Damned if they don’t but if they do …….

All Under One Banner event on May 4, 2019 (Image: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

I’ve long been frustrated by Peter Bell. At one time he was a prominent member of the Nicola Sturgeon Fan Club, but his subsequent disillusionment has taken him from Alpha to Omega. In other words, interesting and thoughtful as he regularly is, just as often I just can’t agree with him. Today’s piece is no different https://peterabell.scot/2023/07/28/an-external-event/

The piece is derivative of two sources. One is Robin McAlpine’s recent article “Another summer of broken promises” (https://robinmcalpine.org/another-summer-of-broken-promises/), while the other is the Stirling Directive (https://stirlingdirective.scot/) – a campaign backed by Salvo (https://salvo.scot/) “the campaigning arm of Liberation Scotland, which has accused the UK government of fraud and will be bringing a case for compensation before the International Court of Justice”.

So, what is the case? Along with McAlpine, Bell is critical of Humza Yousaf’s commitment to seeking independence. A quote from McAlpine’s article illustrates

“If Yousef’s [sic] strategy was meaningful, if it was real, if he believed in it, we’d be in a year-long drive to do everything in our power to get ready for a big event next year. That isn’t happening. How any of you believe any of this is serious remains totally beyond me”.

Let’s pick this apart because there are two parts to this. One is the well-known and repeated ad nauseam argument that since 2014 SNP campaigning on independence has diminished to the point of inadequacy. Or perhaps a better way of putting it is that the level of campaigning is enough to convince a majority  of at least party members that the party full time officials are still serious about seeking independence and not just their careers.

My own view is that given that independence is the core value of the SNP, that campaigning on this issue should be both strong and consistent. We aren’t going to win the debate if this doesn’t happen. There needs to be clear understanding that such a campaign isn’t only to fortify party members, but also independence supporters in other parties or none. There is a strong practical need to remember that even in their 2015 election mirabilis, the SNP share of the vote didn’t breach 50% (not quite!). The support of others beyond the SNP and its voters is not optional but necessary.

In terms of campaigning, my view is that the SNP have come up short, but also in terms of reaching out to the other parts of the Yes movement. This a list of organizations who are members of the Scottish Independence Convention

  1. Christians for Independence
  2. Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies
  3. Common Weal
  4. English Scots for Yes
  5. Fife Plus for Independence
  6. Bridges for Indy (Fife), Crossgate Centre, Dunfermline Muslims for Indy, Tayport Yes, Yes Burntisland, Yes Clacks, Yes Cardenden, Yes Dunfermline and West Fife, Yes Glenrothes, Yes Kelty, Yes Kinross-shire, Yes Kirkcaldy, Yes Levenmouth, Yes North East Fife, Yes Rosyth, and the local Common Weal and Scottish Socialists groups.
  7. Hubs for Scottish Independence (HUSCI)
  8. Independence Central:
  9. Yes Grangemouth,
  10. Butterflies Rising,
  11. Women For Independence Linlithgow,
  12. Yes Linlithgow,
  13. Yes  Bo’ness,
  14. Falkirk For Independence,
  15. Yes Stirling.
  16. Independence Library Ltd. (Scottish Independence Library)
  17. Labour for Independence
  18. NHS for Yes
  19. Out for Independence
  20. Pensioners for Independence
  21. Radical Independence Campaign
  22. Scottish Independence Foundation
  23. Scottish CND
  24. Scottish Green Party
  25. Scottish National Party
  26. Scottish Socialist Party
  27. SNP Students
  28. SNP Youth
  29. SNP Trade Union Group
  30. Women for Independence
  31. Yes Edinburgh and Lothians
  32. Yes Highlands
  33. Yes North East

It might well be too much to expect the kind of collaboration witnessed in 2014, such as that would recreate, if there were strong collaboration between all these organizations would create something more like a social and political tsunami rather than, when they don’t, the small waves individually breaking on the shore.

Why are the SNP not encouraging this, and indeed facilitating it? When in 2014 the head of Yes Scotland, Blair Jenkins, was asked if had control over the local Yes groups that had sprung up, he said he was pleased to say he didn’t and that they were doing just fine. That led to Buchanan Street in Glasgow on the Saturday before the final vote. If you don’t remember it, look here https://twitter.com/WeAreNational/status/510760221263007744 and for comparison how the BBC reported it https://wingsoverscotland.com/and-then-my-heart-went-boom/.

So, no pass marks there, and alo moving on to the second part of McAlpine’s quote, let’s consider Salvo and the Stirling Directive at the same time for they are at least contiguous.

In its first two paragraphs of the Stirling document, there are two key sentences.

  1. “it is obvious that the dream [of independence] will die if we do not make it happen. And only the people can do that.”
  2. “It’s time for something that does not depend on judgements from the UK Supreme Court, for something that doesn’t mean demanding, asking, begging the British state for permission.”

The first of these is unarguably true, for if people see no realistic prospect of achieving something (not just independence), they will get fed up and wander off. This is one reason why I’m so critical of the SNP as it is just this danger that in due course they will be at risk of. Yet the second begs a great many questions of its own.

Let me say that I stand in awe of the intellectual achievement of Salvo and in particular Sarah Salyers. Her argument is basically that the Scottish electorate don’t need to ask permission of anyone, including the House of Commons or the Supreme Court. Instead we need to :

  • affirm the sovereignty of Scotland’s people (not the Crown which is the English tradition)
  • uphold the constitutional settlement of the “Union”
  • secure political recognition of the lawful, Scottish constitution
  • pursue our inalienable right of self-determination as guaranteed under international law.

Intellectually, this is a very strong argument, but we could still pick it apart, posing ‘difficult’ questions, such as do Scots have a right of self determination? That is a ‘People’s’ right. Are Scots in this sense a ‘people’? That issue is contested.

What is the current status of the Treaty and Acts of Union? Does it still ‘sound’ as Professor David Walker argued in 2007? Or is it a historical document of no contemporary relevance as Professors Crawford and Boyle argued in their 2013 legal advice to the Westminster government. Two examples of critical questions to which there is no consensus.

But the kicker is this, the above notwithstanding. Even if the Stirling Directive is correct, what do we do? How do we act? Salvo are quite clear that their intention is “bringing a case for compensation before the International Court of Justice”. Fine, but for one thing, the assumption has to be that if Westminster loses this case they will negotiate independence. But will they, for their record at this Court is, let’s be kind, “patchy”.

The Chagos Islands were historically administered from Mauritius, and when in 1964 it became independent from the UK, the assumption was that the Islands would go with it. However it was made clear to the Mauritians that there would be no independence with the Islands, only without them. Why? Because the Americans didn’t just want to build an air base there, but wanted the Islands cleared, which after Mauritian independence was carried out by the British Government.

Since then, Mauritius and the Islanders themselves have brought any number of actions and won against the UK in almost any international court you care to name, and indeed at the UN. To no effect whatsoever. In one action the UK couldn’t even be bothered to turn up and defend itself. Would Scotland fare better? Maybe I’m old and cynical but I don’t think so. 

If we consider the second point in the McAlpine quote, its all very well to argue that the Scottish Government have failed to take independence forward. It’s all very well to argue that its all promises never, or properly, implemented, keeping enough of the punters happy to stay onside for now at least.

As above, I don’t entirely disagree with this, yet if you are going to disagree with a strategy is there not an obligation to offer a superior  alternative that you at least consider better? Its all very well to complain of the half-hearted SNP strategy, but what is your alternative. Bell and McAlpine are particularly wanting in this regard, though the same could not be said of Salvo which starts from a particular solution. While they might well win at the International Court, will it be a purely legal victory that cannot be implemented.

It might be argued that success at the International Court would lead to pressure from other countries. Even if it did would the UK care all that much, particularly as there are other countries facing similar situations (eg Spain) who would be most unwilling to join in. Other countries are very unwilling to be seen to interfere in the affairs of other countries. For instance, Spain was heavily criticised for the conduct of their Civil Guard in Catalonia, but at the end of the day, other than a few condemnatory statements, nothing happened.

Therefore, if there is little or no reasonable likelihood of success, how can you redeem the promises that you have made. What to do when we know that the International Court of Justice is of little practical value, and that in the present UK political context there is little chance that a Westminster government will concede another referendum in the manner of David Cameron ten years ago?

Analysis of this situation demands that we recognise two necessary conditions

  1. Sufficient effective campaigning that independence is supported by a clear majority.
  2. From this support that there is a route, or strategy to a second referendum?

It has been my argument that condition 1 remains unsatisfied in every regard, whether frequency, force or of reach in that there is insufficient coordination of the Yes movement as a whole. However, the distinction between this and 2 is that it is foreseeable how such a strategy could be developed and made to work. However, 2 is as yet to be discovered within the political mists.

It seems to me that it is necessary for any strategy to be successful that Westminster by its end is engaging with the process. There has to be a final settlement or we risk for instance having access blocked to international organizations we would expect to be members of. No engagement or settlement would ereate many years of uncertainty and wrangling, which can only be a distraction as we set up a new country.

At the moment, the road block is that Westminster, for whatever reason, do not want us to leave. Perhaps there is a clue here. If they don’t want us to leave, how can we turn this round so that they want us to leave?

Irish Nationalists just over a hundred years were successful in disrupting the work of the Commons. But in the much more complex and inter-dependent society we have now, the opportunities for disruption are that much greater.

However a short-coming of this strategy is that it will involve offending against the law, albeit in ways that are peaceful. However, such action can be twisted by the Unionist side to paint the Independence movement as a bunch of violent brigands (remember Jim Murphy’s shirt and the egg). Thus it seems clear that such a strategy can only be implemented when

  1. Condition 1 has been satisfied to a point where there can be no doubt that independence is the dominant view among people in Scotland
  2. Westminster’s intransigence has clearly been demonstrated – again! – buttressing the case that civil protest has been justified.

Therefore, it seems to me that the route to independence runs through increasing support for independence to a level where there can be no dubiety, and then if Westminster continues its intransigence, a peaceful campaign of non-violent opposition to being part of the UK.

14 thoughts on “Damned if they don’t but if they do …….”

  1. A very interesting article full of points that need discussing and answering. When any discussion of independence arises it has always been my firm belief and fervent wish that Scotland be more like Catalonia where the percentage in favour is so very obviously overwhelming. In Scotland, no matter how many thousands pack the streets on marches our MSM will always find ways to belittle the effort, ably assisted by the three opposition parties sitting in HR. THAT is still our Achilles heel – the fact that there are parties (with a certain amount of support – theythinkthemajority of support) sitting in our Parliament and actively working against Scotland. You only have to spend 5 minutes on twitter to take in the deluge of propaganda emanating from the Scottish tories alone. They have a dedicated team of people who regularly spout (mostly) rubbish but certainly anti SNP and Scottish government. And that’s only one party. When you take into consideration the Michael Blakeley, Stephen Daisley, Martin Geissler types, not forgetting GB news and often JeremyKyle and last but not least Lord George (I’ll not use his nickname) – there’s a veritable snow storm of types tripping over themselves to talk Scotland down. That is without even counting that mother of Parliaments down the road. This page and the National (sometimes) are lonely figures in that storm.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. What if The UK/England collapses as a result of the corrosion due to increasing corruption at Westminster and in the City?

      “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold,
      mere anarchy is loosed …”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. That sounds like a plan! But maybe the people of England feel too tired and beaten for this kind of anarchy? Nothing keeps a population in control better than poverty and a bit of chaos – provided by the gift that keeps on giving, Brexit. And, remember, those so important bye elections for labour fell short of expectations. Some are clinging to the idea that Boris will come back and save them. How sick is that?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. ‘- there’s a veritable snow storm of types tripping over themselves to talk Scotland down’.

      Looks like there is another to add to your list – the gaslighters. In the New Statesman published on 28 July, Chris Deerin has an article headlined: ‘Scotland has been left with the worst of both worlds – SNP rule has created a system of high taxes and low-quality public services.’ (Regular TuS readers will have seen evidence based on comparative analysis time after time to show the fallacy of the headlined assertions.)

      And the New Statesman wants me to pay to read the full article! I won’t pay to access material framed in such a misleading way – so far from the truth, the whole truth! A quick read of the headlines of Deerin’s recent articles on Scotland for the New Statesman make the output of the Spectator and other right wing sources seem mild by comparison.

      Elsewhere in the New Statesman – a supposed centre left (still?) periodical – there is an article by James Meadway headlined: ‘Why won’t Labour say it will tax Rishi Sunak and the super-rich more? – The party has missed a golden political opportunity by not promising to tax capital gains at the same rate as income.’

      Its opening paragraph has this (with my emphasis): ‘WE NOW ALL KNOW THE QUICKEST ROUTE TO SETTING LABOUR PARTY POLICY: IT’S A FEW MEAN ARTICLES IN THE TELEGRAPH. The paper spent last week issuing whatever blood-curdling warnings it could summon about equalising capital gains tax, which draws from the profit made on the increased value of a sold asset, with income tax – an eminently reasonable measure that the tax economist Arun Advani estimates would raise £15.8bn a year.’

      So why won’t Labour increase taxes on the rich? Fear of the influence of the Telegraph on certain voters it seems. (‘Traditional Labour voters’ or others in England towards whom pro-independence supporters in Scotland should be showing solidarity according to Labour?) The tax being proposed for an increase is of course NOT devolved, so not down to the SNP presently to change.

      Is such an increase in tax the path to improved public services in England: is that the case according to the New Statesman’s Meadows – to improve them and bring them into line with Scotland’s perhaps Mr Deerin?

      Confused? Or is it all just a journalistic game? Perhaps ‘the truth’ regarding Scotland would leave a New Statesman journalist out of a job!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  2. I would argue that since 2014 the SNP were limited in what they could do to push for independence given we lost the ref. As it stands I think the 7 + yes since then did provide steady if not earth shattering governance and possibly influenced some of the softer no’s to at least consider indy as a possibility. In many ways winning over some of the 10 0/0 of waverers to get a consistent majority in favour was as hard if not harder than reaching 45 0/⁰ before 2014 as there were more stubborn attitudes to shift. I also think NS and team did a good job at promoting a positive image of Scotland as a good, fairer and more equal place to live

    I find the SALVO stuff interesting too but agree that the UK will likely ignore any constitutional solutions no matter what courts might rule. I think we just have to keep plodding on until enough folk make it impossible for Westminster to deny a 2nd referendum and, for all their bold words I don’t think Peter bell or anyone else has an easy or instant solution. This is maybe core to the divisions in Indy supporting groups we se now, the floundering about trying to come up with a failsafe solution – exactly how Westminster likes it

    I know Lesley riddoch might not be everyone’s cup of tea, and I often disagree with her expectations. However I am enjoying her new book thrive which makes a lot of interesting points about where we are now which might add some different arguments from the increasingly negative anti snp camps

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thank you Prof John for this excellent analysis. However, I share Alan Gerrish’s optimism on the impact of any positive ruling from the ICJ.

      Like

      Reply

  3. Very interesting and comprehensive analysis which gives a good summary of the key points in this seemingly never-ending and underwhelming journey towards independence.
    The reference to the International Court of Justice and its likely outcome is very welcome, but the suggested impact of a positive ruling is, in my mind, overly pessimistic. For a start, Scotland is not the Chagos Islands, it is a European nation which has been part of the EU and has a mutual interest in further developing economic, strategic and social links with Europe. Should the “UK” government not respect the ruling of the ICJ, which is likely, this would further damage its already trashed reputation internationally, and would if anything increase support for recognising an independent Scotland. We should not forget the very favourable reputation Scotland has, particularly amongst northern European countries, and I would expect a domino effect of support to follow a positive ruling by the ICJ…provided Scotland has the courage to take its independence. It only takes one country to start the ball rolling – my money’s on Iceland (they said so in 2014!) followed by the Scandinavian countries and the newly independent Baltic states. A “peaceful campaign of non-violent opposition to being part of the UK” might be seductive but in my view will only be counter-productive, resulting in financial strangulation to keep us in check, and no hope of a positive outcome.
    So I think my view is still to work at increasing popular support for Independence, seek a legal International support of our right to become independent, then go for it; London will never listen to reason, or balk at breaking international law – they are getting more experienced by the day!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. I think also that Salvo’s intention is to prove that Scotland has become a colony of England and therefore we can take our case to the UN and start the process of decolonisation. Professor Alf Baird argues that indeed Scotland is the “last colony” of England in his book Doun Hauden. Since the British government signed up to this process, it would be unable to oppose

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  6. I’m not going to really say much on McAlpine, other than much of his SNP baad commentary seems to be based on the herald, record, bbc etc. I normally direct his readers to TUS which invariably leads to my comment being removed 😂.
    Anyways, reparation would only ever be awarded if the court agreed that the Treaty of Union was still in force. Dicey’s dodgy principal is what’s really on trial and personally I don’t think westminster will want that to be laughed out of court.
    If westminster really believed that they had a water tight case, they wouldn’t have commissioned the Gallagher and Boyle opinion on whether Scotland existed or not. The best they could come up with was some seriously idiotic comparisons with places like Canada and the non existent international Witanga treaty with Moari chiefs. As an aside I have a question for Cameron, did he have permission from the Queen of Scots to extinguish her senior Kingdom?
    The Stirling Directive hits the nail on the head with regard to the Scottish Parliament, Lord Forsyth had no doubt as to its latent power but they are wrong to believe that the Scottish government can or should act before the people of Scotland give it permission to do so and that can only be given if the people of Scotland are asked the question.
    Nicola Sturgeon killed the S30 route deliberately ( I believe ) and was right to do so. Much better to take westminster head on in its own back yard by making the GE a plebiscite election. The problem that exists is the question that has to be asked which in effect has to be an instruction to the Scottish Parliament to withdraw from the Treaty of Union. Therefore establishing before the international community that the the Treaty is still in force leaves westminster dead in the water.
    It remains to be seen whether the SNP( not the SG) support the Stirling Directive and whether the SNP are willing to ask the right question.
    No more, ‘ should Scotland be an Independent country ‘ please.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. When he published this, John emailed me to say that he was sure I would get replies “but at least they will be polite”. Of course, this would only be expected on TUS, but I am still grateful for the measured replies to a trouble-maker 🙂
    While my own judgement might vary from some of the comments, I dont consider that any of us are actually wrong. Some of us may be somewhat pessimistic (or cynical if you like), but that is mostly me1
    More specifically, it’s more than a simplistic to point out Scotland isn’t the Chagos Islands. I tske the point that this will be very negative to uk’s already fairly negative world image, but on the other hand, unless you are someone like Saddam Hussein other countries tend not to get involved in what are portrayed as internal matters. As I wrote above, the example of Spain in Catalonia is instructive. While there were statements of condemnation at the time of the Catalan referendum, anything beyond that doesnt seem to have moved the Spanish polity one inch.
    Ah, but what about the Irish? If the stories are true, the Good Friday Agreement would not have happened without the Americans, whose activities are driven by a very proactive Irish constituency in America. Perhaps that is something we should consider – weaponising the Scottish diaspora certainly in the States, but what about Australia or Canada? The role of dispossessed Scots is well set out by Runrig in Rocket to the Moon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWbeiqMZcU – is that Pete Wishart on keyboard?)
    If we had that sort of support – the international community taking an active interest, and looking like they would pile in on our side when the UK says no – whether it be to another referendum or an ICJ case that hasnt gone their way, I would be much less pessimistic than I am now. I just think a stand alone
    An interesting suggestion was to get out when/if the UK collapses. Country mired in debt, an incompetent govt headed by someone like a “head boy” who claims to be the motorists’s champion but spends his time in a helicopter, who already wealthy married one of the wealthiest women in the world. And what is the alternative? A poor tony Blair tribute act, whose economic policy could have come from the maniacs in the present outfit, and who manages to make the “head boy” seem a real personality. Not a great choice!
    The problem here is that while it’s not impossible – or even fanciful – to argue this could well happen, whenBut that’s the problem with all the options canvassed here. There is no certainty any of them will work. Will the UK fold in the face of a negative ICJ case? How much civic disobedience would there have to be and for how long? Will the UK just collapse? Do we need more than one strategy? For instance a series of GE referendum AND civil disobedience/ success at the ICJ?
    What is needed is flexibility and speed of response, particularly if the UK were to collapse. We want to be out of there, and recognised by the international community, before it gets back to its feet (albeit perhaps without Wales, Scotland and a united Ireland). But more than anything campaigning needs a long term, unashamed crescendo.

    Like

    Reply

  8. Catalonia turn out 40%. The majority did not vote. 1.5 million (EU citizens) do not have a vote. 1 million under age to vote. 7.5 million pop.

    Scotland support for Independence 50%+. Average – Turnout council/local election 40%. Holyrood election 50%. GE 60%. Referendum 85%. More people supporting Independence need to vote.

    A GE in the Spring?

    Like

    Reply

  9. Catalonia a province has more autonomy than Scotland. Raises taxes and revenues. Passes laws etc. one of the wealthiest provinces in Spain.

    Sunak coming to Scotland to try to bribe. CCS project NE.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Golfnut Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.