Prior to the 2016 EU referendum, I devoted a great many words to warning that among the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union would be the possibility that the British state would use the opportunity this presented to constitutionally redefine the UK so as to lock Scotland into a ‘reformed’ Union.
In theory a properly constituted UK Constitution based on the principle of self-determination as in:
"... we—the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—have come together in the spirit of self-determination in order to establish the principles of our law and governance"
with the addition of something like :... -while fully recognising the complete retention of self-determination of all "-the four great countries of the union: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland."
could, with better fully legally checked and proofed wording, be totally UK Supreme Court proof.
in practice, firstly that would never happen, and secondly the UKSC would find a way of ignoring it by comparing Scotland to Quebec, Canada, the lizard people, or the dark side of the moon.
Why 1979? I was talking about 1997. Supporting devolution, voted through by us in 1997, was a mistake. The idea that the SNP supporting a devolved parliament could take us closer to independence was wrong. It was obviously wrong. If it wasn't wrong we'd be independent by now. Instead we are further away. Worse, we don't have an honest independence party or an honest government.
The SNP should have opposed devolution.
It's that simple. The devolutionists would probably have won anyway. Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney may have broken away from an anti-devolution SNP. Good! If the SNP had had an opportunity to rid itself of devolutionists we might still have an honest SNP.
It amazes me that you can't see where it all went wrong. Sturgeon and Swinney stitching up Dorothy-Grace Elder was an obvious and a treacherous act. Swinney's woeful first spell in charge gave the game away, even if you missed the Dorothy-Grace Elder episode. He was dreadful. A devolutionist running an indelendence party. Woeful.
Alex Salmond knew that John Swinney was a devolutionist. He missed Nicola Sturgeon, also a devolutionist.
I don't want to turn the clock back. It's impossible. I want people to realise, and admit, that mistakes were made:
Devolution was not a mistake. The mistake was letting it become entrenched. It allowed us to prepare the ground for where we got to in 2013. But it should have ended there. By 2018, the SNP was treating devolution as a settlement rather than a stopgap. The 'thinking' in the party is that independence will evolve from devolution. They think independence will come from making devolution work better.
It makes a very convenient rationalisation for a strategy which keeps the money rolling in.
It was a sham. But we didn't know that at the time. Again, we run aground on the difficulty you have with the idea of things changing over time. It doesn't matter that the 2014 referendum was a sham. My point still stands. Devolution took us to a point where a referendum could happen. If the Scottish Parliament hadn't existed, we could never have got to that point.
Devolution got us to a place where we had the possibility of restoring Scotland's independence. That possibility was not realised. But that doesn't mean the possibility wasn't there. Instead of seizing the opportunity, Sturgeon took her foot off the pedal. In fact, she threw the independence bus into reverse. Nobody expected her to do that. Alex Salmond certainly didn't. And he had worked closely with her for a number of years.
We learn. We move on.
I remember the Dorothy Grace-Elder episode. With HINDSIGHT that might have been a foretaste of what was to come.
The state of our knowledge within the intellectual wing of the independence movement has progressed massively. Unfortunately, none of that knowledge has penetrated the upper echelons of the SNP.
You continue to miss the point. I'm saying the SNP should have opposed devolution. As a point of principle, devolution had to be opposed. I expect the result would have remained the same, perhaps the 74% would be reduced, but I expect devolution would still be passed in 1997.
My argument is that devolutionists, like John Swinney, may have broken away from an SNP committed solely to independence. Meanwhile, I'd argue that Alex Salmond would still have become the first nationalist First Minister but, hopefully, he'd have shed the devolutionists out of his Party and the SNP wouldn't be the sham that it is today.
Supporting devolution was the biggest strategic mistake the SNP ever made. I justify this opinion by pointing out the state of the Party today and the fact that the SNP now, very obviously, supports devolution. Do you disagree?
As I recall, it took a lot of persuading for the SNP to come out in favour of devolution. The people doing the persuading were obviously of the opinion that devolution could help Scotland's cause. And they were obviously correct. Scotland's cause took off in the first decade of devolution. The Scottish Parliament provided an ideal platform.
This is a matter of recorded history. We could sensibly discuss at what point devolution ceased to be a benefit. But the facts make mock of the claim that devolution was bad from the outset. I suspect most critical thinkers would put that spot at the elevation of Nicola Sturgeon. But I know many people would say the rot set in much earlier.
Winnie Ewing recognised the importance and potential of the Scottish Parliament. It's not her fault, or mine, that the potential hasn't been realised. Blame for that lies squarely at the feet of Alex Salmond's successors.
I recall the SNP debate; it boiled down to (1) devolution would lead to independence, or (2) devolution would not lead to independence.
There is no third option. There was no third option. Every third option that fails falls into (2) devolution would not lead to independence.
At some point you need to accept the inevitability that you've either won or you've lost, that devolution would lead to independence or not. Unfortunately, I can now tell you that devolution did not lead to independence.
Regardless of apparent progress from 1999 to 2014, thereafter it failed. We agree on that, don't we? There was apparent progress but it ended in failure. Can we at least agree on that?
I was expecting that this was due to be announced, so no surprises there.
The most disturbing thing for me after reading that article in The National was not the England-deploys-ruse-to-overwrite-then-erase-Scottish-rights-again.
It was the appallingly weak SNP response, and on clicking through to the linked article:
"2 Scottish city leaders demand UK Government devolution funding deal" [1]
Make sense of this total dogs dinner.
"TWO leaders from Scotland’s largest city regions have demanded that the UK Government deliver a “second stage devolution” settlement for the Central Belt in a letter to the Prime Minister, with Douglas Alexander also coming under fire.
The SNP chair of the Glasgow City Region, Susan Aitken, and her Edinburgh and South East Scotland counterpart, Labour's Norman Hampshire, have said there was a disparity in funding which was “an inequity that only the UK government has the ability to put right,” according to The Herald.
The two city leaders have written to Andy Burnham after he set out plans to give England's metro mayors a share of the income tax and business rates collected in their areas.
Aitken outlined that the UK Government’s position on devolved administrations in Scotland is “not tenable” by claiming it has “nothing to do with them” and that it is “just for the Scottish Government to deal with”.
The UK Government has long insisted that because local government is a devolved matter, further devolution within Scotland is purely a matter for the Scottish Government, a position the two council leaders are calling on Burnham to change. "
What? Has Alasdair Ferguson chosen to slant the way he has written up this story?
That seems unlikely, this is some very confused messaging from with Susan Aitken.
I get it that the funding weapon has been wielded by Whitehall and Westminster since even before devolution was conceived in its current form, and Susan Aitken wants more borrowing powers for Glasgow, but imploring the English regime to bypass the Scottish government in favour of direct funding is not what any Independence minded politician should ever want to do.
Particularly since generating the conditions under which they could then generate those cries from Unionists who want to undermine the Scottish government is an obvious part of the ruse.
Why oh why would Susan Aitken voluntarily play along and ensnare herself in these machinations?
The answer to your question at the end is contained in the sentence itself - Susan Aitken. She is the epitome of SNP ' Elevation through box-ticking ' that characterises that entire party now. Just one example of the prevailing dimness - she promoted Glasgow as - in effect - a * Sanctuary City * " ALL IMMIGRANTS FROM ANYWHERE WELCOME - NO MATTER HOW MANY " - and no matter Glasgow's perennial, deep-rooted problems. Then when the inevitable collision with Reality occurred started bleating about how WM was not giving the city enough money to deal with all these extra people and the demands on services and resources caused by this increase. With these fckn idiots * Progressive * Virtue Signalling is ALL that matters
Peter is right that codification would not be neutral. It would force decisions that the present ambiguity conceals. But lock-in is not inevitable. A written constitution could entrench Westminster’s supremacy, or it could recognise popular sovereignty, protect Scotland’s institutions and provide an agreed route out. The real tests are who writes it, whether Scotland must consent separately, and whether Scotland is treated as a constituent nation rather than one region among many. Without those safeguards, it would simply write the existing hierarchy into higher law.
England-as-Britain will not give up parliamentary sovereignty. It is the foundation on which the British state sits. That being so, there will be no recognition of popular sovereignty. The two doctrines cannot apply simultaneously. There will be no "agreed route out". There will be something that is called an agreed route out. But when put to the test, it will not be a route out at all. Much like the Section 30 process.
The trouble is, it doesn't matter how much of a scam it is, the provision of this sham route out will be hailed by the SNP as a triumph for the party and its leader.
I have long since thought that one of the main reasons why the UK 'constitution' is not codified is the conflict between the Scottish Claim of Right (1689) and the English Bill of Rights (1689) i.e. Scottish popular sovereignty and English parliamentary sovereignty.
Never the twain shall meet!
I note that John Swinney, Dave Dougan and the SNP are 'demanding' that any written document must include a description of how "UK nations can leave the Union".
You will recall how the promises of 'Home Rule, 'Maximum Devolution' and 'near Federalism' in the notorious pre-Scottish Independence Referendum 'Vow' were going to be realised via the Smith Commission of 2015. With John Swinney and Linda Fabiani as committee members the result was a whitewash, with the trap of tax rates and bands devolved etc to the Scottish Parliament.
If its Perfidious Albion versus John Swinney and his acolytes again then God help us.
You can all be as angry as you like about Andy Burnham. The fault, the original fault, and the reason we are largely disregarded by Westminster and by our own Prime Minister is that we voted for devolution in 1997.
That was our error.
The problem we have now is figuring out how to get out!
Personally, I'm not angry with this latest incarnation of John Bull/shit Muppetry, eg A Burntham - he's behaving exactly as we know anyone in his position now MUST: they won't get to that position if they behave/d otherwise , or show/ed even the slightest indication they would depart from The Script. A key part of that script - along with the insane bellicosity referred to earlier - is the keeping of the Jocks in their box ( there's a good Xmas present idea for nice Anglo households - a Jock-In-The-Box : could even come with ' Hey Jimmy ' hats ).
I suspect Northern brand PM will prove even more insidiously quadruple-faced than his Gorm-free predecessor. How long before he replaces the #1O cat with a whippet?
I know you want to turn the clock back to 1979. But that's not happening. I know you preferred direct rule from London. That, I don't understand. I know you want to abolish the Scottish Parliament. On that, you may get what you wish for. Scotland's cause will pay the price.
So right Peter but nobody else seems to have noticed the danger... except you....the rest too busy criticising Craig Murray ..fantasy words or..ye canny do that!.....while foreign england formulates new plans to tighten the chokehold.....But we have a few moments of respite as burn'em is on holiday...a few weeks into the job and he disappears off to foreign climes...(ye doant think a wee break in Blackpool in yer £1000 trendy gear would have helped to relax ye jimmy?).. ..nah ....go somewhere abroad an' hide....where is he? Nobody knows..while the Prison Service prepares to stop the release of convicted rapists but happy to let convicted murderers back onto the streets..Good move burn'em! Enjoy yer holiday....it won't last..we are all here waiting for ye...
There is danger from this foreign englishman as he will offer cash ..bypassing our government...
( bang goes devolution..such as it is)..RH is correct..nothing is 'off THEIR table '..except OUR freedom.
Murray has a point....only an organised resistance will achieve anything..unless we get distracted by the 'burn'em bag o' sil'er.... so keep yer big hammer at yer back when dealing with the foreign english and their 'helpful ' offers... ( remember the Trojan Horse)..an' be prepared to use that big hammer...cos if ye tak' that 'sil'er ' an' spend it..at the end of the day...ye are still in the ever tightening foreign english chokehold...and independence recedes into the mist..
For OUR Scotland , her weans and those yet to come.
Hi Catherine ; have you been able to derive some comic enjoyment at the hysterical meltdown of the legacy Old ( No ) Thinking SNP x 1000 Vote Fodder occasioned by Craig's article and X post as I have? ahahahaha :) tis a sight to behold for sure
The worst has already happened and the vast majority of Scots still welcome it. We voted to become devolved. We voted for a child parliament answerable to Westminster.
We filled our child parliament with child politicians. Our one - and I suspect only - First Minister who believed, genuinely believed, that Holyrood could lead us to idependence was wrong. His 'team' betrayed him. I spent years arguing that Alex Salmond was one on his own, that Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney were traitors, and I watched in horror as almost every Scottish nationalist celebrated our most obvious traitor becoming Alex's successor.
It was an absolute abomination. Sturgeon and Swinney gave themselves away 25 years ago when they colluded to oust Dorothy-Grace Elder. Their backstabbing of a genuine nationalist gave them away. How Alex Salmond missed it, I'll never know.
Alex didn't know either. His response to the question was as astonishing to him as it was for me. He genuinely missed it. So did you!
I throw that in here aimed at 99% of readers. If you're in the 1% (possibly less) please accept my apologies.
Joe, Devolution is au fait accompli - a ' done deal ': even if we agree with your laments about that fact - of which I concur in some degree - we can't undo it and IMO it would be a diversionary waste of time & energy to try to. We have to work with the quotidian - what is; and ideally turn what you and I'm sure many others consider a negative into a positive by using it to our advantage.
Devolution was not wrong. I know you're incapable of grasping this, but a thing can be good before it becomes bad. This actually happens a lot. It even works the other way on the very odd occasion. It is possible for a thing that is bad to become good. You seem unable to understand this changeability. You seem to have this fixed notion that because devolution is now bad, it must always have been bad.
Devolution is not the problem. The problem is the politicians who think it is a process that will lead to independence. They don't seem to understand that devolution and independence are two separate, distinct things and that devolution must end for independence to happen. They don't think in terms of independence at all. They behave as if independence is just bigger devolution.
Devolution gave the independence movement a foothold. We now have the tools that could make independence happen. We just don't have the politicians who know how to use the tools.
Banging on incessantly about devolution having been a mistake from the outset just looks daft when we can clearly see how it helped the independence movement up to 2014. The rot set in with Sturgeon. But Sturgeon wasn't a mistake. It only looks like a mistake with hindsight. Up until she took office, Sturgeon looked like the best thing that the independence movement could wish for. But she changed. Again, I don't expect you to understand this whole changing thing. But it happens. The SNP was once the party of independence. It changed. It wasn't always what it is now. Things change over time. This is not an obscure phenomenon.
Given Burnham's already sketchy geographical knowledge, which has Manchester in the northern portion of his theoretical UK, no, we most decidedly do not want anything to do with a UK constitution.
Worryingly this is a very plausible scenario Peter and Robert.
One consideration is that it has been proposed without any knowledge or understanding of the constitutional differences between the two signatories of the Treaty. Witness his ignorance regarding Scottish Water.
However it's just as likely that it's just not considered significant enough to shelve the idea and can be worked around just as the Scottish Grand Committee sorted things out for the differences between Scots and English law. That difference between the respective legal systems could also be used as a showstopper by the Scottish Parliament (assuming the appropriate level of cojones).
Any roads up maybe time to do our homework on how such a beast would breach the Tof U and render it void?
Aye, P, I'd say what you refer to is not only possible, but probable. In fact, may be the prime reason behind this latest wheeze by EaB. Since when did the latter give a fck about Rights - Civil, Human, Constitutional or otherwise - of the inhabitants of these islands?
As you say.....just look at what they've been doing of late, eg arresting peacefully protesting pensioners, vicars, former elected Politicians ( J Porrit ) for publicly manifesting their opposition to Genocide: and generally using it's " support for Israel " to impose restrictions on Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly that would have been unthinkable - at least would have generated howls of disapproval as little as 10/15 years ago. This on top on cultivating a war with Russia and sending even more container loads of cash to continue fuelling the Proxy War in Ukraine. It - the Brit State - appears to have lost it's collective mind
In light of these FACTS, we should consider NOTHING - irrespective of how lunatic, bizarre or contemptable - off the table: their table
In theory a properly constituted UK Constitution based on the principle of self-determination as in:
"... we—the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—have come together in the spirit of self-determination in order to establish the principles of our law and governance"
with the addition of something like :... -while fully recognising the complete retention of self-determination of all "-the four great countries of the union: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland."
(from the preamble page 3 of this - https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf )
could, with better fully legally checked and proofed wording, be totally UK Supreme Court proof.
in practice, firstly that would never happen, and secondly the UKSC would find a way of ignoring it by comparing Scotland to Quebec, Canada, the lizard people, or the dark side of the moon.
Vote NO to any referendum on a UK Constitution.
Why 1979? I was talking about 1997. Supporting devolution, voted through by us in 1997, was a mistake. The idea that the SNP supporting a devolved parliament could take us closer to independence was wrong. It was obviously wrong. If it wasn't wrong we'd be independent by now. Instead we are further away. Worse, we don't have an honest independence party or an honest government.
The SNP should have opposed devolution.
It's that simple. The devolutionists would probably have won anyway. Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney may have broken away from an anti-devolution SNP. Good! If the SNP had had an opportunity to rid itself of devolutionists we might still have an honest SNP.
It amazes me that you can't see where it all went wrong. Sturgeon and Swinney stitching up Dorothy-Grace Elder was an obvious and a treacherous act. Swinney's woeful first spell in charge gave the game away, even if you missed the Dorothy-Grace Elder episode. He was dreadful. A devolutionist running an indelendence party. Woeful.
Alex Salmond knew that John Swinney was a devolutionist. He missed Nicola Sturgeon, also a devolutionist.
I don't want to turn the clock back. It's impossible. I want people to realise, and admit, that mistakes were made:
1. Devolution
2. Nicola Sturgeon
3. John Swinney
4 The failed attempt to jail Alex Salmond.
That's 4 points but it's only a start.
Typo.
Devolution was not a mistake. The mistake was letting it become entrenched. It allowed us to prepare the ground for where we got to in 2013. But it should have ended there. By 2018, the SNP was treating devolution as a settlement rather than a stopgap. The 'thinking' in the party is that independence will evolve from devolution. They think independence will come from making devolution work better.
It makes a very convenient rationalisation for a strategy which keeps the money rolling in.
Don't you argue that the 2014 referendum was a sham?
Do you recognise what I'm saying about Dorothy-Grace Elder?
It was a sham. But we didn't know that at the time. Again, we run aground on the difficulty you have with the idea of things changing over time. It doesn't matter that the 2014 referendum was a sham. My point still stands. Devolution took us to a point where a referendum could happen. If the Scottish Parliament hadn't existed, we could never have got to that point.
Devolution got us to a place where we had the possibility of restoring Scotland's independence. That possibility was not realised. But that doesn't mean the possibility wasn't there. Instead of seizing the opportunity, Sturgeon took her foot off the pedal. In fact, she threw the independence bus into reverse. Nobody expected her to do that. Alex Salmond certainly didn't. And he had worked closely with her for a number of years.
We learn. We move on.
I remember the Dorothy Grace-Elder episode. With HINDSIGHT that might have been a foretaste of what was to come.
The state of our knowledge within the intellectual wing of the independence movement has progressed massively. Unfortunately, none of that knowledge has penetrated the upper echelons of the SNP.
You continue to miss the point. I'm saying the SNP should have opposed devolution. As a point of principle, devolution had to be opposed. I expect the result would have remained the same, perhaps the 74% would be reduced, but I expect devolution would still be passed in 1997.
My argument is that devolutionists, like John Swinney, may have broken away from an SNP committed solely to independence. Meanwhile, I'd argue that Alex Salmond would still have become the first nationalist First Minister but, hopefully, he'd have shed the devolutionists out of his Party and the SNP wouldn't be the sham that it is today.
Supporting devolution was the biggest strategic mistake the SNP ever made. I justify this opinion by pointing out the state of the Party today and the fact that the SNP now, very obviously, supports devolution. Do you disagree?
As I recall, it took a lot of persuading for the SNP to come out in favour of devolution. The people doing the persuading were obviously of the opinion that devolution could help Scotland's cause. And they were obviously correct. Scotland's cause took off in the first decade of devolution. The Scottish Parliament provided an ideal platform.
This is a matter of recorded history. We could sensibly discuss at what point devolution ceased to be a benefit. But the facts make mock of the claim that devolution was bad from the outset. I suspect most critical thinkers would put that spot at the elevation of Nicola Sturgeon. But I know many people would say the rot set in much earlier.
Winnie Ewing recognised the importance and potential of the Scottish Parliament. It's not her fault, or mine, that the potential hasn't been realised. Blame for that lies squarely at the feet of Alex Salmond's successors.
I recall the SNP debate; it boiled down to (1) devolution would lead to independence, or (2) devolution would not lead to independence.
There is no third option. There was no third option. Every third option that fails falls into (2) devolution would not lead to independence.
At some point you need to accept the inevitability that you've either won or you've lost, that devolution would lead to independence or not. Unfortunately, I can now tell you that devolution did not lead to independence.
Regardless of apparent progress from 1999 to 2014, thereafter it failed. We agree on that, don't we? There was apparent progress but it ended in failure. Can we at least agree on that?
I was expecting that this was due to be announced, so no surprises there.
The most disturbing thing for me after reading that article in The National was not the England-deploys-ruse-to-overwrite-then-erase-Scottish-rights-again.
It was the appallingly weak SNP response, and on clicking through to the linked article:
"2 Scottish city leaders demand UK Government devolution funding deal" [1]
Make sense of this total dogs dinner.
"TWO leaders from Scotland’s largest city regions have demanded that the UK Government deliver a “second stage devolution” settlement for the Central Belt in a letter to the Prime Minister, with Douglas Alexander also coming under fire.
The SNP chair of the Glasgow City Region, Susan Aitken, and her Edinburgh and South East Scotland counterpart, Labour's Norman Hampshire, have said there was a disparity in funding which was “an inequity that only the UK government has the ability to put right,” according to The Herald.
The two city leaders have written to Andy Burnham after he set out plans to give England's metro mayors a share of the income tax and business rates collected in their areas.
Aitken outlined that the UK Government’s position on devolved administrations in Scotland is “not tenable” by claiming it has “nothing to do with them” and that it is “just for the Scottish Government to deal with”.
The UK Government has long insisted that because local government is a devolved matter, further devolution within Scotland is purely a matter for the Scottish Government, a position the two council leaders are calling on Burnham to change. "
What? Has Alasdair Ferguson chosen to slant the way he has written up this story?
That seems unlikely, this is some very confused messaging from with Susan Aitken.
I get it that the funding weapon has been wielded by Whitehall and Westminster since even before devolution was conceived in its current form, and Susan Aitken wants more borrowing powers for Glasgow, but imploring the English regime to bypass the Scottish government in favour of direct funding is not what any Independence minded politician should ever want to do.
Particularly since generating the conditions under which they could then generate those cries from Unionists who want to undermine the Scottish government is an obvious part of the ruse.
Why oh why would Susan Aitken voluntarily play along and ensnare herself in these machinations?
[1] https://www.thenational.scot/news/26428588.2-scottish-city-leaders-demand-uk-government-devolution-funding-deal/?ref=ed_latest
The answer to your question at the end is contained in the sentence itself - Susan Aitken. She is the epitome of SNP ' Elevation through box-ticking ' that characterises that entire party now. Just one example of the prevailing dimness - she promoted Glasgow as - in effect - a * Sanctuary City * " ALL IMMIGRANTS FROM ANYWHERE WELCOME - NO MATTER HOW MANY " - and no matter Glasgow's perennial, deep-rooted problems. Then when the inevitable collision with Reality occurred started bleating about how WM was not giving the city enough money to deal with all these extra people and the demands on services and resources caused by this increase. With these fckn idiots * Progressive * Virtue Signalling is ALL that matters
Peter is right that codification would not be neutral. It would force decisions that the present ambiguity conceals. But lock-in is not inevitable. A written constitution could entrench Westminster’s supremacy, or it could recognise popular sovereignty, protect Scotland’s institutions and provide an agreed route out. The real tests are who writes it, whether Scotland must consent separately, and whether Scotland is treated as a constituent nation rather than one region among many. Without those safeguards, it would simply write the existing hierarchy into higher law.
England-as-Britain will not give up parliamentary sovereignty. It is the foundation on which the British state sits. That being so, there will be no recognition of popular sovereignty. The two doctrines cannot apply simultaneously. There will be no "agreed route out". There will be something that is called an agreed route out. But when put to the test, it will not be a route out at all. Much like the Section 30 process.
The trouble is, it doesn't matter how much of a scam it is, the provision of this sham route out will be hailed by the SNP as a triumph for the party and its leader.
I have long since thought that one of the main reasons why the UK 'constitution' is not codified is the conflict between the Scottish Claim of Right (1689) and the English Bill of Rights (1689) i.e. Scottish popular sovereignty and English parliamentary sovereignty.
Never the twain shall meet!
I note that John Swinney, Dave Dougan and the SNP are 'demanding' that any written document must include a description of how "UK nations can leave the Union".
You will recall how the promises of 'Home Rule, 'Maximum Devolution' and 'near Federalism' in the notorious pre-Scottish Independence Referendum 'Vow' were going to be realised via the Smith Commission of 2015. With John Swinney and Linda Fabiani as committee members the result was a whitewash, with the trap of tax rates and bands devolved etc to the Scottish Parliament.
If its Perfidious Albion versus John Swinney and his acolytes again then God help us.
The Brits are never more dangerous than when they are negotiating in good faith.
Beware Brits bearing gifts.
You can all be as angry as you like about Andy Burnham. The fault, the original fault, and the reason we are largely disregarded by Westminster and by our own Prime Minister is that we voted for devolution in 1997.
That was our error.
The problem we have now is figuring out how to get out!
Personally, I'm not angry with this latest incarnation of John Bull/shit Muppetry, eg A Burntham - he's behaving exactly as we know anyone in his position now MUST: they won't get to that position if they behave/d otherwise , or show/ed even the slightest indication they would depart from The Script. A key part of that script - along with the insane bellicosity referred to earlier - is the keeping of the Jocks in their box ( there's a good Xmas present idea for nice Anglo households - a Jock-In-The-Box : could even come with ' Hey Jimmy ' hats ).
I suspect Northern brand PM will prove even more insidiously quadruple-faced than his Gorm-free predecessor. How long before he replaces the #1O cat with a whippet?
I know you want to turn the clock back to 1979. But that's not happening. I know you preferred direct rule from London. That, I don't understand. I know you want to abolish the Scottish Parliament. On that, you may get what you wish for. Scotland's cause will pay the price.
Sorry, my reply failed to attach itself correctly, but I have replied, starting with 1979...
So right Peter but nobody else seems to have noticed the danger... except you....the rest too busy criticising Craig Murray ..fantasy words or..ye canny do that!.....while foreign england formulates new plans to tighten the chokehold.....But we have a few moments of respite as burn'em is on holiday...a few weeks into the job and he disappears off to foreign climes...(ye doant think a wee break in Blackpool in yer £1000 trendy gear would have helped to relax ye jimmy?).. ..nah ....go somewhere abroad an' hide....where is he? Nobody knows..while the Prison Service prepares to stop the release of convicted rapists but happy to let convicted murderers back onto the streets..Good move burn'em! Enjoy yer holiday....it won't last..we are all here waiting for ye...
There is danger from this foreign englishman as he will offer cash ..bypassing our government...
( bang goes devolution..such as it is)..RH is correct..nothing is 'off THEIR table '..except OUR freedom.
Murray has a point....only an organised resistance will achieve anything..unless we get distracted by the 'burn'em bag o' sil'er.... so keep yer big hammer at yer back when dealing with the foreign english and their 'helpful ' offers... ( remember the Trojan Horse)..an' be prepared to use that big hammer...cos if ye tak' that 'sil'er ' an' spend it..at the end of the day...ye are still in the ever tightening foreign english chokehold...and independence recedes into the mist..
For OUR Scotland , her weans and those yet to come.
Hi Catherine ; have you been able to derive some comic enjoyment at the hysterical meltdown of the legacy Old ( No ) Thinking SNP x 1000 Vote Fodder occasioned by Craig's article and X post as I have? ahahahaha :) tis a sight to behold for sure
The worst has already happened and the vast majority of Scots still welcome it. We voted to become devolved. We voted for a child parliament answerable to Westminster.
We filled our child parliament with child politicians. Our one - and I suspect only - First Minister who believed, genuinely believed, that Holyrood could lead us to idependence was wrong. His 'team' betrayed him. I spent years arguing that Alex Salmond was one on his own, that Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney were traitors, and I watched in horror as almost every Scottish nationalist celebrated our most obvious traitor becoming Alex's successor.
It was an absolute abomination. Sturgeon and Swinney gave themselves away 25 years ago when they colluded to oust Dorothy-Grace Elder. Their backstabbing of a genuine nationalist gave them away. How Alex Salmond missed it, I'll never know.
Alex didn't know either. His response to the question was as astonishing to him as it was for me. He genuinely missed it. So did you!
I throw that in here aimed at 99% of readers. If you're in the 1% (possibly less) please accept my apologies.
Joe, Devolution is au fait accompli - a ' done deal ': even if we agree with your laments about that fact - of which I concur in some degree - we can't undo it and IMO it would be a diversionary waste of time & energy to try to. We have to work with the quotidian - what is; and ideally turn what you and I'm sure many others consider a negative into a positive by using it to our advantage.
We tried to use devolution to our advantage. We failed. Denying that devolution was wrong is now causing ongoing failure.
Devolution was not wrong. I know you're incapable of grasping this, but a thing can be good before it becomes bad. This actually happens a lot. It even works the other way on the very odd occasion. It is possible for a thing that is bad to become good. You seem unable to understand this changeability. You seem to have this fixed notion that because devolution is now bad, it must always have been bad.
Devolution is not the problem. The problem is the politicians who think it is a process that will lead to independence. They don't seem to understand that devolution and independence are two separate, distinct things and that devolution must end for independence to happen. They don't think in terms of independence at all. They behave as if independence is just bigger devolution.
Devolution gave the independence movement a foothold. We now have the tools that could make independence happen. We just don't have the politicians who know how to use the tools.
Banging on incessantly about devolution having been a mistake from the outset just looks daft when we can clearly see how it helped the independence movement up to 2014. The rot set in with Sturgeon. But Sturgeon wasn't a mistake. It only looks like a mistake with hindsight. Up until she took office, Sturgeon looked like the best thing that the independence movement could wish for. But she changed. Again, I don't expect you to understand this whole changing thing. But it happens. The SNP was once the party of independence. It changed. It wasn't always what it is now. Things change over time. This is not an obscure phenomenon.
Given Burnham's already sketchy geographical knowledge, which has Manchester in the northern portion of his theoretical UK, no, we most decidedly do not want anything to do with a UK constitution.
Worryingly this is a very plausible scenario Peter and Robert.
One consideration is that it has been proposed without any knowledge or understanding of the constitutional differences between the two signatories of the Treaty. Witness his ignorance regarding Scottish Water.
However it's just as likely that it's just not considered significant enough to shelve the idea and can be worked around just as the Scottish Grand Committee sorted things out for the differences between Scots and English law. That difference between the respective legal systems could also be used as a showstopper by the Scottish Parliament (assuming the appropriate level of cojones).
Any roads up maybe time to do our homework on how such a beast would breach the Tof U and render it void?
Aye, P, I'd say what you refer to is not only possible, but probable. In fact, may be the prime reason behind this latest wheeze by EaB. Since when did the latter give a fck about Rights - Civil, Human, Constitutional or otherwise - of the inhabitants of these islands?
As you say.....just look at what they've been doing of late, eg arresting peacefully protesting pensioners, vicars, former elected Politicians ( J Porrit ) for publicly manifesting their opposition to Genocide: and generally using it's " support for Israel " to impose restrictions on Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly that would have been unthinkable - at least would have generated howls of disapproval as little as 10/15 years ago. This on top on cultivating a war with Russia and sending even more container loads of cash to continue fuelling the Proxy War in Ukraine. It - the Brit State - appears to have lost it's collective mind
In light of these FACTS, we should consider NOTHING - irrespective of how lunatic, bizarre or contemptable - off the table: their table
I liked .....'this latest wheeze by EaB'....a deadly wheeze...
For OUR Scotland and her weans