The USA would probably break the treaty under article 8 at least.
"Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty."
When we're Independent we'll be fully engaged internationally, and the likes of the National should not report one-sidedly. Editorialise only with full facts - and Scotland has some great expertise in international relations and law. Use it. The ignorance shames us all.
"The tanker had recently reflagged and altered course in an apparent attempt to complicate enforcement efforts. Analysts have consistently noted, however, that sanctions enforcement is based on a vessel’s ownership, operational history and registration, rather than its painted name or flag state."
The tanker previously falsely flew the Guyana flag.
'Asked by ITV in an interview at Bute House (above) whether he could guarantee a majority will lead to a referendum, Swinney said: “Yes, because that’s what happened in 2011."'
That's what he said, his actual words not a misquote, though you'd need to listen to check. He does need to be pinned down on that even if he isn't prepared to say more about "how".
He needs to have his feet held to the fire, but only accuracy and truth can ever do that. Distortion and fantasy just don't cut it. Which is why I persisted with "opinion" v "fact"- stupidity just lets him escape with a shrug; sadly the lesson wasn't learnt.
Mmm, since Thom has made a great posting btl on that article, I feel obliged to say that personally - and this is an opinion not a fact - I think with an overall SNP majority any attempt by the UK Gov to stop a referendum through the UKSC would - fail - and that's all I have to say about THAT. But it needs balls. Big ones.
edit: and thanks Thom. Time for the unicorn to wake.
The UK Government doesn't have to "stop a referendum through the UKSC". Stopping a referendum requires only that the British Prime Minister refuse the request for a Section 30 order. They don't have to explain the reasons.
Of course, Swinney could then try to take the matter to the UK Supreme Court. But, to coin a very apt mixed metaphor, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on as he would already have shot himself in the foot. By asking for a Section 30 order, he has recognised Starmer's 'right' to refuse.
What will be Swinney's 'legal argument'? They didn't give me the answer I wanted?
Once Swinney accedes to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, he has no case.
You need to read what's there, not what you imagine is there. I said NOTHING about a section 30.
Swinney back to 9 out of 10, moving faster than I expected. But the SNP still don't get my vote unless they campaign mostly on Independence, not Mr Blobby jelly-wobble weeeed.
That was funny - Peter a Bell a Unionist! Who knew! Next it'll be you're MI5! But I've often been called a Unionist for daring to criticise the blessed puritan SNP.
I need to rest this Win 11 lifebook, I have to cut "as" and paste it and delete the letter I don't want. Built tower cases, but never taken apart a thin lifebook to clean it. Can't afford to do that till end of this month just in case as I need it. Probably just a fine hair.
Thom Muir strikes me as one of those people who is keen to voice his opinion but seems serially unable to examine an idea and then think it through some sort of logical progression to reach an ultimate logical conclusion.
Apparently he has had some sort of epiphany today. Well good for him.
Better that he had been thinking about it for the last few days/weeks/months/years.
Even now he seems to have only gotten to be 'half way there'.
To anyone mad enough to still have faith that John Swinney is going to have the, errr, lets call it the grit to take on and face down the British state, it really is hard to know what to say to that.
Never mind the ballcocks, he hasn't got the sand for it. Nor the inclination nor the motivation either.
One might protest that that is only an opinion.
It is an observation based on decades of observation.
What are you basing your fanciful dream on?
Wishful thinking? Hope?
John Swinney has spelled out in great detail what he is going to do.
Thom Muir is one of the good reasonable guys. But it's going to need to vote SNP for constituency, and SNP on the list, for an overall majority. Just like 2011.
As for the HOW, I can think of 2 ways at least. But if I told you, I'd have to ......
I have responded to Thom Muir's dishonest BLT comment in The National as follows.
You misrepresent me. I did not say "Swinney's politics" had made it impossible for me to vote SNP. I said his so-called 'independence strategy' made it impossible for me to vote for the SNP. I have repeatedly explained why this is the case. But people tend to become willfully deaf and blind when confronted with discomfitting truths.
The reason I cannot vote for the SNP is that doing so would endorse Swinney's stated intention to compromise the principle of popular sovereignty and accede to the alien doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I hold the sovereignty of the people of Scotland to be both a constitutional fact and an inviolable principle. The English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is anathema to me, as it must be to all who value Scotland's distinct identity as a nation and our right to develop our own political culture.
By requesting a Section 30 order while holding the office of First Minister of Scotland, Swinney would validate the British Prime Minister's asserted authority to veto the democratic will of Scotland's people. Accepting the superiority of the Westminster machine over the Scottish people would fatally undermine the principle of popular sovereignty enshrined in the Claim of Right. It would mean that we could never again reference the Claim of Right in support of the struggle to restore Scotland's independence.
I regard what Swinney proposes to do, acting in my name and yours, as an act of treachery. It is a betrayal of Scotland's cause for the purposes of personal ambition and partisan advantage. I will not collude in this act of treachery. I do not consent to this being done in my name.
I do not discount the possibility that Starmer's ruling out a new referendum may be posturing and that he might do a rapid U-turn when confronted with an SNP majority. But he would do so only in the sure knowledge that this would not put the Union in jeopardy. He might even shoot John Swinney's mangey fox by offering a Section 30 order before the election. But that is unlikely.
Supposing Starmer did respond to Swinney's treacherous supplication 'favourably', this is how it would go. Starmer would agree to a Section 30 order temporarily and conditionally transferring to the Scottish Parliament the competence to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence, subject to a mutually acceptable agreement being reached between the two governments (Edinburgh Agreement II).
John Swinney leaps on this offer, seizing it with both hands and declaring it a complete vindication of his strategy.
Starmer starts to spell out the conditions the Scottish Government must agree to. The referendum cannot be other than consultative and non-self-executing; the franchise must be as for UK Parliament elections; the question must be as in the 2014 referendum, and so on. These conditions would make a win for Yes all but impossible. And, of course, they would leave the ultimate interpretation and disposal of the result to the UK Government and Parliament, as the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty requires, and to which Swinney has acceded by requesting a Section 30 order.
Swinney is placed in an impossible situation. Either he agrees to a referendum that cannot possibly lead to the restoration of independence, or he becomes known forevermore as the FM who refused a new referendum. Either way, Scotland's cause is f***ed.
I'll maybe thank you when you show me what it is that Swinney has beyond a Section 30 request. What is or could be his next move? At least you have finally realised that all he's talking about is the Section 30 process. You've been in denial about that for a very long time. At some point, you might also learn to only believe in those things for which there is some evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that Swinney has even thought about what he'll do if the miracles don't happen.
Of course, it is challenging to figure out what he could do next, because submitting that section 30 request rules out so many possibilities.
"At least you have finally realised that all he's talking about is the Section 30 process"
No I didn't you illiterate misrepresenting fool. Can you not understand context?
It was about YOUR quote, correcting it, and it was, yet again, about you making the most basic newbie mistake on the internet by trying to pass off your opinion as !!! FACT !!! and destroying your own credibility in the process.
Good grief. I think you're beyond my help :-(
Try phoning a friend and see if they think an "opinion" is a "fact".
Totally agree with your comments Peter.. but until the Scots have an HONEST Scottish media we are hamstrung. swiney is a quisling..we seem to produce quite a few of them..but this one is dug into a strong position...like the foreign englishwoman Jo Farrell head of Police Scotland. ..the one who made a 'judgement of error'. ( her words )..when she tried to rip off the Scots for her train fare...HOME... to foreign england. Traitors are everywhere in our fair land. We don't have to look far to find them,
.and they are successful because we have no mouthpiece to speak directly to the people ..except the National that Scots sadly appear not to buy..that is if you can find it hidden on the lower shelves of the foreign english owned supermarkets.
We seem to have a troll on the site..I would advocate blanking 'it'...nothing is quite as devastating as being ignored..you don't exist...just like the will of the Scots. ..voting is nearing so agents of the nefarious foreign english government are beginning to attack anything that would lead to our independence..and when you have no honest media to point to these traitors ..again you are fighting a losing battle. That's why I always advocate for a more robust solution ..same as the Irish had eventually to engage with..and succeeded. A lesson to Scotland.
Information is so important. the lifeblood of a country or organisation....the correct information that is ...and Scotland is starved of this...and doesn't even know it.
First class comment from SD......I was amused at the .... 'now is not the time'..sounds like the Pink Panther to Cato and as soon as Cato relaxes he is attacked. Agree with AG..the SNP are getting no donations from me..certainly not to traitors who are leading Scotland absolutely nowhere.I'm afraid the Scots are going to have to stiffen their backbone..and FIGHT.
Keep going with the podcast...it's information and we badly need it.
As far as trolls are concerned there are a few unionist trolls around, fakers, flag trolls. I think people know who they are and are biding our time before we flush them out, into the cludgie, down the pan, and into the sewer where they belong. Metaphorically speaking.
We did it in Indy Ref 1 and will do it again. I'm sure you'll agree that will be good.
There are a few choice quotes in the waffling and rambling response from the First Minister to which I offer my own interpretation.
"To become independent, we need a referendum that will be recognised by the international community ..."
Most countries have got their own issues to deal with so whether or not we have a referendum is of passing interest. Honest John is referring solely to the British state and Westminster when he says "international community".
"... let's look at where the precedent lies. The precedent lies in 2011, where the SNP got a majority."
As far as I am aware no Prime Minister have ever stated that the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election outcome represented a precedent that the Westminster Parliament and government of the day would follow in the future. When the (would be vote) Swindler talks about "precedent" he really means "Westminster sanction".
"There's various tactics that I could deploy and which I will think about and consider and deploy when the time is right."
The SNP leader employ's the coloniser's own tried and tested technique of delay, deferral and denial. The inclusion of "when the time is right" is the formula for never ending procrastination on the issue to camouflage the non-existent secret plan one more time.
“That's the outrage that you should all be livid about. That's my advice to you."
I reckon that the fury that many in the independence movement are feeling is the abominable and shameless deceit that the First Minister is attempting to perpetrate on the Scottish people in the upcoming election.
I received yet another email asking for donations to help the SNP. Swinney's message includes the following statement:-
"This May’s Scottish election matters. Not just for the next five years - but for whether Scotland can take the next steps towards a fairer, more prosperous independent future, made in Scotland."
I cancelled my membership last year, and will not give a single penny to them until they provide the country with a feasible strategy for independence. Section 30 is not a feasible strategy and never was. A change of strategy and a change of leader is desperately required here. I am not wearing my happy face right now :(
For previous thred:
Any attack by the USA on Greenland would of course, have to be collectively defended by the USA under NATO's Article 5 (following Article 4):
https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty
Is that a Catch 22?
The USA would probably break the treaty under article 8 at least.
"Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty."
ho hum.
When we're Independent we'll be fully engaged internationally, and the likes of the National should not report one-sidedly. Editorialise only with full facts - and Scotland has some great expertise in international relations and law. Use it. The ignorance shames us all.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/u-s-seizes-sanctioned-tanker-in-north-atlantic/
"The tanker had recently reflagged and altered course in an apparent attempt to complicate enforcement efforts. Analysts have consistently noted, however, that sanctions enforcement is based on a vessel’s ownership, operational history and registration, rather than its painted name or flag state."
The tanker previously falsely flew the Guyana flag.
Meanwhile back on planet Earth:
https://archive.is/p8iUY
'Asked by ITV in an interview at Bute House (above) whether he could guarantee a majority will lead to a referendum, Swinney said: “Yes, because that’s what happened in 2011."'
That's what he said, his actual words not a misquote, though you'd need to listen to check. He does need to be pinned down on that even if he isn't prepared to say more about "how".
He needs to have his feet held to the fire, but only accuracy and truth can ever do that. Distortion and fantasy just don't cut it. Which is why I persisted with "opinion" v "fact"- stupidity just lets him escape with a shrug; sadly the lesson wasn't learnt.
Mmm, since Thom has made a great posting btl on that article, I feel obliged to say that personally - and this is an opinion not a fact - I think with an overall SNP majority any attempt by the UK Gov to stop a referendum through the UKSC would - fail - and that's all I have to say about THAT. But it needs balls. Big ones.
edit: and thanks Thom. Time for the unicorn to wake.
Peter Piper.
The UK Government doesn't have to "stop a referendum through the UKSC". Stopping a referendum requires only that the British Prime Minister refuse the request for a Section 30 order. They don't have to explain the reasons.
Of course, Swinney could then try to take the matter to the UK Supreme Court. But, to coin a very apt mixed metaphor, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on as he would already have shot himself in the foot. By asking for a Section 30 order, he has recognised Starmer's 'right' to refuse.
What will be Swinney's 'legal argument'? They didn't give me the answer I wanted?
Once Swinney accedes to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, he has no case.
You need to read what's there, not what you imagine is there. I said NOTHING about a section 30.
Swinney back to 9 out of 10, moving faster than I expected. But the SNP still don't get my vote unless they campaign mostly on Independence, not Mr Blobby jelly-wobble weeeed.
That was funny - Peter a Bell a Unionist! Who knew! Next it'll be you're MI5! But I've often been called a Unionist for daring to criticise the blessed puritan SNP.
I need to rest this Win 11 lifebook, I have to cut "as" and paste it and delete the letter I don't want. Built tower cases, but never taken apart a thin lifebook to clean it. Can't afford to do that till end of this month just in case as I need it. Probably just a fine hair.
The only kind of referendum Swinney is talking about is a Section 30 referendum.
Nudge nudge, wink wink :-)
Because of this comment, I went and found the original article and read through the comments:
https://www.thenational.scot/comments/25743894/
Thom Muir strikes me as one of those people who is keen to voice his opinion but seems serially unable to examine an idea and then think it through some sort of logical progression to reach an ultimate logical conclusion.
Apparently he has had some sort of epiphany today. Well good for him.
Better that he had been thinking about it for the last few days/weeks/months/years.
Even now he seems to have only gotten to be 'half way there'.
To anyone mad enough to still have faith that John Swinney is going to have the, errr, lets call it the grit to take on and face down the British state, it really is hard to know what to say to that.
Never mind the ballcocks, he hasn't got the sand for it. Nor the inclination nor the motivation either.
One might protest that that is only an opinion.
It is an observation based on decades of observation.
What are you basing your fanciful dream on?
Wishful thinking? Hope?
John Swinney has spelled out in great detail what he is going to do.
Fuck All.
Thom Muir is one of the good reasonable guys. But it's going to need to vote SNP for constituency, and SNP on the list, for an overall majority. Just like 2011.
As for the HOW, I can think of 2 ways at least. But if I told you, I'd have to ......
There is no Referendum coming in the near future and all
Independence Supporters should realise this.
Just what we need! More secret plans!
I have responded to Thom Muir's dishonest BLT comment in The National as follows.
You misrepresent me. I did not say "Swinney's politics" had made it impossible for me to vote SNP. I said his so-called 'independence strategy' made it impossible for me to vote for the SNP. I have repeatedly explained why this is the case. But people tend to become willfully deaf and blind when confronted with discomfitting truths.
The reason I cannot vote for the SNP is that doing so would endorse Swinney's stated intention to compromise the principle of popular sovereignty and accede to the alien doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I hold the sovereignty of the people of Scotland to be both a constitutional fact and an inviolable principle. The English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is anathema to me, as it must be to all who value Scotland's distinct identity as a nation and our right to develop our own political culture.
By requesting a Section 30 order while holding the office of First Minister of Scotland, Swinney would validate the British Prime Minister's asserted authority to veto the democratic will of Scotland's people. Accepting the superiority of the Westminster machine over the Scottish people would fatally undermine the principle of popular sovereignty enshrined in the Claim of Right. It would mean that we could never again reference the Claim of Right in support of the struggle to restore Scotland's independence.
I regard what Swinney proposes to do, acting in my name and yours, as an act of treachery. It is a betrayal of Scotland's cause for the purposes of personal ambition and partisan advantage. I will not collude in this act of treachery. I do not consent to this being done in my name.
https://www.thenational.scot/comments/25743894/
More on that thread.
I do not discount the possibility that Starmer's ruling out a new referendum may be posturing and that he might do a rapid U-turn when confronted with an SNP majority. But he would do so only in the sure knowledge that this would not put the Union in jeopardy. He might even shoot John Swinney's mangey fox by offering a Section 30 order before the election. But that is unlikely.
Supposing Starmer did respond to Swinney's treacherous supplication 'favourably', this is how it would go. Starmer would agree to a Section 30 order temporarily and conditionally transferring to the Scottish Parliament the competence to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence, subject to a mutually acceptable agreement being reached between the two governments (Edinburgh Agreement II).
John Swinney leaps on this offer, seizing it with both hands and declaring it a complete vindication of his strategy.
Starmer starts to spell out the conditions the Scottish Government must agree to. The referendum cannot be other than consultative and non-self-executing; the franchise must be as for UK Parliament elections; the question must be as in the 2014 referendum, and so on. These conditions would make a win for Yes all but impossible. And, of course, they would leave the ultimate interpretation and disposal of the result to the UK Government and Parliament, as the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty requires, and to which Swinney has acceded by requesting a Section 30 order.
Swinney is placed in an impossible situation. Either he agrees to a referendum that cannot possibly lead to the restoration of independence, or he becomes known forevermore as the FM who refused a new referendum. Either way, Scotland's cause is f***ed.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25743894.can-guarantee-indyref2-snp-win-majority-john-swinney-says/?ref=cprfa&__vfz=medium%3Dcomment_share%7Csharer_uuid%3D00000000-0000-4000-8000-06d9b4258feb#vf-116ebfaa-82b6-40cb-b5f6-cd6117c60e5e
Twaddle x 2 as OBE might have said.
"self-centred knob" was an apt comment all the same.
Good calm posting from DS.
Adieu.
"... is the fact that he has nothing beyond a Section 30 request"
Typo - that should be "my opinion", not "the fact". Thus:
"... is my opinion that he has nothing beyond a Section 30 request"
And of course it's your opinion, not necessarily anyone else's.
No, no need to thank me :-)
I'll maybe thank you when you show me what it is that Swinney has beyond a Section 30 request. What is or could be his next move? At least you have finally realised that all he's talking about is the Section 30 process. You've been in denial about that for a very long time. At some point, you might also learn to only believe in those things for which there is some evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that Swinney has even thought about what he'll do if the miracles don't happen.
Of course, it is challenging to figure out what he could do next, because submitting that section 30 request rules out so many possibilities.
"At least you have finally realised that all he's talking about is the Section 30 process"
No I didn't you illiterate misrepresenting fool. Can you not understand context?
It was about YOUR quote, correcting it, and it was, yet again, about you making the most basic newbie mistake on the internet by trying to pass off your opinion as !!! FACT !!! and destroying your own credibility in the process.
Good grief. I think you're beyond my help :-(
Try phoning a friend and see if they think an "opinion" is a "fact".
Totally agree with your comments Peter.. but until the Scots have an HONEST Scottish media we are hamstrung. swiney is a quisling..we seem to produce quite a few of them..but this one is dug into a strong position...like the foreign englishwoman Jo Farrell head of Police Scotland. ..the one who made a 'judgement of error'. ( her words )..when she tried to rip off the Scots for her train fare...HOME... to foreign england. Traitors are everywhere in our fair land. We don't have to look far to find them,
.and they are successful because we have no mouthpiece to speak directly to the people ..except the National that Scots sadly appear not to buy..that is if you can find it hidden on the lower shelves of the foreign english owned supermarkets.
We seem to have a troll on the site..I would advocate blanking 'it'...nothing is quite as devastating as being ignored..you don't exist...just like the will of the Scots. ..voting is nearing so agents of the nefarious foreign english government are beginning to attack anything that would lead to our independence..and when you have no honest media to point to these traitors ..again you are fighting a losing battle. That's why I always advocate for a more robust solution ..same as the Irish had eventually to engage with..and succeeded. A lesson to Scotland.
Information is so important. the lifeblood of a country or organisation....the correct information that is ...and Scotland is starved of this...and doesn't even know it.
First class comment from SD......I was amused at the .... 'now is not the time'..sounds like the Pink Panther to Cato and as soon as Cato relaxes he is attacked. Agree with AG..the SNP are getting no donations from me..certainly not to traitors who are leading Scotland absolutely nowhere.I'm afraid the Scots are going to have to stiffen their backbone..and FIGHT.
Keep going with the podcast...it's information and we badly need it.
For OUR Scotland and her tartan mushroom weans.
As far as trolls are concerned there are a few unionist trolls around, fakers, flag trolls. I think people know who they are and are biding our time before we flush them out, into the cludgie, down the pan, and into the sewer where they belong. Metaphorically speaking.
We did it in Indy Ref 1 and will do it again. I'm sure you'll agree that will be good.
There are a few choice quotes in the waffling and rambling response from the First Minister to which I offer my own interpretation.
"To become independent, we need a referendum that will be recognised by the international community ..."
Most countries have got their own issues to deal with so whether or not we have a referendum is of passing interest. Honest John is referring solely to the British state and Westminster when he says "international community".
"... let's look at where the precedent lies. The precedent lies in 2011, where the SNP got a majority."
As far as I am aware no Prime Minister have ever stated that the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election outcome represented a precedent that the Westminster Parliament and government of the day would follow in the future. When the (would be vote) Swindler talks about "precedent" he really means "Westminster sanction".
"There's various tactics that I could deploy and which I will think about and consider and deploy when the time is right."
The SNP leader employ's the coloniser's own tried and tested technique of delay, deferral and denial. The inclusion of "when the time is right" is the formula for never ending procrastination on the issue to camouflage the non-existent secret plan one more time.
“That's the outrage that you should all be livid about. That's my advice to you."
I reckon that the fury that many in the independence movement are feeling is the abominable and shameless deceit that the First Minister is attempting to perpetrate on the Scottish people in the upcoming election.
And my advice to him?
Take a Flyer!
I received yet another email asking for donations to help the SNP. Swinney's message includes the following statement:-
"This May’s Scottish election matters. Not just for the next five years - but for whether Scotland can take the next steps towards a fairer, more prosperous independent future, made in Scotland."
I cancelled my membership last year, and will not give a single penny to them until they provide the country with a feasible strategy for independence. Section 30 is not a feasible strategy and never was. A change of strategy and a change of leader is desperately required here. I am not wearing my happy face right now :(