Help Talking-up Scotland keep goin

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

“It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up but with his life.”

— The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320

Is the moment fast approaching when Scotland needs to stand up — by sitting out?

At the very moment Scotland returned the largest independence-supporting majority in the history of the devolution settlement, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom chose to ignore the democratic significance of that result. Instead, he busied himself answering the existential “threat” levelled at the UK’s political class by Reform UK.

But what if the UK Prime Minister continued to ignore the mandate Holyrood once again possesses to demand another referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future?

Imagine then that, in response, the Scottish Government declared the next UK general election to be a de facto referendum on independence — and that every pro-independence MP campaigned not on being elected to join the British Establishment, but only on Scotland’s right to choose its own future.

In such an election, there could be no ambiguity of purpose. Candidates standing on a de facto referendum platform would not be seeking election to participate in the ordinary machinery of Westminster politics, nor to quietly take their place on the green benches of the British Establishment.

If Westminster dismissed the very concept of a de facto referendum and continued to refuse to outline the legitimate constitutional route by which a nation of the United Kingdom could democratically choose to leave the Union, what then?

Would Scotland simply accept the will of Westminster, with a nation’s elected representatives boarding trains to London and carrying on as before?

Or would the time have come to draw a line in the constitutional sand?

At what point does participation in a system cease to be democracy and become merely the performance of consent?

Would the time have come for Scotland’s MPs to stop lending legitimacy to a Parliament that refuses to hear them?

A complete Westminster boycott would be a dramatic step. But it would also be a clear one.

Scotland’s elected representatives would be saying that they no longer consent to participate in the day-to-day business of a Parliament that refuses to recognise Scotland’s democratic mandate.

That day may be approaching much faster than many realise. And every supporter of Scottish independence — whether an elected official, a party member, or simply an ordinary citizen — may soon have to begin preparing for that possibility now, not after the moment arrives, but well before it reaches that point.

If that moment is approaching, then those seeking selection as pro-independence candidates at the next UK general election must also begin treating that possibility seriously now. Not after the campaign begins, not after Westminster refuses once again to listen, but before the constitutional confrontation arrives.

Any candidate asking to represent the independence movement in a future de facto referendum election should understand the moral weight of what they are seeking.

They may soon be asking the Scottish electorate not merely for votes, but for a democratic mandate whose consequences they must be prepared to uphold.

Whether comfortable with that responsibility or not, preparation can no longer be postponed.

Sinn Féin has long shown the way — its MPs refuse to take the oath to the Crown, do not collect Westminster salaries, yet still serve their constituents. Offices, staff and community surgeries remain fully funded under parliamentary expense rules designed for representation, not attendance.

Their absence is not neglect; it is principle.

For the SNP, a complete Westminster boycott would carry the same message — that Scotland no longer consents to be ruled by a Parliament it did not elect.

But a Westminster boycott would not mean abandoning constituents.

Constituents would still be represented by the MPs they elected. Each MP’s local office would remain open and financed through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which pays for staff, rent and community work. Voters would continue to receive help, advice and advocacy — just without the daily pantomime on the green benches.

There would, of course, be fierce criticism from much of the British political and media establishment. Yet constituents would still be represented — and represented well.

Partial gestures would not do. A symbolic walkout for the television cameras, only to return to the green benches the next day, would change nothing. Only a united, full withdrawal could make the world sit up and take notice, potentially forcing renewed international scrutiny of Scotland’s constitutional status and the democratic legitimacy of the Union.

As for income, MPs who abstain would voluntarily forfeit their £100,000 Westminster salary but would not be left unable to serve. Westminster already permits members to hold multiple outside roles and sources of income. The SNP itself could establish a modest internal stipend — as Sinn Féin does — ensuring participation is open to ordinary people, not only the independently wealthy.

Public service should never depend upon London’s pay cheques.

A collective boycott would send a signal that could not be ignored. It would be reported from Edinburgh to Edmonton, from Wishaw to Washington — a peaceful, democratic act of disobedience declaring that Scotland’s consent has been withdrawn.

The world would understand that Scotland’s elected representatives had stopped pretending this union is voluntary.

Of course, it would face pushback. Some MPs would fear the optics or the financial sacrifice. Others would argue that absence equals silence.

Yet true silence comes from staying in a room where no one listens.

The courage to walk out together would speak louder than any speech ever could.

Such a move would be bold, disciplined and deeply symbolic: Scotland’s representatives refusing to legitimise a system designed to silence them. It would prove that the machinery of Scottish democracy — constituency offices, local advocacy and public service — can function independently of Westminster.

It would not be retreat.

It would be the moment Scotland stood up — by sitting out.

Mark E Saunders, 18th May 2026

Help Talking-up Scotland keep goin

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