing called the NSGT, but firstly with a referendum having been "granted" it didn't strictly apply to Scotland then, and also it would not have been a popular idea at all for the Ref - not a vote winner at all.
Alf got the idea going and it got a bit of impetus over the Sewel which used to be a fairly successful convention not writ into law, but then was writ into the Scotland Act 2016 with the word "normally" which was the only debate basically in the UKSC who cared nothing for the "convention", and it was decided effectively that "normally" meant "not really", and later on "never". THAT was a strong step into Scotland being obviously treated as a colony. And led to a lot of loss of faith in the UKSC in Scotland.
The next was the infamous UKSC judgement on the LA Ref, and then later, the overrule of the ScotGov on GRR by a SSOS who got roundly and rightly called a "Governor General", a title appropriate for a colonial governor over his or her serfs.
It's got worse since, and the Internal Market Act is quite widely regarded as breach of law in itself, but also the word "colony" has become mainstream in the Indy movement and even the SNP use it at times.
But it's all down to Alf's persistence as without him the concept might never have been aired or spread.
Thanks for the update. Just one question, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms used which makes it difficult to know who or what you are referring to.
I should add that the previous Scotland-UN Committee in its 1980s-90s submissions to the UN and Council of Europe etc, which were instrumental in bringing about the eventual 'concession' of a devolved Scottish Parliament, described Scotland as 'a colonial province of England'.
Much of the research on the finding that Scotland is a colony of England came from my book 'Doun-Hauden' which provides the only theoretical framework developed on Scottish independence (available from Amazon), also summarised in this academic journal article, all of which has been sent to the SNP leadership:
But would we trust this 'nationalist' government to pursue the UN route effectively? Or would we expect them to fuck it up?
In fact, they are already fucking it up. Or at least proposing to. Validating the Section 30 process allows the UK Government to claim that it is already providing the means by which the people of Scotland can exercise our right of self-determination. That argument is perhaps unlikely to be decisive or even persuasive with the UN. But we shouldn't be gifting them any arguments.
Additionally, it would make no sense at all for a nationalist Scottish Government to pursue listing as an NSGT by the UN if it was not simultaneously establishing an internal political and parliamentary process such as could exploit the fact of that listing. This 'nationalist' Scottish Government is doing the opposite. Rather than creating that internal process it is set on validating and external veto.
Flynn is simply keeping his name in the press hoping that the publicity will maintain a high enough profile high sufficiently so that he joins the rest of the collaborating cabal at Holyrood after next year's election.
As regards The National I suspect the reason that they offer no critical appraisal or editorial on Swinney's road to nowhere is that they are fearful that the tap that releases what little information flows to them from the Scottish Government via politicians talking to reporters or columnists like Tommy Sheppard or Karen Adam will be switched off altogether. The consequence of this is that this slight edge over their competitor outlets will be lost.
It's sort of akin to the pro-Independence politicians remaining in Holyrood and SNP members keeping stum for fear that rocking the leaky boat that John Swinney is skippering will adversely impact their career prospects within the party.
Neither of these are sufficient cause for remaining silent but that is probably what is underpinning the cowardice over not calling out the political nakedness of the party leader and his pathetic 'plan'.
Once a dominant national party becomes part of the colonial payroll the party leadership seek only "to make an accommodation with colonialism", it suffers a kind of 'petrifaction' (Fanon). This means the party becomes 'immobile' and 'neutral' on independence; it attacks so-called 'radicals' (even joining with Crown forces to do so); it protects the colonial status quo and hence 'sacrifices' the oppressed group and cause; which in turn 'sickens' and 'ruptures' the movement (as we have seen).
The same process has been played out in numerous colonies. An independence movement therefore usually needs to jettison and replace a dominant national party that has been 'co-opted by colonialism' and which now works only to delay and prevent independence:
Not necessarily "jettison and replace" the party. It could be enough to jettison and replace the leadership. Or even just to jettison and replace the 'thinking' on the constitutional issue. I'll wager that in most if not all of those countries which jettisoned and replaced the dominant national party there was a significant overlap of personnel.
Imagine, purely to illustrate the point, if New Scotland Party (NSP) entered the fray in the 2026 Scottish general election as the party of national liberation with a real plan for restoring independence. Suppose a swathe of SNP MSPs switched their allegiance to NSP. It is at least theoretically possible that the replacement nationalist party could be made up almost entirely of former members of the jettisoned party.
What this thought experiment does is dispel the notion that there must be a clean sweep and an entirely new replacement. Something which in the real world would be extremely difficult to achieve. And probably impossible to achieve in the short- to medium-term.
Real life politics tends to be a bit messy. A bit fuzzy round the edges. Grayscale rather than duotone. A 'tabula rasa' is seldom if ever a realistic possibility. We shouldn't be making a mountain to climb when a hill will get us to the required height.
Your comment spot on ....but I don't know what to say. Is there something we don't know that the SNP knows. This is a gigantic conspiracy against the Scottish people.You've made it clear re the Scottish UDI Manifesto..but unfortunately the SNP have far greater exposure than your podcast and when you spoke at the IFS convention you didn't get to take any questions and were not included in final panel. I WONDER WHY.....?( McHarg was included in the panel and she warned us about illegal moves )...there is no illegal way of getting your freedom. ( ask the FREE Irish)....we are Sovereign...we take back our FREEDOM. I NEVER listen to anyone who lives and works in foreign england.
I am not convinced by the 'National' being there for Scotland. I was banned because of my comments about the foreign english..but a foreign english invader living in the highlands was published..she called me' a vile racist and hoped I choked on my bile.'.....
I trust very few when it comes to Scotland's freedom.
And in other news possibly another welcome step forward towards decolonisation:
https://archive.is/8Ek6I
"Gaelic and Scots gain official status on St Andrew’s Day". (Scottish Languages Act)
Happy St Andrew’s Day! And so finally, as they say:
We’ll mak oor maut an we’ll brew oor drink
We’ll laugh, sing an rejoice, man
Okey-doke. I said in my earlier post "So if the desired outcome is for the UN General Assembly to agree to Scotland's addition to the list of NSGTs - or even take it forward and look likely to do so ..."
Note that the C-24 will probably meet in May and thru to July 2026, and the UN General Assembly would then meet in September. Also that the Security Council of which the UK is a permanent member at the moment (see India) does not have a veto on GA Resolutions. Just any implementation of them - for a time.
So - the UK could be looking at the C-24 deciding or looking to decide, to put forward Scotland for the NSGT list. What does the UK make of this - does it sit back and wait to be made a complete embarrassing BUTTOCK of? Or does it try to head this off by "offering" a Section 30 and Edinburgh Agreement with a date of end 2028, same terms as last time?
I think the S30 and first the ScotGov should at least use its then strong negotiating position to push for a permanent change to the Scotland Act. I think it should even though it would take a bit longer pushing that through Westminster (3 stages + committee + HOL). That would give self-determination at last on the constitutional issue.
And secondly, what does the Independence movement make of it? I think if say 100,000 are active these days, you'd get maybe 1,000 who'd say "S30 is poison", another up to 1,000 who despise the SNP so much they'd continue whatever they're doing at the moment. But then there'd be 98,000 who'd almost certainly leap at the chance of Indy Ref 2 - and call Swinney a treacherous traitor if he turned it down for any reason.
And that is RealPolitik! And simultaneously, my opinion, and has been for many months.
We're getting there. Well, most of us.
edit Disclaimer: I have no connection with Salvo, Liberation Scotland, JPTI, ScotGov, or any political party at all
But the desired outcome should be liberation of the people.
Self determination for the people.
Restoration of the independent governance of Scotland.
Not 'enhanced' devolution.
Not begging for another clause to be added to the Scotland Act.
You do see that those are the wrong outcomes to strive for, right?
Ah, I see what the problem is. You missed the word "if" when I said:
"So if the desired outcome is ..."
This is primarily about the list of NSGTs, and getting Scotland onto the list as we don't have self-determination. What happens after that is up to us. And even once on the list it would be a slow process. The UN doesn't liberate any NSGT. This second posting above explores the possibility of the UK Government trying to head off the absolute shameful worldwide embarrassment it would face holding us in an enforced so-called "Union", by offering voluntarily what it should be providing anyway - self-determination.
Same as it was for Gibraltar put on the NSGT list soon after the second world war, which in 1967 voted in a referendum to remain in the UK by 99.6%. In 2002 Gibraltar voted by 99% for the UK NOT to share sovereignty with Spain. The people of Gibraltar exercised their self-determination twice, and it's likely they'll do so again soon, though this time they might accept the shared sovereignty as they voted nearly 100% to remain in the EU.
https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt/gibraltar
I don't speak for all the 5,546,900 people of Scotland, nor does the SNP, nor does the UK, nor do you.
Enforced Independence by a few militants would be totally undemocratic. The only democratic way to determine the Will of the Peoples of Scotland is in a referendum. Currently denied by the UK. And it should be possible any time we want to hold one, not just a one off.
‘The question evidently has never even occurred to Stephen Flynn and his colleagues in the upper echelons of the SNP.’
This may be true but I find it unlikely.
Has it ever occurred to you that the last thing Stephen Flynn etc want is independence for Scotland?
Has it ever occurred to you that stopping the gravy train is anathema to Stephen Flynn etc?
Has it ever occurred to you that when young Master Flynn looks in his crystal ball he doesn’t see the saltire flying over Edinburgh Castle but red leather benches, an ermine cloak and a life long stipend?
Lord Flynn of Lochee has a nice ring to it!
A technique is to look to the future for a desired outcome, and then work backwards towards the present to see what might be needed to be done to support that outcome.
So if the desired outcome is for the UN General Assembly to agree to Scotland's addition to the list of NSGTs - or even take it forward and look likely to do so - then the ScotGov and the SNP MPs should even now, be doing all they can to support that outcome, even if not officially being involved in it.
Number 1 of this is to highlight refusal by the UK Government in any way, to provide an internal method of self-determination. As per Quebec and also Falklands and Gibraltar, not to mention the ones JPTI mentioned. Well, that is being done by pointing out Rachel Reeves' public refusal (though in fact she is not speaking officially for the UK Gov).
Number 2 of this is to point out that a referendum is due - and that even if the generation nonsense had any grounding, that generation has passed. Much as I think Flynn is all out for himself and doesn't have a lot of interest in Indy, THAT is exactly what he did in his speech.
Same for another non-self-governing argument - where the economy of Scotland is being held back by the colonial power, the UK. Flynn covered this by damning the UK budget. And no, his target isn't us at all, it's not even really the undecideds or soft noes, this statement was to AP which was covering the budget which is of worldwide interest to politicos and economists.
In this particular case, Flynn was doing EXACTLY what he should be doing.
Another apologia for the SNP. They're getting tedious now.
This one is particularly silly. You are not expected to understand what follows, but others will.
What you say about the SNP Scottish Government supporting the Liberation Scotland UN initiative makes absolutely no sense. That initiative can't aid Scotland's cause without an internal political and parliamentary process that exploits Scotland's recognition by the UN as a non-self-governing territory (NSGT). The SNP Scottish Government has spent eleven years assiduously avoiding setting up such a process and is now proposing to scupper any prospect of this process for the foreseeable future.
That is the reality that SNP loyalists and apologists are unwilling and unable to accept.
A lot of repetitive stuff about Murphy, Flynn and Swinney, all of which we have heard before and again in your response. Some constitutional progress is be being made with Liberation Scotland albeit that the United Nations wheels turn slowly. But progress there is which is more than has been suggested here.
Other issues from other external groups such as the Scottish Currency Group and nuclear disarmament group continually publish in the National which, again, is specific and important information for the people of Scotland , those who read the National of course.
And not all the SNP follow Swinney several branches at its last conference attempted to defy Swinney by submitting a motion for an all independence party majority as opposed to Swinney's SNP majority. And we all know how that ended.
Attempted and failed. The delegates voted to follow Swinney down the path to ruin. That makes it official. The entire party is now officially in favour of Swinney's traitorous 'strategy'. The only way to break that association is to quit the party.
No "constitutional progress" is being made. No constitutional progress is possible so long as the SNP remains committed to the Sturgeon doctrine. Swinney's 'strategy' makes progress impossible.
Another good comment by James Murphy and another good comment on it by yourself. Alas, like all the other good comments in the National ( not that there is an surfeit of such in that location ) & elsewhere, they amount to the sum total of fuck-all; as will any amount of good comments between now & May '26; for the simple reason, which you already know, there's zero chance of the SNP acting on what these good comments are critiquing and proposing alternatives to.
The faint glimmer of hope that the recent SNP Conference might produce something resembling a challenge to the SNP * Leadership * anal retentives was stillborn before that event even started and dribbling idiocy from the likes of Flynn only serve to confirm that nothing will change.
The current Management have their claws deeply imbedded in that Party and total control over it & the Membership are hopelessly addicted to the dopium the Management peddles: ergo.....stasis. In fact, on current trajectory, they will be lucky if the prevailing stasis continues; I can quite easily see them going into an unstoppable reverse. I could fairly be said this is already the case.
No mind, though, only a tiny group of people want to actually do something about the current impasse and try to salvage something from HE26: the majority are either like the SNP Membership described above; infatuated by the contents of their own umbilicus; have a " My way/Highway " inflexibility or, when it comes right down to it.....don't really give much of fuck what happens, eg " if it ( Independence ) happens it happens, but don't ask me to make any effort to make it happen ".
Wha's like us? Tell ye next May
Yes the SNP has to be challenged to answer that question. What is the process of achieving independence, if we vote SNP? Are they willing to support Salvo to gain liberation/ decolonisation?
Another question that needs to be answered is do we have free speech in Scotland? and do we have a right to protest? If the answer is no to both questions, then there is no point in having a Scottish government because they are not working for us.
The Scottish Government should at least acknowledge the Salvo/Liberation Scotland initiative. Although it could be argued that the initiative is better off without the involvement of this particular Scottish Government. But it must be understood that the UN initiative alone will not further Scotland's cause. For that to happen there must be an internal political and parliamentary process in place ready to use Scotland's classification as a non-self-governing territory. That is the SNP's job. They aren't doing it. They aren't planning to do it.
Arguably an elected nationalist government in a colony should already have long since been knocking on the UN door. Salvo/Liberation Scotland are doing what the SNP should have been doing. UN membership is effectively independence efter aw!
The notion of Scotland as a colony is a recent concept from Sarah Salyers via Liberation Scotland. The SNP has never been aware of the fact as described by Sarah Salyers.
It was Alf who posted on it and kept patiently on, back maybe 9 or 10 years ago below the line on Wings. I'd looked at it back in 2012 because of the Falklands which I found were a thing called the NSGT, but firstly with a referendum having been "granted" it didn't strictly apply to Scotland then, and also it would not have been a popular idea at all for the Ref - not a vote winner at all.
Alf got the idea going and it got a bit of impetus over the Sewel which used to be a fairly successful convention not writ into law, but then was writ into the Scotland Act 2016 with the word "normally" which was the only debate basically in the UKSC who cared nothing for the "convention", and it was decided effectively that "normally" meant "not really", and later on "never". THAT was a strong step into Scotland being obviously treated as a colony. And led to a lot of loss of faith in the UKSC in Scotland.
The next was the infamous UKSC judgement on the LA Ref, and then later, the overrule of the ScotGov on GRR by a SSOS who got roundly and rightly called a "Governor General", a title appropriate for a colonial governor over his or her serfs.
It's got worse since, and the Internal Market Act is quite widely regarded as breach of law in itself, but also the word "colony" has become mainstream in the Indy movement and even the SNP use it at times.
But it's all down to Alf's persistence as without him the concept might never have been aired or spread.
Thanks for the update. Just one question, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms used which makes it difficult to know who or what you are referring to.
NSGT - Non Self Governing Territory
UKSC - UK Supreme Court
LA Ref - the Lord Advocate's Referral to the UKSC over whether the ScotParl holding a Referendum on Indy was a reserved matter
GRR - Gender Recognition Reform (Bill)
SSOS - mistype for the UK Secretary of State for Scotland
Liberation Scotland's recent submissions to the UN can be found here and these explain acronyms:
https://liberation.scot/hidden3.html
I should add that the previous Scotland-UN Committee in its 1980s-90s submissions to the UN and Council of Europe etc, which were instrumental in bringing about the eventual 'concession' of a devolved Scottish Parliament, described Scotland as 'a colonial province of England'.
Much of the research on the finding that Scotland is a colony of England came from my book 'Doun-Hauden' which provides the only theoretical framework developed on Scottish independence (available from Amazon), also summarised in this academic journal article, all of which has been sent to the SNP leadership:
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/wp.towson.edu/dist/b/55/files/2022/05/The-Socio-Political-Determinants-of-Scottish-Independence.pdf
and here:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/07/18/determinants-of-independence-colonialism/
But would we trust this 'nationalist' government to pursue the UN route effectively? Or would we expect them to fuck it up?
In fact, they are already fucking it up. Or at least proposing to. Validating the Section 30 process allows the UK Government to claim that it is already providing the means by which the people of Scotland can exercise our right of self-determination. That argument is perhaps unlikely to be decisive or even persuasive with the UN. But we shouldn't be gifting them any arguments.
Additionally, it would make no sense at all for a nationalist Scottish Government to pursue listing as an NSGT by the UN if it was not simultaneously establishing an internal political and parliamentary process such as could exploit the fact of that listing. This 'nationalist' Scottish Government is doing the opposite. Rather than creating that internal process it is set on validating and external veto.
Aye, the SNP leadership dinna e'en ken whit independence means! Which helps explain why they have been unable to find the only remedy.
Flynn is simply keeping his name in the press hoping that the publicity will maintain a high enough profile high sufficiently so that he joins the rest of the collaborating cabal at Holyrood after next year's election.
As regards The National I suspect the reason that they offer no critical appraisal or editorial on Swinney's road to nowhere is that they are fearful that the tap that releases what little information flows to them from the Scottish Government via politicians talking to reporters or columnists like Tommy Sheppard or Karen Adam will be switched off altogether. The consequence of this is that this slight edge over their competitor outlets will be lost.
It's sort of akin to the pro-Independence politicians remaining in Holyrood and SNP members keeping stum for fear that rocking the leaky boat that John Swinney is skippering will adversely impact their career prospects within the party.
Neither of these are sufficient cause for remaining silent but that is probably what is underpinning the cowardice over not calling out the political nakedness of the party leader and his pathetic 'plan'.
Once a dominant national party becomes part of the colonial payroll the party leadership seek only "to make an accommodation with colonialism", it suffers a kind of 'petrifaction' (Fanon). This means the party becomes 'immobile' and 'neutral' on independence; it attacks so-called 'radicals' (even joining with Crown forces to do so); it protects the colonial status quo and hence 'sacrifices' the oppressed group and cause; which in turn 'sickens' and 'ruptures' the movement (as we have seen).
The same process has been played out in numerous colonies. An independence movement therefore usually needs to jettison and replace a dominant national party that has been 'co-opted by colonialism' and which now works only to delay and prevent independence:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/05/25/the-three-phases-of-decolonization-lessons-for-scotland/
Not necessarily "jettison and replace" the party. It could be enough to jettison and replace the leadership. Or even just to jettison and replace the 'thinking' on the constitutional issue. I'll wager that in most if not all of those countries which jettisoned and replaced the dominant national party there was a significant overlap of personnel.
Imagine, purely to illustrate the point, if New Scotland Party (NSP) entered the fray in the 2026 Scottish general election as the party of national liberation with a real plan for restoring independence. Suppose a swathe of SNP MSPs switched their allegiance to NSP. It is at least theoretically possible that the replacement nationalist party could be made up almost entirely of former members of the jettisoned party.
What this thought experiment does is dispel the notion that there must be a clean sweep and an entirely new replacement. Something which in the real world would be extremely difficult to achieve. And probably impossible to achieve in the short- to medium-term.
Real life politics tends to be a bit messy. A bit fuzzy round the edges. Grayscale rather than duotone. A 'tabula rasa' is seldom if ever a realistic possibility. We shouldn't be making a mountain to climb when a hill will get us to the required height.
There is no evolution from devolution to revolution.
Your comment spot on ....but I don't know what to say. Is there something we don't know that the SNP knows. This is a gigantic conspiracy against the Scottish people.You've made it clear re the Scottish UDI Manifesto..but unfortunately the SNP have far greater exposure than your podcast and when you spoke at the IFS convention you didn't get to take any questions and were not included in final panel. I WONDER WHY.....?( McHarg was included in the panel and she warned us about illegal moves )...there is no illegal way of getting your freedom. ( ask the FREE Irish)....we are Sovereign...we take back our FREEDOM. I NEVER listen to anyone who lives and works in foreign england.
I am not convinced by the 'National' being there for Scotland. I was banned because of my comments about the foreign english..but a foreign english invader living in the highlands was published..she called me' a vile racist and hoped I choked on my bile.'.....
I trust very few when it comes to Scotland's freedom.
For OUR? Scotland and her mushroom weans.