Help Talking-up Scotland keep going
Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going
Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421
By Mark E. Saunders of “The Scottish Minuteman” https://www.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=61575625542197
At Prime Minister’s Questions today, Chris Law asked Andy Burnham about Scotland’s right to determine its own constitutional future.
The Prime Minister referred to the Good Friday Agreement and its conditions to hold a Border Poll for the people of Northern Ireland. But of Scotland, he said:
“I am not aware that there is a majority of public support for another referendum.”
So let’s make sure he becomes aware.
We are asking people across Scotland — and anyone who supports Scotland’s democratic right to choose its own future — to write a polite, respectful letter to the Prime Minister.
Every letter should begin with the same simple question:
“Dear Prime Minister, are you aware that…”
What comes next is up to you.
It could be:
“Are you aware that support for Scottish independence has remained close to 50% for many years?”
Or:
“Are you aware that recent opinion polls have shown support for independence in the lead?”
Or:
“Are you aware that Scotland’s constitutional question has not gone away and cannot simply be ignored?”
Or perhaps a fact of your own that you believe the Prime Minister should know — which could include one of the many material changes since September 2014.
ONE LETTER. ONE QUESTION. ONE FACT.
We’re not asking anyone to send abuse.
We’re not asking for insults or slogans.
We’re not asking everyone to send the same letter.
We’re asking Scots to politely put the facts before the Prime Minister.
Imagine hundreds — perhaps thousands — of letters and emails arriving at Downing Street, each beginning:
“Dear Prime Minister, are you aware that…”
Each person highlighting a different aspect of Scotland’s democratic reality.
If the Prime Minister says he is “not aware”, let’s help him become aware.
HOW TO TAKE PART
Write your own short letter.
Keep it polite, factual and respectful.
Begin with:
“Dear Prime Minister, are you aware that…”
Then make your point.
You can send it electronically through the official Prime Minister’s Office contact form:
Or write to:
The Prime Minister
And then ask someone else to do the same.
Let’s see just how many different facts about Scotland can reach Downing Street.
Let’s make sure Andy Burnham or any future Prime Minister can never again say:
“We weren’t aware.”
Help Talking-up Scotland keep going
Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going
Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421
Discover more from Talking-up Scotland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Talking-up Scotland 
Great idea – John
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good idea. Please also ensure you have signed the Believe In Scotland petition on the same theme now running at over 24000 signatures. Details on the Believe in Scotland web page.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Automated reply
“Thank you. The Prime Minister’s Office is currently receiving an exceptionally high volume of emails. If your message concerned an issue relating to the responsibilities of another Government Department or public authority then you should resend it to them. The Prime Minister’s Office is, at this time, only able to consider matters directly relating to the Prime Minister and will not reply to emails that could have been dealt with elsewhere or which are of a general nature”.
Between Mark’s suggestion, the BiS petition letters to PM and MP/MSPs and the SNP declaration here https://www.yes.scot/signup/ I feel the picture heading this blog post is very apt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andy Burnham’s response to Chris Law was actually a tad too ambiguous, but then that is always what you get with any HQ party at WM.
WGD did an excellent article yesterday on this topic too.
He argued that “We must not and cannot allow Burnham or any other anti-independence politician to shift the goalposts by insisting on a “consensus” instead of a majority“.
He also stated that “Note that again, as I pointed out in a previous post, the opponents of independence are conflating two very different things, the wish for independence and the wish for an independence referendum“.
The various UK governments and indeed all pro UK politicians are all unable and unwilling to address the question of how and when Scotland can have a (justified) second referendum.
So we then also get other politicians trying to also “shift the goalposts” to then make it less likely to happen, like for example Labour MP Brian Leishman’s stupid and undemocratic suggestion in that Scottish Labour should support a second independence referendum (indyref2) “on the condition that the SNP agree to a 25-year ban on a third referendum if the result is a ‘No’ vote”.
The big obstacle (and not the only obstacle) with that stupid suggestion being that since when did Labour HQ , and indeed since when did anyone at WM , ever care about or even listen to what “Scottish Labour” supports ?
Bernard Ponsonby , in an interview, managed to expose the ineptitude of the two wanabee candidates for the Labour (pretend) leadership in Scotland , when both Michael Marra and Joe Fagan failed to offer a credible and coherent solution to the Q of how they would define the route to a second Indyref ?
It was like a scene from Dumb and Dumber.
Apparently according to Marra “Labour would consider a further referendum only if independence became the “settled will of Scottish people”, while Fagan said” it would be “obvious” when independence represented the settled view of Scottish voters”.
Both failed miserably to state how their explanations would be able to be fairly and truly measured – so much so that Ponsonby both mocked and laughed at what was obviously a display of both of them floundering to give a straight and honest answer to this Q.
(That’s because they, as pro UK politicians, have always preferred not to give it any serious consideration and so then they do not have a cohesive response to this Q , as in the Q that will not go away, no matter how much they as pro UK politicians want it to).
SNP MSP David Linden said: “It’s clear that whoever takes over as Labour Party Scottish branch office manager will continue to have their fingers in their ears and ignore what voters have told them time and time again”.
One thing’s for sure in relation to a second Indy referendum ever happening , or rather it ever “being allowed to happen” by the powers that be who control the UK State, and that is that they, our political opponents on the NO side, will not play fair nor honestly.
So we , on the YES side and also the SNP as the Scottish government, should be forceful in resisting any way that our opponents try to somehow ‘game the system’ in them adopting certain rules and conditions that gives them an unfair advantage on the end result of a second Indy referendum.
So they alone should not get to decide how this will all play out , as we all know that in allowing them to do that , well that will then likely result in even more ambiguity and so will then also end up still being, as a Q, one that has not been honestly resolved nor concluded.
Unfortunately it seems real democracy for Scotland (and also for some other nations within the UK) is something else that is “not allowed” .
Indeed what does exist within the UK State for Scotland , Wales & NI, is us all being dictated to by the various autocratic UK governments at WM . (WM which is in England who, as a nation, now also has two No10’s , one in London and one in Manchester).
Also we have the same various UK governments holding more powers, more control and having far more access to the majority of the money within the UK State, which then means that only they are the ones who are always “allowed” to ever do what they want based on what they decide is needed.
Would any other civilised nation within the world tolerate that intolerable situation ?
(England would not , that’s for sure).
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person