By Alasdair Galloway
The promise by Humza Yousaf to use a majority of SNP seats at the coming UK General Election as the trigger for negotiations with Westminster to transfer powers for the holding of independence referenda has been well received by the membership of the SNP. The motion passed at their recent Conference commits them to a strategy in a number of parts.
The SNP scale
Part 1 of their strategy focuses on the next UK General Election being used as an “opportunity to advance the cause of independence, and to demonstrate how the powers of independence would enable us to take action on Scotland’s priorities”.
Fine, but how do they propose doing this?
1. “Conference believes that if the SNP subsequently wins a majority of the seats at the General Election in Scotland, this constitutes a mandate for independence negotiations with the UK Government which should be taken forward by a Constitutional Convention constituted by the MPs elected to Westminster, MSPs and representatives of civic Scotland.”
2. “Conference reaffirms the commitment to set up a Constitutional Convention made in January 2020; and to take the following actions as part of preparations for Scotland’s independence:
• Publish ‘Withdrawal from Westminster – a New Partnership Agreement’, which would set out the detailed terms we would seek in discussions with the UK Government for Scotland becoming an independent country and include draft legal text on the transfer of powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament necessary to prepare for independence.
• Conduct a nation-wide consultation on a draft interim constitution, which would be the founding document of an independent Scotland.
• Prepare the ground for Scotland to rejoin the international community and become an independent member state of the EU, by establishing envoy positions to act as representatives of the Scottish Government in supra-national forums.” As an aside to this, the suggestion has been made to repackage the Yes movement from being about independence from the UK, to one about rejoining the EU (which, with things as they are means leaving the UK).
3. “Conference further agrees that the SNP manifesto for the next Westminster election will demand the permanent transfer of legal power to the Scottish Parliament to determine how Scotland is governed, including the transfer of power to enable it to legislate for a referendum.”
4. “Conference agrees that the SNP manifesto will demand that the incoming UK Government will legislate to devolve a series of powers to allow the Scottish Government to properly tackle the twin crises of the cost of living and climate – including but not limited to:
• employment rights and the living/minimum wage
• windfall taxation for companies operating in Scotland
• regulation, pricing and production of energy sources
• employment visas for overseas workers
• new borrowing powers to invest in a just transition”
Job done? Eh? Well maybe not quite, for the difficulty is as early as where they say, “that if the SNP subsequently wins a majority of the seats at the General Election in Scotland, this constitutes a mandate for independence negotiations with the UK Government”. This is expressed pretty much as a “done deal” (ie it will happen), yet we know from the Supreme Court case that power on the constitution lies exclusively with the sovereign House of Commons. We also know that dragging as much as a referendum out of Westminster is as close to impossible as makes no difference. Nor does it matter who is in government since Labour have affirmed that they hold the same view as the Tories. Indeed, they have discussed using the same tools as the Conservatives to undermine Holyrood.
Why anything is going to change at a General Election is left wonderfully unclear. However, let’s be fair, for there is a strategy set out for if (or more likely when) Westminster says “Now is not the time”.
This strategy says
A. Conference further agrees that should an incoming UK Government continue to refuse The demands of the Scottish people to decide their own future, consideration should be given to fighting the next Scottish Parliament election in 2026 as a de facto referendum on independence; and that a majority at that election for the SNP – or the SNP and any other party with which we have reached a pro-independence agreement – will be considered a mandate to negotiate independence.
B. Conference agrees that by the end of the year the SNP will launch a Scotland-wide independence campaign, which will include digital and print campaign assets, aimed at increasing support for independence. The SNP will work in partnership with Yes groups and organisations and will promote pro-independence voices from all sectors of Scottish society.
C. Conference further agrees that the SNP will seek to add the words “Independence for Scotland” or words to that effect, to the party’s name and logo on the General Election ballot papers to make it clear beyond doubt what’s at stake at this election.
Therefore in 2024 if Westminster will not grant a referendum, as long as a majority of seats is secured by the SNP + partner parties in 2026 it will enter into negotiations for Scottish independence, or be persuaded to do so. Does anyone else harbour doubts about the reasonableness of this proposition? Angus McNeill tweeted that “I did write before the 2021 election, that the 2026 election might be the 2021 election for slow learners 🙈🤷” (https://twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1713583059000295928).
The failure to commit as well as the poverty of such thinking, over a period of time has led to a chorus of invective about the SNP’s strategy toward independence and how to seek this, from its critics, Let’s consider its primary political opponent in the Yes movement.
The Alba (dis) harmony
Alba’s criticism, and one reason in its complex origins, is based not only on the SNP’s failure to secure or hold a referendum, or even the poor strategies it has put in place to secure this, but a perception of a lack of determination to do so.
Alba’s most recent statement about a referendum was made last week on the day Nicola Sturgeon had put aside for the second referendum.
Alba claim that the SNP position will require continuing “to plead with Westminster for a referendum as they have been doing unavailingly since the Brexit vote of 2016.” There might be some exaggeration, but also much truth in the assertion that “There is not a single person in the country who believes that this strategy vacuum has any scintilla of a hope of success”.
So, if the SNP approach is an example of Einstein’s “definition of insanity – doing exactly the same thing time after time but claiming to expect a different result”, what do Alba propose that is different and more effective?
It is to use “every single election … to seek a mandate to begin negotiations for Independence, not yet another mandate for a referendum”. Yet, assuming the SNP succeed in having a majority of MPs in Scotland but are told “No” by Westminster this is the policy of the SNP as well, or at least it will be by 2026 if (when) Westminster says “No” to a referendum in 2024. The only other difference would be that Alba would be looking for a “simple” majority of votes (not really all that simple just now as the SNP have never achieved 50% even in 2015), whereas the SNP would be content with a majority of seats.
Whether the SNP position (by 2026) is better is debatable. It certainly seems more achievable as even with “just” 48 seats the SNP won “only” 45% of the vote. The closest they have been to 50% was in 2015 when they took 56 seats with more than 49.5% but less than 50%. However, from the point of view of democratic principles and seeking support from outside the UK (respectability?), a majority of votes is preferable, as Pete Wishart argued at Conference (unsuccessfully).
Alba, however, continues that “winning elections does not guarantee independence progress without the political strategy to enforce the people’s mandate”. So, what is their strategy?
First to set up an independence convention to “bring together key representatives from political, civic and independence groupings to establish the way forward in regaining independence for Scotland. This convention will act as the steering group of the independence movement.”. The SNP perhaps have been less far-reaching, but a Convention is also part of their strategy.
As well as this there are proposals for action at Westminster, in the community and internationally. With regard to the community, the Alba approach is for “a campaign of peaceful popular agitation in Scotland”. It’s hard to be definitive about what Alba mean, so it’s hard to say how far they would go. They mention All Under One Banner (as they should), but is the involvement of the community to be limited to walking the streets? Might actions go further to making the administration of the country, if not impossible then very demanding.
Imagine an organized campaign of non-payment of TV licence fees (which would be nicely consistent with the Corporation’s continuing ‘popularity’). TV Licensing in my limited experience, work on the basis that if you live in a property you have a set. So, if you stop paying you also stop viewing whether you do or not, so you will still get harassed to buy a licence. Their current complement of staff will reflect the current number of cases of non-payment. Therefore it is hard to see them coping if the number of cases increases by a large percentage. Moreover, their means of enforcement in the final analysis is to take miscreants to court, but, particularly given current delays in the legal system, the legal system my struggle as well. The relevant example is the Betteshanger Dispute where only nine miners of 1085 paid their fines.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942_Betteshanger_miners%27_strike)
This type of strategy though has to be managed very carefully, since it would be too easy for the Unionist side to seek to redefine this from ‘protest’ to ‘hooliganism’ and much worse, aided by their friends in the media.
So the two strategies while not identical, have a good deal of similarity and even overlap, particularly seeking majorities of votes (eventually in the case of the SNP) and the National Convention. It is though clear that Alba’s approach is rather more extensive – not only Parliamentary activity, but community and international activity as well directed at building up support.
The legal argument and Salvo
Salvo describes itself as having been “formed to restore Scotland’s constitution. Salvo is not a political party. We are the campaigning arm of Liberation Scotland.”
It argues “The Union of Scotland and England is built on a lie. The lie is that the UK parliament has sovereignty over Scotland. It doesn’t. It’s a lie. But the lie was necessary for the UK to shackle and subjugate Scotland.”
The attraction of this argument is, I think, clear. Many would be delighted to find that independence lies within the powers of the Scottish people themselves without any external interference. It is supplemented by well researched and considered arguments by Sarah Salyers, for instance in “Scotland’s Kidnapping, Plunder and Forced & Fake Marriage (or Union)” (https://salvo.scot/scotlands-kidnapping-plunder-and-forced-fake-marriage-or-union/) where she writes, “My current preoccupation is with the wearyingly regular criticism of Salvo’s focus on ‘hoary/old/archaic, disused, irrelevant, historical Scottish institutions, documents, laws and statutes’, spouted by the so confident but so thoroughly and obliviously duped victims turned perpetrators of the gaslighting. They counter the message of Salvo with the enticingly rational and reassuring dismissal: ‘You see, we need to leave all that pointless – if interesting – ancient history behind us and get our independence through modern, diplomatic strategies and possibly international law.”
That her argument relies on “documents, laws and statutes” – even old ones – seems to me to matter little. But the shortcoming of her argument is that it never considers that even if it was put into a Court which did decide in Salvo’s favour (International Court of Justice – ICJ – is one target), we could not be sure how that judgement would be enforced.
In the case of ICJ, it might be that it can make decisions, but can it enforce these? Or put another way, what can it do to make the UK implement its decisions, which it hasn’t done, for instance, in the cases brought by Mauritius and the Chagos Islands against the UK. In fact, there are several judgements against the UK concerning the Chagos Islands which the UK cheerfully ignores with little sign of loss by doing so.
We should be mindful of the experience of the Chagos Islands. The Chagos Islands had historically been administered from Mauritius, but when Mauritius was negotiating its independence the UK very strongly insisted that when Mauritius became independent they weren’t taking the Chagos Islands with them. Why not? Ever heard of Diego Garcia?
Prior to Mauritian independence, the population of the Chagos Islands was 924, almost entirely employed as contract farm workers primarily on copra plantations. However, between 1968 and 1973, the inhabitants were forcibly expelled from Diego Garcia by the UK Government so that a joint US/UK military base could be established on the island. Many were deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, following which the United States built the large Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, which has been in continuous operation since.
Therefore, were there an effective means of enforcing ICJ decisions, then in this case it would be the US which would be the more inconvenienced. So the UK can quite happily ignore the judgements because we know that our good friends the Americans stand behind us because it would be against their interests not to do so. Put more simply, but crudely, winning legal victory is fine, but real politique had better be on your side if you are to implement it. Echoes of Faslane?
Salvo’s is an interesting and well-conceived approach, but if it achieves little or nothing to take independence forward in a practical way, should we not be looking elsewhere to carry on moving things forward? It may be that, as a foundation to the case for independence, it can be argued we should assert the sovereignty of the Scottish people, but how do we enforce this?
Perhaps, what this points to is the need for an international campaign for Scottish independence, pointing to the nihilism of the Westminster government, which is happy to hold Scotland prisoner (adaptation of the 1707 quote by the House of Commons speaker, that “we have catched Scotland and will bind her fast”) despite the views of the Scottish electorate.
But here is another necessary condition. Easy to write “the views of the Scottish electorate” with the implication of support for independence, but we should never forget that this needs to be the case and that it wont be achieved by assertion but only by an effective and all-embracing campaign convincing a large majority of Scots that independence is the best option for our country.
In this regard Toni Giugliano’s motion that “by the end of the year the SNP will launch a Scotland-wide independence campaign” is not only encouraging (just as long as it happens – does anyone remember “summer of independence”?) but essential. An international campaign is no more than an embarrassment if independence is supported by an unimpressive proportion of the electorate.
It is also encouraging that the motion committed the SNP to “work in partnership with Yes groups and organisations and will promote pro-independence voices from all sectors of Scottish society” as the SNP might be the largest group supporting independence, but it doesn’t have a monopoly. If there is only one ‘big ticket’ issue in Scotland, then surely that has to be independence, which needs and deserves a “broad church”.
Thus
- Neither the SNP nor their critics – Alba, Salvo and such as Wings for instance – have cracked the problem of how to get out of the UK. It might well be that the SNP have failed (or chosen) to ignore the legal status of the Scottish people, but their critics have never convincingly shown how that claimed status could be enforced.
- This allows England to sit tight without significant loss even if Scotland has judgement against them in as many international courts as you care to name – ie they can do this without incurring loss. There is a need for a strategy which answers the question of what do we do when whoever is in Downing Street, responds to demands for a referendum with another blunt “No”.
Civil Disobedience
My own personal hero at the SNP Conference was David Buckley, who spoke at the debate on independence, advocating civil disobedience as a “follow up strategy” to be used when, having sought a referendum, the PM says “get stuffed”. You can find his contribution at 1hr 21mins here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_mqs18umZk during the debate on independence, if you don’t have time to watch the whole thing.
Buckley suggests that in this event “we must become ungovernable” such that the “economic and social cost of keeping Scotland in the Union” is greater than the cost of us leaving. However, this cannot be won at Westminster, but by mobilising the people of Scotland “in their millions”, both individually as well as through community groups.
There is a high likelihood, unless there is a sea change of attitude at Westminster (and outside of considerations such as a right to self-determination or level of support, there seems no reason why there should be) that the approach being followed by Salvo, Alba and the SNP will not work. Nor indeed is there is certainty that civil disobedience will work, but, for instance, the example of Ghandi’s role in securing Indian independence shows it could make a significant contribution.
- Thus, there is a need to supplement this strategy by maintaining a high level of communication with other countries. There are at least two assets to be used here
- The level of support for independence in Scotland which is measure of the undemocratic (in)action of the UK government
- The Scottish ‘diaspora’. There are many ‘Caledonian’ communities abroad (Billy Connolly once joked that emigrants were organizing these before the plane taking them away had reached cruising height), many in Commonwealth countries – Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Afric a in particular – and also, in the United States, where nearly everyone seems to claim some sort of Scottish ancestry.
Assets to be exploited are such as Burns (“what a parcel o’ rogues in a nation”), Tartan Week (no doubt condemned as “shortbread tin”). Once again a case needs to be formed – that a country with a culture as widely admired as our own can flourish under independence, as well as the more mainstream advantages to the Scottish economy and the possibility of a “better, fairer Scotland”.
Is there anyone who doesn’t see the hand of the Americans behind the Good Friday agreement, and the influence of the Irish-American community behind that? If the Irish, why not the Scots? Why not use the Scottish community (or including the ‘wannabe’ Scottish community)? Such activity may be belittled by our critics (devolution doesn’t allow for foreign policy so ultra vires, embarrassing etc), but such criticism seems to me to be an important justification for doing it (ie if they think it isn’t a good thing …).
One thing to be clear about is though that like all the rest, this is not a silver bullet, but rather one aspect of a multi-strand strategy. In this case to draw attention to the undemocratic nature of English policy in not allowing a vote for self-determination, but at the same time asserting Scotland as a country well able to take its place in the international community.
Conclusion
Leaving outliers aside, happy to maximise difference even if they are supposed to be on the same side, differences about strategy are often matters of degree. For instance, the difference between Alba and the SNP are to a considerable degree about speed of action. The SNP are prepared to go through the loop of winning another election (2024) to seek another referendum with the inevitability of being told “No” once more, before going on to the more radical strategy of winning in 2026 as a mandate to negotiate independence. This, however, brings the issue very much into focus in that if a majority is not even going to get us a referendum, how likely is it to bring Westminster to be willing to negotiate independence?
However, Alba does have a follow-on strategy of community, political and international action to put pressure on Westminster to negotiate. Will that be enough? I doubt anyone could say with certainty, but it does seem more likely to be successful than winning a majority, being told “No” and going away again.
The Alba strategy does though seem to me a bit conservative (very lower case c). There is it seems to me a difference between extra parliamentary action and “making the country ungovernable”. There is moreover an important distinction between the two in that the latter involves the possibility of acting contrary to law, something that our opponents will use against us so it is important to plan and manage this in such a way as to take the wider community with us. It would therefore be important for instance that such activity was peaceful, though it may involve damage to property.
This formulation may trouble some, but we have to understand that Westminster has shown its determination to maintain the Union, almost to the point that our opinions wont matter. We have to show even more resolve.
But whichever strategy we pursue – and there is some overlap between the different approaches, particularly in the early days – it must hold out the possibility (are there certainties?) of success.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Craig Dalzell wrote about these issues back in 2020 – see
The Road to Independence Part One – A Democratic Event | The Common Green
The Road To Independence Part Two – Johnson’s Journey to Yes | The Common Green
Part 2 outlines matters like Civil Obedience/Disobedience – worth a read and careful consideration
LikeLiked by 1 person
Acutally, Craig Murray shortly after the Catalan referendum (so 17/18) sugggested that the Yes movement was going to have to go in this direction as the UK govt was moving toward the “Madrid strategy” of putting even a referendum beyond reach. Spain has the constitution, while UK has the Supreme Court decision. Put very bluntly if there is no legal route, what is the alternative? The sooner we appreciate this fundametnal truth better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Supreme Court decision? Are we referring to the one where it was judged that the Scotland Acts did not provide for a referendum, we knew that didn’t we? It wasn’t a surprise was it? It was absolutely founded in law wasn’t it?
That’s not what your talking about though is it? Your talking about the crap following it, where the S P agreed with every other UK judge since Dicey opined that westminster was absolutely sovereign, it just doesn’t happen to be founded in law, or statute, so it isn’t constitutional law and even if westminster had made it law it would still be irrelevant to Scotland because domestic law is subordinate to Treaty law.
Do not ask for something you can’t take and removing ourselves from this union is simple, ask the people the right question. Permission granted by the people of Scotland to withdraw from the TOU cannot be denied under domestic law.
Golfnut.
LikeLike
OK so we have held our own referendum, though I have to confess I dont know how. First port of call will be the courts (yes those set up by the WM govt) to have the event called off as ultra vires for a Scottish Govt without permission of Sovereign HoC. I know the basis of your argument is that their power has no basis, but that is a matter of legal dispute.
But leaving that to one side, let’s suppose the intention is to use the usual polling places (ie schools). Leaving aside too those Councils with no SNP control who will just say “fine” and refuse to cooperate, the conflict for Council officials will be considerable faced with a court order that the proposed vote is illegal and a SG instructing them to go ahead. Even then I would expect WM to close anywhere being used as a polling place.
Even beyond that relatively trivial issue, how do we enforce the outcome of the vote (assuming it’s Yes). Can’t see WM rushing to negotiate -more likely to cheerfully ignore it, perhaps prosecuting a few leaders for breaking the law (pour encourager les autres). I’d expect other states and international organizations to do what they did post Catalonia – ie nothing.
Where I do agree is “Do not ask for something you can’t take”.
LikeLike
Good piece.
Irrespective of what initiative any Indy party decides as being , in their opinion, the most effective one to gain independence we cannot ignore the huge obstacle that has and will always be a stumbling block, that is in us , getting the message out to MORE Scots on the positives there are to Scotland being independent and too reinforcing the message of how bad it has been, still is and will always be for Scotland within the UK….clearly that is, as a message, one that seems to currently not be resonating with a majority of Scots…..if it was then support for independence would be far more excessive , via percentage, in the many polls being conducted that are supposed to ‘reflect’ opinion upon both independence and the assumed continued support for the UK….. however what is being communicated, via polls, is that it is shockingly somehow static around the 50/50 mark for both sides……so why and how can that be ?
I , like many others, have for many years supported the legitimate and justified cause of independence for Scotland and during that time I have never seen any majority (as in NONE) of the MSM promote ANY positives or truths connected to independence for Scotland. In fact any Pro Indy participant in any constitutional debate conducted via any MSM outlet is confronted with a barrage of negatives and challenged on the validity of what they assert as being the many positives to independence and also the actual wealth of Scotland as a country….however the same treatment and negative assertions are never attributed to those on the Pro UK side via these same MSM debates and too also via newspapers and various news channels.
Communication is key……if more people within Scotland do not seek out alternate sources to establish facts and truth then the YES movement has to find alternate ways to get our message out to them…..currently the Pro UK side has a clear monopoly within the MSM and alas that results in their negativity and opposition to independence being communicated daily and also in only their Pro UK argument being promoted as the one that is dominating the debate.
As communication is assumed as being that which is greatly lacking upon getting our positive message out to MORE Scots ,which then puts us at a greater disadvantage, together with the lack of harmony that exists in our movement just now , then we do, as a movement, need to start to focus on reaching more people in Scotland but only as a united movement…..currently ,via both MSM and too alternate sources of media such as Netflix, there are a multitude of documentaries on a multitude of subjects but no one seems interested in either making or commissioning what is currently happening here in Scotland by producing an honest pro independence documentary, that includes the very positive case for independence, to also include the wealth and potential that exists within our country and how Scotland in 2014 was greatly let down by those who opposed independence……if such a documentary, extended to say four parts, were to be made it would be preferable that it was produced and commissioned by an alternate source to the current MSM in the UK for obvious reasons mainly that they are not to be trusted especially with such an important task….
Until we break down THIS communication barrier to rally more Scots, new and old ,to also support independence and thus to have more belief in their country’s ability to thrive as a nation then any pro Indy party will be promoted as going against the will of the majority of the people should they seek to proceed with any plan to seek or implement independence…..our Indy marches, our elections that see a majority of Indy politicians elected in Scotland for our parliament and too those MP’s we elect and then send to WM and also the very existence of those of us supportive of independence are consistently ignored, undermined and defined as somehow subversive within their UK via the UK MSM and too via all opposition politicians and their respective parties……
So we have to find new ways of reaching MORE, a majority, of people in Scotland. Until we do we will always be promoted as a fringe element and too as subversives or rather ‘Separatists’ and ‘Nationalists’…..alas effective and consistent communication will take money and unlike those parties supportive of the UK ……Indy parties are not as fortunate to have a long list of wealthy donors who, as donors, currently seem to prefer political parties that are more ‘compliant’ to their specific needs in return for their large donations…..so we may, as a movement , need to source other ways to fund new channels of communication being implemented…..in finding new communication initiatives that conclusively and FINALLY gets out THE message, THE information that is tactically omitted via MSM and too via the opposition politicians….. and then well it is all then…..in the lap of the Gods ?……but preferably in the laps (support and votes) of THE people who live in Scotland once they are better informed.
So who, within the Indy YES movement, would be prepared to put their money where their mouth is to fund such a campaign ????
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree 100% about the need to get the message out, but I wonder about 2 things
1. dont we need to get the story straight well before then? Should there not be an overwhelming narrative to support and indeed justify Scottish independence? Where is it? Especially one that is going to drag the cause past 45-48% where it frustratingly sits, and up beyond 55%? Yes it can be done. After all last time support increased by more than a factor 50% (28 to 45%) – the same again would put support at 67% – far more than enough.
To achieve that, though we did have to rely on Westminster putting its foot in it at regular intervals.But have they not continued to do so and show little sign of learning their lesson.
But what we did have was a coherent narrative.Well relatively and we have to face up to the fact it didnt succeed, so it needs adaption. The other thing we need to recognise is that much of the low hanging Unionist fruit has been picked. Those still holding out are the hard cases, who will take much more effort to bring them across.
2. how best to do this? You are rightly concerned about media ownership in Scotland. Re newspapers, the dead tree newspaper model is dying, and in any event how much do newspapers change minds? Do we read a newspaper to learn or to confirm views we already hold? I think substantially it’s the latter (Prof Robertson may care to correct me).
TV now, that’s a different matter. Certainly the BBC looks considerably more shop soiled than they did 10 years ago. But how much influence do even the Beeb have when there is a vigorous community campaign going on which shows them to be wrong. The problem withTV coverage is its very generality – Reporting Scotland has to cover the whole of Scotland, whereas a community campaign can be structured to local circumstances and totally undermine whatever pap the Beeb are putting out. Then there is the internet. How many people remain involved through that medium who barely knew what the internet was 10 years ago.
Something along these lines need not be expensive. It might take the form of each supporter talking to others and bringing one person each over to the cause. Coordinating it will be like herding some very wild pussy cats, but if there is an agreed narrative….. putting forward the same ideas, albeit in different way
LikeLike
All of the above +
LikeLike
Some years ago, when Catalonia was getting the Spanish civil guard “encouragement”, I doubted such a thing could happen to Scotland, but was appalled at the silence from the EU.
Now I am released from my naivety, and have come to the conclusion that only actions which directly hurt England can move the dial on independence.
I agree with all of the article, but think after the huge non-consequential election victories won, talking will now get us nowhere.
I am not an advocate or supporter of political violence, but I am certain the loss of, or any threat to, Scottish electricity or gas flowing south would get more attention from the London political/media elite than a 50 seater bus of pro-independence MPs.
Is for example, damaging electricity pylon interconnectors, any worse than Tories (Iain Duncan Smith et al) supporting the vandalism of ULEZ cameras? No doubt our colonial media would put a “terrorism” spin on that one.
A human blockade of Faslane with thousands of people?
If any Scottish MP/MSP is serious about independence then they must be:-
Prepared to disrupt/sit in/walk out of Scottish/English parliaments, no matter the personal cost.
If ignored by Westminster:-
They must be prepared to refuse to form a Holyrood government, and repeatedly vote down any subsequent minority government of British nationalists (yes, it would be similar to the DUP).
The bet is that Westminster would be reluctant to go for direct rule.
The John Boothmans of this world may admire Alister Jack, but I doubt Jack has the political nous to run a country to the satisfaction of the population–this applies also to Ian Murray, who has been noticeably absent from any contribution on any Scottish issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s pretty clear that Sunak and his 4 predecessors had no idea how to run a country either; certainly no understanding that they were supposed to be safeguarding the interests of UK citizens
LikeLiked by 1 person
First of all Gavin, the gas and oil isn’t ours and more than it belongs to Westminster. It belongs to whichever energy company got it out of the ground. Certainly it would have tax effects, but what might the collateral damage be for Scotland? But I agree these are the sort of actions that should be discussed (though how much of the oil ever gets to Scotland – some of it is piped ashore near Middlesborough and points south). Likewise electricity pylons.
And yes we need our MPs to offer leadership, of which they have done damn little up to now. There have been small outbreaks – the time Blackford got thrown out and they all upped and left with him. But nothing like enough, not even close.
Not sure I share your view about Direct Rule – they ran Northern Ireland from London for 26 years and are doing it just now because of the DUP. There are easily imagined reasons for them doing this – closing down Holyrood being one of them, so it is no longer a focus for what they will portray as lawlessness.
You’re right about Boothman, but does it not say something about Labour politics when that is so. Boothman was previously head of news at BBC Scotland and married to Susan Deacon – former Labour MSP and government minister. What does it say that someone like Boothman – Labour Party himself – admires Alister Jack. And indeed about Labour?
LikeLike
Natural resources are the collective property of the state. Oil and Gas extraction is under licence only, as is the generation of electricity using wind or water turbines within the states territorial waters. Any and all licences granted by the UK gov will have to be renegotiated particularly if Scotland decided as it should to nationalise those operations.
Golfnut
LikeLike
well your first point is only true till the state decides to sell them, which we have been doing for 50 years now.
I would imagine that transfer would be dealt with during indy negotiations, and would be modified by Scotland as time went on. It’s not something you would want to do on day zero (enough to do).
LikeLike
This is a really helpful blog post. It’s the kind of analysis – perhaps not yet a final analysis – of the various emerging versions of how we get from where we are now to the desired outcome of the Union dissolved and ‘normal’ nation-statehood established with international recognition.
Here btl on October 9 I wrote: ‘It’s all getting very confusing – or is it confused?
‘Is there anywhere a comprehensive account of the diverse range of ‘theories of change’ now being proposed for the achievement of Scotland’s independence? Is there any attempted analysis of the logic of these diverse propositions that compares and contrasts their required inputs, activities, outputs, their envisaged intermediate and final outcomes, their dependences on external factors and actors, their risks and uncertainties?
‘Perhaps such an analysis lies behind and informs the views of Mr Noon, the strategist and behind the views of others, perhaps with their own strategists, all promoting their favoured route to independence. Would that it was feasible to have a framework for critical assessment of the diverse propositions!’
Thanks Alasdair for your post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
thank you for your kind words.
The difficulty with the kind of analytical framework you suggest is that the arguments to be categorised keep changing. Maybe the debate isn’t mature yet? Or just too disputatious (eg less about taking forward and more about what it might do for the author’s reputation).
LikeLike
Quite a few assumptions made in your reply which of course are required to support your own point of view.
Let’s deal with the legality aspect first. No question at all that westminster has the power to challenge, veto and ignore any referendum under UK legislation, ie the Scotland Acts. The SG is pretty well stymied in this matter in a way that Scottish political party’s aren’t ( a collective of law makers) elected by the people of Scotland within the legal jurisdiction of Scots law. Salvo have made a very good fist of trying to explain this to people but we still have individuals like yourself and unfortunately a great many of our MP’s, MSP’s and law officers who are stuck with the constitutional mindset that absolute power rests with westminster. Domestic law does not and cannot ever supersede treaty law which is why the likes of Dicey and the law courts have gone to great lengths to convince people that the Treaty of Union doesn’t exist, wasn’t a real treaty and even if it was, it is no longer relevant. The TOU terrifies westminster because it provides them with just two options. Either negotiation or violence. The last option puts their military and politicians at risk of prosecution under international law.
Scotland entered into this union by a majority vote though it should be noted that it was not a majority of MP’s. 112 for, while 113 voted against, abstained or did not attend. Even so, that majority was accepted and fortunately for us the precedence has been set for leaving the union, a majority of MP’s elected by the people with a mandate to withdraw from the ToU is all that is required legally for Scotland to withdraw from the union.
Using the ToU automatically puts Scotland’s withdrawal from the union within the jurisdiction of international law and the international community, westminster can of course challenge our right to leave the union but only in the international courts and to be honest I don’t think they’ll want the Dicey nonsense scrutinised by the ICJ, that’s a can of worms they won’t want opened.
That option doesn’t require the SG or the Scottish Parliament, in fact neither are relevant until after the vote the vote ( a UKGE ) has taken place, only then can Scotland’s Parliament assume full authority and act accordingly. The Stirling Directive does follow this approach though it seeks the transfer of constitutional authority to hold a referendum and not an immediate end to the union.
Your right about one thing only and that is some of our politicians will be risking their jobs as well as their liberty but make no mistake that equally applies to every single westminster minister, including the clowns at the Scotland office.
Golfnut
LikeLike
I think you must have missed the part where I not only agree with the Salvo argument, but express my admiration for it. What is missing though is how to enforce it. The ICJ has no direct means of enforcement – not even fines. And the UK has a long tradition of ignoring international judgements it doesnt like – just ask the Chagos Islands on whose island home sits Diego Garcia.
My test has two stages. First of all its a legal argument does that legal argument stand up, could it be put before a court with a reasonable chance of success. I think it could do so, so part 1 completed (probably).
The second stage is can it be enforced, and the above points clearly to the conclusion equally probably not, or so history tells us. If the UK’s reaction to losing at ICJ (assuming they turn up – they dont always and then use that as an argument to delegitimise the judgement) is “how nice”, I’ve not heard a convincing argument about how independence would actually work under this scenario. A modern nation state is a complex entity, and I find it hard to think of disentangling Scotland from the UK (financially for instance) without WM being engaged (however truculently).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrong second question.
If indeed westminster refused to negotiate a new Treaty between Scotland and England, even after an ICJ ruling in Scotland’s favour, which will be upheld by the U.N.and the international community, the question is can westminster keep control of Scotland without the use of violence and intimidation, and the answer is no. Nicola Sturgeon deliberately and emphatically made her thoughts known on how she expected the international community to react when a larger neighbour threatened a smaller nation ( Ukraine), arm the smaller nation.
England will be a much nicer next door neighbour when if that has to happen.
Golfnut
LikeLike
tink of how much of our stuff comes to us either from England from companies operating there. All five major supermarkets are HQd there, but so not only them. This inequality is actually a reason to demand independence.
Likewise goods from elsewhere in the world, often imported through English ports. Just close off trade.
Then there is finance. London is a financial centre. Can’t say the same for Scotland.
One of Nixon’s guys was supposed to have had a sign in his office that read “when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds soon follow”.
I’m not suggesting for a minute that we carry on wasting time trying to make them happy, or in agreement with our independence. But an approach that makes the cost of hanging on to us than any benefit there might be (allied to pressure from elsewhere , though the international community wont go public) is the way forward.
LikeLike
Article is not a bad survey of present state of Scotland’s Cause. The main factor I believe it needs to improve its analysis is in addressing the Salvo type argument for legal and legitimate sovereignity of Scotland’s people. It does not emphasise enough the feeling of legitimacy of their democratic demands it can give to Scots in adopting this attitude and how it can feed into support for independence to help effect the increase in that support in Scotland required above all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We already have a majority in both parliaments. Westminster isn’t moving. Why aren’t we negotiating?
LikeLike