The Scottish Government urgently needs a bold and radical approach to achieving Independence in spite of the firm London veto on a referendum. It is plain that there is no plan at present.
The Scottish Parliament has a pro-Independence majority and government. This is how to achieve Independence consistent with international law and practice.
1) Set a Date for Independence
The First Minister should write to the Prime Minister informing him that a referendum is preferred, but if there is no prior referendum then he will invite the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence on a specified date (I suggest 14 September 2029).
State that an Independent Scotland will then hold a confirmatory plebiscite in February 2030.
2) Canvass the International Community and Tee Up a UN General Assembly Vote
Independence is not primarily a matter of domestic law. It is existence as a state recognised by other international states. What actually makes you a state is not any domestic act, but recognition by other states, expressed formally through recognition by the UN General Assembly and obtaining a seat at the United Nations.
As part of a team from Liberation Scotland and Salvo, I have been lobbying diplomatic missions of the UN to this end for 18 months now. We have found enormous support for Scottish Independence and literally no outright hostility. What we have repeatedly met is astonishment that the Scottish government and/or the governing party the SNP, has made no effort to carry the case to the international community.
At the time of writing to the Prime Minister, the First Minister should write to the Foreign Ministers of all UN states and say the following:
- The Scottish Government will invite its majority in the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence on 14 September 2029.
- Scotland is a clear nation state which existed as a fully independent nation state for over 700 years, with all the formal features of a state including extensive diplomatic relations with other states. It has a clear and uncontested border with England.
- The Scottish Government now wishes to recover the Sovereignty of the nation through the abrogation of the Treaty of Union of 1707. A supposed voluntary union can by definition be dissolved. The self-determination of peoples is an inalienable Charter right.
- The Scottish Parliament is democratically elected. A referendum would have been preferred but the UK government refuses to agree to one, because it knows there has been a consistent pro-Independence majority for some time.
- Scotland is ready to play its full part as a member of the international community, joining the 15 European states that have gained or regained independence since 1990, and the 65 states that have gained independence from the United Kingdom.
- The Government of Scotland will establish clear control of its territory as of the date of Independence.
- Scotland will welcome the support of the international community in reclaiming its sovereignty, and requests assistance in obtaining a vote on recognition at the UN General Assembly in October 2030.
This should be followed up with extensive in-person lobbying of member states, at the UN and other international organisations, including but not limited to the Council of Europe, OSCE, BRICS, African Union and other regional organisations.
If the Courts block expenditure this activity can be carried on without public expense but with Scottish Government endorsement, or if that is blocked with SNP/Greens endorsement. Liberation and Salvo have already proved that other nations are prepared to engage with Scottish Independence representatives right up to senior Ambassadorial level. I have done it myself. Representatives from or credentialed by Scotland’s governing parties will be still better received.
3) Planning to Secure Scotland
There needs to be a strategy in place for carrying through the Independence declaration. The single most important criterion that states take into account in deciding whether to accord recognition of a state, is whether its government actually has de facto control of its territory.
This is where Catalonia failed. Its referendum was disrupted by brutality to which it had no answer. Scots must be prepared to stand for Scotland.
Advance preparation must be needed for the following, to be immediately implemented on declaring independence:
1) Oaths of allegiance.
On Independence all public servants must immediately be asked to sign oaths of allegiance to the government and community of Scotland, renouncing any previous allegiance. The alternative is immediate suspension during a two-week grace period to reconsider pending dismissal.
The allegiance to Scotland of public servants is essential, particularly those involved in law enforcement. Judiciary, police and security services are of the highest importance. All national civil servants, whether employed by the UK or Scottish governments, should also be required to take the oath.
2) Establishment of central bank accounts.
The Inland Revenue is already established separately in Scotland and should be instructed to pay all revenue, both personal and corporate, into Scotland’s accounts. Other revenue-collecting departments, principally customs and excise, should act similarly with all necessary arrangements planned in advance.
3) Institution of Key Ministries
Establish embryo Defence, Foreign and Home Affairs ministries with prepared key personnel.
4) Institutional Arrangements for Cross Border Public Bodies
Devolution has limited the number of cross-border regulatory and other bodies with authority in Scotland, but any UK ones should be told immediately they no longer have authority in Scotland and need urgently to identify their Scottish operations for full autonomy in cooperation with the Scottish government.
5) Physical Control of Public Buildings
This needs to be a popular movement to regain Independence. The people should be mobilised to take physical control of all UK government buildings in Scotland, and of key institutions like the law courts and the BBC, to guard against any attempt at physical retention by unionist holdouts.
6) Blockading of the armed forces
Scottish units should be asked to take the new Oath of Allegiance. In the immediate term to avoid any repeat of tanks in George Square, military establishments containing troops not loyal to Scotland should be subject to peaceful and friendly civilian blockade, not allowing armed forces to leave base with their weapons.
It is worth a side note that Independence support is strongest in what we historians call the fencible section of the population: where indeed it is overwhelming. The Scottish government has three years to prepare this activity: again legal challenges may mean some work has to be done outside Government structures. There is no shortage of ability or willingness in the SNP itself and the Independence movement, if the Scottish Government will seek to collaborate rather than to exclude.
Effect of This Approach
There is currently no pressure whatsoever on Andy Burnham to agree to a referendum, and every sign that the Scottish Government are content to pick up their pay checks for another five years, having pulled up their armchairs comfortably to the referendum roadblock.
By announcing a date for a declaration of Independence if there is no referendum, immediate pressure would be put on Burnham to avert a constitutional crisis and a situation with potential to turn violent.
Burnham would be in a politically very weak position – all he is being asked for to avert this serious crisis is a democratic vote. There is no compelling reason to refuse the democratic vote other than naked retention of power over Scotland, but nothing is being done to highlight the issue and make it important.
Lobbying which will bring a focus on Scotland’s national status and the denial of the right to self-determination will also be very uncomfortable for the UK internationally. The UK is very unpopular, not least over Gaza. Breaking up the UK as a means for opening up UN reform and the membership of the security council P5 is very desirable to much of the world. Scotland also benefits from a widespread international understanding and sympathy that it has done remarkably little to exploit.
The British government position is internationally indefensible – not least because it is the opposite of the position the British government has adopted in relation to the rest of the world.
These quotes are from the British government’s intervention before the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo hearings:
“In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor State’s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.”
And the still stronger formulation:
“Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State.”
Every Scottish nationalist should have these British government quotes hardwired into their brain. The British government argues one position abroad and a different position at home.
Being Serious About Independence
It is a logical impossibility to believe both that Scotland is a nation with the right of self-determination, and that Independence requires permission from London. The Scottish government’s attempt to hold both these incompatible positions has resulted in its current impotence.
The only way to make progress is to make plain to Andy Burnham that a straight veto of democracy and the rights of the Scottish nation will not be accepted. Ultimately Scotland will take its Independence – preferably with London’s cooperation, but if necessary without it.
Let me put it this way. If, in the end game, you are not prepared to stand unarmed in front of a British army tank to achieve Independence, you are not actually a supporter of Scottish Independence at all.
————————————————————————————-
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse my work, including in translation.
My work has no funding at all except for your subscriptions. If you already, subscribe I would be grateful if you could check if your subscription is still active. Over 80% of my subscriptions lapse when debit or credit cards expire: the systems do not warn you.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up additional new methods of subscription payment including Patreon account and a Substack account ; if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish, subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come to this blog and read the articles for free.
I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
I understand the emotional desire for independence, but the case for Scotland’s economic future outside the UK has never really been made.
It has little hope of joining the EU as key members have their own secessionist problems – eg Catalonia. A minor state dependent mainly on tourism and some mineral extraction with persistent fiscal and trade deficits is going to find it very cold on the outside.
The second is the currency (and share of UK debt). An independent currency not pegged to another will necessitate borrowing in a hard currency. For a country with a fiscal and trade deficit, this is a time bomb. Pegging to another or retaining sterling merely creates a different version of the same problem – the only currency unions to endure are either with a micro state (like a Caribbean island) or supported by very large transfer payments to provide a balance against circumstances when the central monetary policy does not suit a partner (in effect what happens between UK regions or US states).
I do appreciate that an accusation of economic lunacy is not a sufficient deterrent to those voting with their hearts, but I would appreciate Craig articulated the counter arguments as opposed to discussing how to occupy BBC Scotland’s studios.
Do you know how many nations get by without being ruled by genocidal, self-serving mediocrities in London SW1? If you’re Scottish, have some self-respect.
“Do you know how many nations get by without being ruled by genocidal, self-serving mediocrities in London SW1?”
Remove the last three words in that question and the answer is damn’ few.
It’s not normal to scorn national independence and confect endless justifications for rule by the English zog.
Zoot
Your “response” to Stewart Cazier’s excellent and serious post was oafish.
At least you’re still true to form.
Why do you not discuss, rather than dribbling out ‘The Lifeboat News Boardhost’-type quiplets?
I think you’re a regular on ‘The Lifeboat News Boardhost’ – your style seems familiar.
And, by the way, you need to brush up your syntax – cf Bayard’s comment.
Have a nice evening!
I’ve never heard of this Lifeboat place but have seen endless incarnations of ‘Wilson’, ‘Melrose’, ‘Luis de Cunha’, etc. A big fan of Israel, Mountbatten and Trump’s starvation of Cuba if I remember correctly.
” oafish ” lol, check Lord Snooty there. Aye, that Zoot fellow, such a cad, is he not? And so careless, nay, reckless in syntactical exactitude. Such a shame we no longer have our Antipodean Colonies; he would be Botany Bay-bound before you could say ” Hurrah for the Empire ”
” have a nice evening( gratuitous exclamation mark here ) ”
Thanks for the laugh, ” Wilson “
” the case for Scotland’s economic future outside the UK has never really been made.”
Here’s what I got from a brief AI enquiry:
* Beginning of AI response*
Craig Murray’s economic view combines a critique of UK financial accounting with an international framework for resource control.
* The Unanswerable Case (2019): Argues that official UK data (GERS) is manipulated to artificially distort Scotland’s fiscal position by misallocating revenue and expenditure.
* Liberation Scotland (2025): Focuses on physical assets, claiming Scotland is economically exploited by London and that control over energy and natural resources is key to viability.
* I Have Joined Your Party (2025): Outlines an eco-socialist economic model for an independent Scotland, targeting unfair tax structures and corporate, financial, and landlord power.
* The True Meaning of Being Scottish (2014): Argues that sovereign control over physical resources matters more than mainstream debates about currency, rejecting “fear-based” economic narratives.
These essays represent a comprehensive, though non-linear, argument for independence, which you can find by searching the titles on his blog.
* End of AI response *
That is a Better Together myth. S&P did a report which you can see a summary of here:
https://www.reservebank.scot/economic-assessment
Somewhere I have a bookmark to a link to wayback for the actual 2014 report, but you can get a more recent report here:
https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/3476747
“The Scottish Government Assigned ‘AA’ Rating; Outlook Stable”
Note for instance: “We think that Scotland’s economy is strong, with high GDP per capita in an international comparison.”
It does have disclaimers like: “We could also lower the rating if Scotland took material steps toward independence from the U.K.” as is normal for any balanced analysis.
BUT note carefully the use of the word “could“, implying also “might not”. THAT would depend on the fiscal prudence of any incoming government – same as for every country in the world that has a government of some sort.
Scotland is often compared to New Zealand:
“Moody’s Aaa Negative, DBRS AAA Stable, S&P AA+ Stable“.
I could live with that – and so could investors.
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/rating
“Fiscal prudence”? That’s when the rulers get their jackboots on, right?
When there’s a shakeup there are opportunities and the ratings agencies and the markets both reflect that. Opportunities include the opportunity to lower the standard of living of much of the population…also known as “prudence”, “structural adjustment”, “austerity”, etc.
I am absolutely not going to vote for prudence. Prudence is the opposite of a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the rest of us.
Fiscal prudence as in the Government not borrowing more than it can afford, and NOT underwriting casino banking. Think “The Pru”!
And banks. Limited or no LOLR.
” economic lunacy ” what!! have you seen the state of the UK Economy – the real state, not the Panglossian fiction related by whichever branch of the Uniparty is in power. Have you registered the lunacy of Scotland being to all extents and purposes self-sufficient in energy production yet paying the highest domestic energy costs in the UK; the latter itself the highest in Europe and up there in Global terms?
All this ” too poor ” garbage has been repeatedly rebutted but still gets trotted-out robotically by naysayers.
Imagine actually thinking Scotland is better off tethered to the the sick animal of England-as-Britain even at this late stage. FFS that must require some complex mental gymnastics to pull-off
Scotland being to all extents and purposes self-sufficient in energy production
Err, since Grangemouth closed last year Scotland has to import all of its finished oil products: petrol, diesel, kerosene, jet fuel, LPG etc. Natural gas is imported from Norway (47%) and England.
Whilst the future might be EVs and heat pumps oil products are going to remain vital for some years yet.
“the future might be EVs”
No way will there ever be EVs on the roads numbering as many vehicles as there are as present.
Err….I was referring to the sources of energy in Scotland, not the utterly ridiculous way in which that energy is distributed.
The closure of Grangemouth is just another instance of Scotland’s * quasi * – colonial status. How utterly absurd is it that the oil that is produced in the North Sea, ie Scotland can not even be allowed to be processed in the country that produces it. How, also, indicative of the truly pathetic state of the so-called ” Party of Scottish Independence ” that it submitted to that outrage with no so much as peep of protest.
Stewart, it’s not an emotional desire, though.
It is completely illogical to have people in another country who can’t and won’t prioritise Scotland’s wants or needs, making decisions for us.
Unfortunately, you fall into the trap of many other people who have only thought about Scottish self determination through the prism of a Unionist.
The idea that Scotland can’t afford to make our own decisions is ridiculous. This nonsense that somehow sovereignty and the national debt are intertwined is incredibly shallow thinking. Unfortunately, it does seem to be a rather common trait among Unionists.
I don’t mean to be disparaging, merely that the hypocritical argument you deploy would demand that many countries, worldwide would need to be stripped of their sovereignty as their debts would meet your imaginary threshold for the next door neighbours making all their decisions for them.
So in summary, Stewart, it is exactly the opposite of your position. The British State is the emotional comfort blanket of the Unionists while self determination is the logical choice of a country that wishes to put their own interests first.
Hi Eamon ( sorry if that spelling of yr name is incorrect ). Good to hear from you again. Hope all’s well yr end 🙂
Hi Robert,
All is well, I had spotted this article earlier but just got round to reading it this morning, read the comments and have seen that the Unionists are still deploying the same argument they used 250 years ago with the Americans. Some things never change.
Do you have a throwaway email, by chance?
Indeed, just the usual variants on ” too poor, too small, too stupid ” – actually, in some cases exactly the same as we’ve heard for years . Noticeable that the article has motivated some new names to comment here, the majority of them naysayers. Though the meltdown occasioned by Craig’s piece has been even funnier/hysterical amid the imbibers of SNP Kool Aid & attendant ” WM must ALLOW us another Referendum ” believers in Brit Demockracy supplicants.
Doesn’t matter how often anyone points out that the Brit State ” must ” do nothing of the kind, it can keep saying ” beat it ” as long as it wants – and will: neither will it be swayed to do so by the constant performative bleating of Swinney or whatever joker replaces him – likely to be that other baldy dope – Flynn in a Jock version of the Starmer to Burnham legerdemain new package same shit deal.
I don’t have a throwaway email but our mutual friend a certain Brutha from anutha Hood named Ian, if you get my drift, has my only one: if you have contact with him you could get it that way.
I’d just like to point out the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise were merged by Gordon Brown in 2005 into HM Revenue & Customs so it looks a bit out of touch to suggest they are under separate control.
I posted this on SGP but no idea even if it will appear, so yrtis.
UDI by the Scottish Government in 2029 can not happen democratically currently, as neither the SNP nor the Greens had it in their 2026 Holyrood election manifesto – unless they change their manifesto to specifically state it for the 2029 UK General Election. Something like Sinn Féin in 1918:
“Sinn Féin gives Ireland the opportunity of vindicating her honour and pursuing with renewed confidence the path of national salvation by rallying to the flag of the Irish Republic.
Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of that Republic.
1. By withdrawing the Irish Representation from the British Parliament and by denying the right and opposing the will of the British Government or any other foreign Government to legislate for Ireland.
2. By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.
3. By the establishment of a constituent assembly comprising persons chosen by Irish constituencies as the supreme national authority to speak and act in the name of the Irish people, and to develop Ireland’s social, political and industrial life, for the welfare of the whole people of Ireland.
4. By appealing to the Peace Conference for the establishment of Ireland as an Independent Nation. At that conference the future of the Nations of the world will be settled on the principle of government by consent of the governed. Ireland’s claim to the application of that principle in her favour is not based on any accidental situation arising from the war. It is older than many if not all of the present belligerents. It is based on our unbroken tradition of nationhood, on a unity in a national name which has never been challenged, on our possession of a distinctive national culture and social order, on the moral courage and dignity of our people in the face of alien aggression, on the fact that in nearly every generation, and five times within the past 120 years our people have challenged in arms the right of England to rule this country. On these incontrovertible facts is based the claim that our people have beyond question established the right to be accorded all the power of a free nation.”
https://celt.ucc.ie/published/E900009/index.html
and click on “The text” on the LHS.
The problem is, that unlike Ireland, so far this century, the general public of Scotland have not been attacked, and women and children have not been falsely kidnapped and imprisoned in the likes of Wales. Which totally enraged much of the population of Ireland.
The Easter Rising itself had little support.
The Easter Rising if anything is surely an example of how not to do it.
One could easily imagine a scenario in which Scottish loyalists (not goons recruited down south) took on the role of the Black and Tans.
Yes, the only reason it ultimately worked is the stupidity of the British who reacted with the thalamus not the cortex, and went in and killed people.
Brian.
What do you think is going to happen when we declare UDI – do you think Westminster will just shrug its shoulders and say okay – its gonna get ugly, and Scots need to be ready to man the barriers when the time comes – violence is inevitable, England has been draining Scotland resources and it needs them – its not going to give up Scotland without a fight – of course they’ll be Scottish traitors willing to fight for the foreign country of England against their ain folk, restoring our sovereignty will come at a cost, a cost worth paying.
The Scottish loyalists won’t see themselves though as fighting for England. Ireland may play a larger part than England does in their “thinking”. In this scenario the rUK government will be somewhat f***ed.
Brian.
Once UDI is declared its going to get very ugly, I wouldn’t put it past Westminster to draft in the SAS/SBS or some Ukrainian mercenaries, they are already causing havoc around the globe as mercenaries – the primary goal must be defence, Scots can declare what they want to declare, but if you cannot defend it then it means nothing, in to day’s lawless global climate, instigated mainly by the West – defending what you have is a must.
RoS, I imagine that after a UDI much the same playbook would be followed as when Rhodesia went down that route. In the case of Scotland though in addition to sanctions and embargoes there would be performative “administrative difficulties” in the movement of capital, people and goods. All these contrivances designed to cause doubt.
There would a critical period between the declaration itself and the subsequent confirmatory referendum. Personally I don’t think there should be unseemly haste in the matter of a “confirmatory referendum”. If I’m pressed for a more specific timing, I think it should be more in the order of a “once in a generation” type timescale.
14 September 2029 is a Friday and therefore will be great for a few extremely rich individuals to make extremely large amounts of money from the upheaval in the financial markets. But 21 September 2029 will be even better because it’s triple witching day on the derivatives markets – as also was 14 September 2014, the date pencilled in by Alec Salmond, way back when.
Freemasons will love the “14” reference because of 1314, but…where money is involved, there are no flies on the eager and certain aspects of tradition can be dispensed with. (Cf. Judah Maccabee.)
Maybe they are upset that one of their chief House Jocks – Wood, is no longer on the payroll.
The English thieving outfit BP – is all but pulling out of Scotland’s North sea, the thieving English oil/gas company stole billions worth of revenue from Iran, and billions if not trillions from Scotland over its 60 odd years of theft of oil and gas from the North sea, BP has business interests throughout the world and all their offices/plants around the globe are safe house, or used as entry points for English security services personnel to enter a country.
All well and good, but there are two major caveats which remain unaddressed.
One is that popular support for independence must be decisive and consistent. Fifty percent plus one may be sufficient in a referendum, but the mechanism outlined here only works when backed broadly, across society, by an overwhelming majority. That condition is not currently met, not least because of the corrosive effect of the second caveat (below) and the resulting crisis of public confidence in Scottish institutions.
It is worth being clear that the actual threshold for “overwhelming support” is contextual, but the seceding government requires general recognition, from within Scotland, that it is indeed acting legitimately. Failing this the UK has no reason to act pragmatically and to withdraw its claim to exercise sovereignty. (Critically, sovereignty is inherent and is asserted. It is not a property which is somehow”transferred” between states. Both ministers and civil servants got this badly wrong in 2014, along with much of the rest of their shamefully amateurish and inept forward planning for a potential Yes victory. Had Yes prevailed, there can be little doubt that the subsequent negotiations would have proven disastrously disadvantageous for the newly independent state).
The second, and even more important, caveat is that devolved Scotland is effectively a failed state, run by a corrupt and self-serving political and institutional establishment which simply cannot be trusted to exercise additional powers in the wider public interest.
Independence in itself does nothing to address this core reality. Indeed, by removing any residual external scrutiny (by Westminster) it would open the doors even wider to the crooks, grifters, control freaks and incompetents who already infest every level of “democracy” and state institution in Scotland.
Independence does not, in short, magically turn Belarus into Norway. That can only be done at a much more fundamental level, through a process of internal reform, renewal and empowerment. The reality is that corruption and incompetence are now so entrenched in political society in Scotland (and have polluted wider civil society, not least through cooption and patronage) that no-one in their right mind should trust the current Scottish Government, or current Scottish institutions, including the Parliament, to successfully run a genuinely independent new state.
Until Scotland relearns the most basic principles of good governance and democratic government, and public institutions and elected representatives can be held properly to account, the independence movement is essentially wasting its time. Discussion of mechanisms to effect independence is similarly just pie in the sky.
The really bitter irony is that Scotland in the first decade of devolution actually felt much more credibly like a candidate new UN member. That aspiration, confidence and competence have been systematically deconstructed since 2014 by Sturgeon and her acolytes, aided and abetted by the rancid institutional apparatchiks who control most of Scottish public life.
One obvious solution would be to put the likes of Robin McAlpine, Craig Murray and Paul McManus in charge of an independent anti-corruption commission, empowered to root out all of the rampant malpractice, grifting, incompetence, authoritarianism and stupidity which collectively does so much day-to-day harm to people across the whole of Scottish society.
Sort that and we can then have a sensible conversation about independence. But how does any of that actually happen? The SNP and the rest of the Scottish political establishment are hardly going to agree. So, can “people power” force them to? That’s the real challenge the independence movement needs to address.
There is much to agree with in your comment, Gille; and some excellent suggestions, eg all of this…
” One obvious solution would be to put the likes of Robin McAlpine, Craig Murray and Paul McManus in charge of an independent anti-corruption commission, empowered to root out all of the rampant malpractice, grifting, incompetence, authoritarianism and stupidity which collectively does so much day-to-day harm to people across the whole of Scottish society.”
But I think it’s something of a cart-before-horse scenario. As far as I can see the only way Scotland’s governance can be improved is via Independence. The corruption and amateurish ( believe me, also embarrassing ) incompetence of the present ScotGov ( in a ‘ Monopoly ‘ Parliament using ‘ Monopoly ‘ money ) is a symptom of Scotland’s infantilisation resulting from being locked into totally one-side-favouring * Union * – no honest observer should be in doubt which side is the favoured one. This situation itself a product of an historical betrayal of the Scottish people by it’s then Ruling Class – some things never change, eh?
The idea that because of that disgraceful historical sell-out Scotland has to just eternally accept it’s secondary status is, well, complete nonsense: I appreciate YOU are not making that assertion, but many are. Paradoxically, the only constant in life is change and because a situation has lasted, eg 300+ years does not grant it immutable status; if so, historical conditions like Slavery would still be extant.
Only one question is relevant to contextualise all the doubts, reservations and often arrogantly stated assertions regarding Scotland’s future……will Scotland be better off – in material, psychological & * spiritual * terms – with the status quo, or as an autonomous European Nation ( once again )? A casual glance at the state of rUK under WM rule removes any doubt the answer is the latter
I’m sorry but this plan is genuinely insane and won’t work.
At least it gets more people thinking and talking about the notion of UDI.
Which makes it more generally acceptable.
But is talking about UDI a wise way to spend energy when an effort could be made to win over the softer unionists?
Fair point. But currently UDI is not mainstream, so it’s “fringes” who are talking about it – the more the merrier.
Doesn’t mean we can’t try to win over the undecided and soft NOes, and if they hear about and ask about the possibility of UDI, tell them it’s a last resort only with previous acceptance via e.g. an election, since Westminster is continually denying Scotland the right to self-determination.
“Westminster is continually denying Scotland the right to self-determination.”
Not only is this untrue (witness the referendum of 2014), but there is a failure here to respect the democratic wishes of the voters in Scotland, to remain in the UK, as expressed in that referendum. You didn’t like the result, so you look for ways to undo it. Not a very democratic thing to do, and does it not augur badly for what could happen if your party ever gained power? ‘The voters won’t support this policy of ours, so we’ll have to have a wee private chat with them, so they’ll learn to have proper respect for the Dear Leader, and there’ll be no-one from London to stop us. Ha ha!’ No wonder the sensible voters of Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014!
Unless specifically agreed to by a Nation, the right to self-determination does not disappear with one referendum, unless it in itself specifically asks that question. The question was not “Do you want to remain part of the UK for ever and ever?”, the question was: “Should Scotland be an Independent Country”. The reply by a 55% majority was: “NO”.
Since then the Scottish Government have asked for a Section 30 for another referendum, and the reply has been “NO”. That continues to this day, and THAT is indeed, Westminster “continually denying Scotland the right to self-determination”.
I am not a member of any party, I was for 3 years from 2014 in which time my branch debated Independence – never – despite my best efforts to get it on the agenda.
Self-determination is an inalienable right in International Law for a People – and even the UKSC carefully skirted around that in the LA Reference judgement.
Meanwhile we are still part of the UK – the NOes had it at that time in 2014. Next time, hopefully, will be different
A Scottish UDI is stupid and backward and wouldn’t be accepted globally. It’s suicidal.
What’s literally suicidal is Scotland being tied to the insane warmongers of the British Sate as it hurtles towards the Extinction Event of all-out war with Russia – which will inevitably draw-in China and the UK’s unhinged puppet-master – the U.S of Zion
Are your knees not getting sore with all that kneeling, G-Man?
“What’s literally suicidal is Scotland being tied to the insane warmongers of the British Sate”
Scotland will have plenty of insane warmongers of its own so how can you prevent Scotland from following the same path? MI6 would still be busy in Scotland after ‘independence’.
Yes, agreed, ” Scotland will have plenty of warmongers….” – as it does currently, not least, and shamefully, the present ScotGov, which has fallen into obedient lockstep with the demented ” MAD VlAD IS UNDER YR BED, IN YR TEA & YR MAW’S DRAWERS- AAAARRRGGGHHH! ” narrative-4-numpties.
Agree too that MI6 will ” still be busy in Scotland……” but as your use of the word ” still ” confirms, that mob of Deep State Austin Powers meets George Smiley down a lane in Soho goons are presently busy in Scotland.
The ability to get them the-fuck out of our country must be strengthened by Independence, surely? I say, undoubtedly
Gregor McIntosh
There was no union, and it been proven at the UN, Salvo/Liberations case is iron clad, why do you think the English government never contested it, they sent three Mi5 agents disguised as BBC reporters to cover Salvo’s/Liberation case at the UN – the majority of the world’s nations would recognise Scotland restoring its sovereignty, especially the Global South, that knows fine well what colonialism is, UDI it is.
Scotland is already a country, it has been a sovereign nation for centuries, it older than England, we’re not breakaway away from a state – we are restoring what was and has also been there, our sovereignty.- Scotland’s is quite a unique case, all the levers of sovereignty are there – they just need to be reactivated.
Very Well Said Craig..I’m Sick of SNP’s Useless Dormancy.. And I wonder if London will send our oil back cheaply after The Two Gulf Straits being closed takes effect.
And The Mind just Boggles that the last first minister got all her information from the Brittsh medida.. But She’s just joking about that ..Right.. Jeeze –
“There is lots of differences between the movements for Scottish independence and Irish unity, but there are also lots of parallels.
“It took me a while to understand the parallels fully as I was consuming my politics on Ireland through British media.”
Former First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon speaking at Féile an Phobail
That’s Sturgeon trying-on her new persona of ” Serious Stateman ” – y’know like Blair. The vanity is off-the-scale, again, like Blair’s
This is a woman – or as she might say…” a birthing person ” who was handed a literally once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fulfil the raison d’etre of the Party she was leader of, ie Brexit; an energised, up-for-it Pro-Independence Movement ready to continue the momentum generated by the Independence Campaign – despite losing that Referendum; AND a procession of the feeblest, paperweight PMs in the modern age – Cameron; May, the ludicrous buffoon Johnson, Richie Rich Sunak then Gormless and she squandered all of it to fashion herself as the Queen of * Progressive * Politics, batting her eyelids for the approval of wretches like Hilarious Clinton and the coterie of MSM Union-Supporting gabblers like K Wark, S Smith and any of the other middle class fembots she considered more important than the people who put her where she was.
All the while monomaniacally promoting totally idiotic, divisive agendas like ” Trans ” ” Right “, resulting in the national embarrassment of the Men in Women’s Prisons fiasco and in the hastily panicked end leaving a trail of carnage behind her that will take decades to repair and which has dealt a crushing injury the cause of Independence she now has the gall to be pontificating about, this after not progressing that cause by one iota – the polls have swayed between approx 49 to 52 % for YES since 2015 when she became FM
How long before we see the creation of a Nicola Sturgeon Institute For Failing Upward ( esteemed patron HMK )?
She’s sick joke and had a grain of self-awareness she should just fuck-off out of public view, forever: but she doesn’t and she won’t
Craig is a great man. He has a huge intellect. I wish he would apply it to something less pointless and narrow-minded than Scottish separatism.
He is putting that ” huge intellect ” to the noblest cause imaginable ( not by you, obviously ) – the Liberation of his Nation.
” pointless ” ahahaha: to whom, you? ah well, you needn’t concern yourself with the issue then, huh?
Cheers for your own display of ” huge intellect ” Grhm – ooops looks like you’ve dropped your vowels somewhere
Craig I agree with what you say and how it needs to be done. The real problem is the SNP, the leadership will not progress Independence but will use every trick in the book even old ones to con people into voting for the SNP again just to stop progress on Independence.
Even if Independence was achieved and the UKG agreed to a referendum the problem after Independence would be the SNP.
The only alternative is a completely different party to the SNP and the only party is ISP, I would trust ATLS who’s only goal is to work with the SNP to what end.
I actually believe that people who have wanted Independence all their life’s would be turned of knowing that after Independence we’d be run by the SNP would be turned off voting for Independence.
All the problems lead directly to the SNP and the leadership of the SNP isn’t going to give up what it has unless its forced out of power.
Unless Salvo has got anywhere at the UN-C24 I can’t see Scotland being Independent for another 15 yrs but it won’t be the SNP it’ll be another entity who’ll obtain it.
The SNP is already at the con with the Westminster election, with idea of a hung parliament. All the Unionist party’s would work together to stop Scotland leaving and the SNP knows this.
Just under 25% of Scotland’s adult population are retired
10% of Scotland’s adult population are in further education
5% of Scotland’s adult population are unemployed
& just under 25% are employed in the public sector.
That leaves 35% creating the wealth, and a big chunk of them are in the service sector.
I don’t think Scotland is quite ready for independence, we are in no fit state to compete in the world thanks to 75 years of incompetent government and forcing our brightest and best to leave.
We are certainly not ready for independence if you look at the talent in Holyrood.
wally jumblatt
According to Professor Alf Baird, England – just England, (not including other nations, like France or Norway or Denmark, who make huge profits from windfarms in Scotland, then there’s the USA’s plunder) steals around £250 billion per annum from Scotland and that’s what we know about, they’ll surely be stuff we don’t know about as well, anyway this converts to jobs, hospitals, schools, renewing or building infrastructure, and providing other services to the public which is currently being stolen by Westminster, which has a direct affect on the population – this is what colonialism is all about asset stripping and stealing another nations wealth.
Oh and its not independence, its restoration of our sovereignty that we seek – it has always been there, we just need to take it back.
The figure of £250 billion looked suspiciously round, and reminded me of Boris Johnson’s claims during the Brexit referendum about what the EU cost the NHS.
In fact, as I understand, Scotland generates around £92 billion in fiscal revenue annually, while total public spending for Scotland’s benefit is around £117 billion. The fiscal gap, £25 billion is made up for by the fact that because Scotland is part of the UK, it does not need to borrow independently to fund this gap. Instead, wealth is redistributed across the union.
For which, let Scottish Nationalists be duly thankful, and cease seditious murmuring. 😁
I said around £250 billion, but it’s likely more not less, Scotland can’t run a deficit, for we don’t control our assets to do so.
@ Republicofscotland August 2, 2026 at 11:30
“MJ @11.11 You really do take me for a fool don’t you, like some other Scots, in the know – I’ve had it with figures …”
You need to calm down a bit Republic, no point in getting abusive, is there. Calm down and enjoy the drink of your choice (I just made a mug of Nescafe Alta Rica instant myself) and maybe we can continue the conversation another time.
GERS includes “Spending on behalf of Scotland by UK Government” or some such, but doesn’t summarise this. From a quick google:
“The total Scottish Government budget for 2024–25 was set at £59.7 billion initially, with the final outturn expenditure reported at £59.5 billion.”
which leaves £117 billion – £60 billion = £57 billion unaccounted in the summary. If all of this was under the control of the UK Government, and includes defence, foreign affairs, the Treasury , much of Whitehall, various HQs in England not Scotland, for the sakes of a figure take £30 billion spend in England or the rUK NOT Scotland.
Government money spent in an economy accrues revenues in a repetitive fashion. Say in total this is 60% (or more), that gives £18 billion revenues that should be attributed to Scotland – but aren’t.
Voila, bang goes most of the “notional deficit” of £25 billion leaves £7 billion.
With total GDP of £230 billion in 2025, that notional deficit represents 3.05% of GDP – just about the EU recommended deficit. Personally I think 5% well spent is good for avoiding economic stagnation, but hey, bankers are you know what.
The key to answering this may be the “Who benefits” Principle.
AI response: “The £57 billion isn’t unaccounted for; it represents the massive footprint of the UK welfare state and national debt servicing in Scotland. The State Pension alone accounts for billions paid directly to Scottish retirees. GERS uses a ‘who benefits’ standard. Deducting £30 billion simply because an army base or a civil service building is located in England ignores the fact that those entities protect Scottish borders and service Scottish infrastructure. If Scotland didn’t pay its share of a shared UK defence force or foreign embassy network, an independent Scotland would have to spend equivalent billions to build its own from scratch.”
Here’s an article on how the GERS report is compiled.
MJ.
Sorry but that’s all bollocks – you know and I know it, anyway if Scotland were such the basket case you make it out to be – England would’ve dumped it decades ago – no England cannot afford to let Scotland go that’s why there’s been decades of lies and deceit, its patently obvious why broadcasting isn’t devolved the utter refusal to entertain another indyref, even though NI retains the right to hold one every seven years, we both know that Scotland must be kept like the golden goose to be asset stripped, and to have a good deep water port to house English nuclear subs and nukes, you can produce all the trumped up figures you like, here’s one for you Westminster used to release the figures of what Scotland contributed to the so called “union” and what it got back in return, it stopped doing that in the 1950’s I think (could be earlier) because they showed Scotland contributing far way more than it ever got in return.
That misses the point completely, that money spent in Whitehall or the House of Commons, or in the FCO buildings in England, or the Treasury accrues taxation revenue for the UK, but is NOT attributed to Scotland. Whose benefit it is for IS attributed to Scotland.
Therefore we get debited for one side of the profit and loss account, but not credited for the other.
So, as I said, “£18 billion revenues that should be attributed to Scotland – but aren’t”.
“Government money spent in an economy accrues revenues in a repetitive fashion.”
Let’s try some “reductio ad absurdum” on that.
So if the government spends 100% of the economy on stuff, it all multiplies up and we’re all rich for doing nothing?
The magic money tree in action.
Ridiculous.
“So if the government spends 100% of the economy on stuff”
That’s a gross misrepresentation of what I said. And nothing to do with MMT at all, which isn’t currently possible by Scotland anyway as we don’t have control over currency.
By “the economy” I presume you mean the GDP (£230 billion), what I am saying is the revenues, specifically the £billions spent “on behalf of Scotland” by UK Gov, but not IN Scotland.
But you knew that 😉
@ Republicofscotland August 1, 2026 at 17:53
1. Scotland is not being “asset-stripped”; rather, it benefits immensely from the economic security of the UK. The Evidence: official Scottish Government GERS data. Scotland’s public spending per person is consistently higher than the UK average (via the Barnett Formula). The UK acts as a financial cushion, allowing Scotland to maintain high-quality public services without having to implement drastic tax hikes or severe austerity to cover its deficit.
2. The claim about 1950s secrecy is factually incorrect. The UK Treasury did produce an annual return called Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland, and Ireland), but this reporting actually stopped in 1921, not the 1950s. It was halted because Ireland left the United Kingdom, rendering the old three-kingdom reporting format obsolete.
In the modern Context, financial data is not hidden today. Since 1992, the Scottish Government itself compiles and publishes these figures annually in the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report. In today’s global economy, where Scotland’s largest and most vital trading market is, and always has been, the rest of the UK.
3. The Northern Ireland provision is part of the Good Friday Agreement—a unique international peace treaty designed to end decades of violent conflict. Scotland had a “once-in-a-generation” referendum in 2014, where the Scottish people decisively voted to remain in the UK, and constantly reopening the constitutional question creates economic instability that harms businesses and investment.
4. Scotland is not being used as a military base against its will. Faslane is a massive economic engine for the West of Scotland, supporting thousands of highly skilled local jobs and defense contracts. The nuclear deterrent protects the entire UK, including Scotland, and fulfills vital obligations to NATO allies.
@yesindyref2 August 1, 2026 at 16:55
The argument makes a valid point about accounting: Scotland is charged for services run from London, while London reaps the localized income tax benefits. However its main conclusion—that there is an uncounted £18 billion in Scottish revenue—is mathematically and economically flawed.
1. When civil servants are paid at the Treasury, the Foreign Office (FCDO), or Westminster in London, that money is physically spent in England. However, because those departments serve the whole UK, GERS allocates a population-share (roughly 8.2%) of that cost to Scotland. The civil servants working in London pay income tax and spend their wages in London shops (generating VAT). This tax revenue is credited to England, while Scotland is “debited” for its share of their operating costs.
2. The idea that Scotland is cheated out of the tax revenues generated by this UK-wide spending is incorrect for two reasons:
(a) The idea that that large companies headquartered in London pay all their taxes in England, even if they operate in Scotland, is a myth. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Scottish Government statisticians calculate Corporation Tax based on actual economic activity in Scotland, not where the company’s head office is located.
(b) The income tax and VAT generated by London-based civil servants working on Scotland’s behalf, are very small compared to the alleged £18 billion. The total cost of running the UK’s central administration (Whitehall) attributed to Scotland is roughly £300 million to £400 million. The tax revenue “lost” from that spend would only be a fraction of that amount (around £100 million)—nowhere near £18 billion.
3. The £18 billion figure comes from misinterpreting a different macroeconomic metric: the difference between Scotland’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and its Gross National Income (GNI). Independent economic institutes, such as the Fraser of Allander Institute, point out that while Scotland generates wealth (GDP) through assets like oil, gas, and whisky, some of those profits are extracted by non-Scottish multi-nationals or sent to the rest of the UK. However, this is an intrinsic feature of global capitalism and international corporate ownership, not a “Westminster accounting trick.” Becoming independent would not automatically redirect those global corporate profits into the Scottish public purse.
In sum, the actual “lost” tax revenue from Whitehall administration is relatively minor, and corporate taxes are already adjusted to reflect Scottish economic reality.
The UK is a successful family of nations with a shared history, culture, and future, and breaking it up would build unnecessary borders between friends, families, and businesses.
MJ @11.11
You really do take me for a fool don’t you, like some other Scots, in the know – I’ve had it with figures produced not just by GERS, but quotes from pro-colonialism lickspittles like yourself, who try and twist the truth around to make it appears as if it wasn’t for Westminster and the fake union Scotland would be worse off shit, I’ve really nothing more to say to you as its been well proven beyond doubt that Scotland is a nation that’s held as a colony and asset stripped – whilst Scots are fed the shite that we are in a union.
Excluding yourself, we know where you stand, (across the border) – any Scot that after seeing and reading all the info and truth about Scotland current position – if they still see England as our benevolent saviour, then they too are the enemy, of course as I said in a previous comment – a colonised mind is much harder to free than a colonised land.
Your point 1 accepts the thrust of my argument. Good.
Point 2a) is a total squirrel, I never claimed that “that large companies headquartered in London pay all their taxes in England, even if they operate in Scotland”. However, the spending of all those involved is in ENGLAND, not Scotland, working week food, drink, transport, housing, leisure, purchases – all generate revenue which is accounted in ENGLAND, not Scotland.
Point 2b – it’s not just their wages, it’s the facility management, repairs, heating, maintenance, security, rent, that are spent in ENGLAND not Scotland. And you didn’t mention the Ministers, committees, expenses, proportion of costs of the Houses of Parliament – all spent in ENGLAND not Scotland. Did I forget about the likes of Chatham House, part funded by the UK Government, and in ENGLAND, not Scotland? The FCO? HMRC – how much is left in Scotland after the relocation to Croydon which is in ENGLAND not Scotland? Get the drift?
3) is a 100% red herring – Gross National Income v GDP has absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, rien, nichts to do with the misapportionment of that £18 billion of Revenue to THE UK, not to Scotland who are charged for the expenditure even if it is not in Scotland.
That’s enough now, you’re going round in ever-decreasing spirals, shortly to drain yourself down the plug’ole!
“Ever heard of the CEGB”
Yes, used to work for one of its successor companies.
I *know* how electricity pricing and trading systems work, because I worked on them.
You don’t. Carry on bloviating you ignorant ideas if it makes you feel better, though.
What has “electricity pricing and trading systems” got to do with the misapportionment of that £18 billion of Revenue to THE UK, not to Scotland who are charged for the expenditure even if it is not in Scotland?
“England – just England, (not including other nations, like France or Norway or Denmark, who make huge profits from windfarms in Scotland”
The windfarms are owned by private companies of many different nationalities.
If they make profits that is only because they get subsidies via various mechanisms – Renewables Obligation, Contracts for Differences.
The tab for those subsidies is picked up by electricity consumers across Britain – so roughly 90% from England & Wales.
Energy matters are not devolved they are reserved to Westminster, besides a few poultry sums given in a token gesture to the Colonial admin at Holyrood – which have been given prior consent from London – Scotland is awash with energy sources, yet it controls none of them, and Scots pay through the nose for their energy because of this, I’d go as far to say that Scotland is self sufficient in energy, and England can buy it from Scotland in the future instead of stealing it under the guise of a union, which never existed to begin with.
The above is colonialism in action, its all about the theft of assets.
“Energy matters are not devolved they are reserved to Westminster”
Consents for new power stations are devolved. Relevance?
“Scots pay through the nose for their energy”
No, we do not. Scottish energy prices are around mid-table for GB. Everyone pays the same wholesale energy price, Scottish *consumers* actually pay the *lowest* transmission costs, but Scottish distribution costs are at the high end – due to lower population density which means energy moving longer distances at lower voltage. (There is actually a subsidy for the North of Scotland to reduce its distribution costs, paid for by consumers in the rest of GB. Did you know that?)
e5540 that’s a sweeping statement, and a quick look (it’s not my thing) says it’s a wrong sweeping statement – the detail is here for anybody who can be bothered:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/energy-price-cap-unit-rates-and-standing-charges
Considering the amount of energy generated in Scotland in comparison to the rest of the UK, and the hectares of our land used, one thing is totally for certain:
We are fleeced in Scotland by a UK-wide grid.
e5440
What’s this with the “we” you are a traitor to Scotland, if and its a big if, you are actually Scottish and living in Scotland and I’ll say it out loud, I don’t even need to search far online to find out that Scots pay through the nose for their energy with some of the highest price in Europe, when Scotland is swimming in energy sources, of course the colonial admin is like yourself treacherous to its core.
Oh and GB is an English concept – used frequently by House Jocks and those in England Wales and NI to describe the fake union, the only other time I’ve heard the GB word used in another sense is for the land mass, but we all know what it means when spoken by treacherous House Jocks.
yesindyref2
Well thanks for confirming what I said: mid-table. UK average 26.11 p/kWh, S Scotland (which is most of us) 25.85, N Scotland 26.42.
Highest price: N Wales and Mersey, 27.66.
“Fleeced by a GB national grid”? Nonsense. If it didn’t exist then very little of this renewable stuff would get built as it would not be able to get its product to a market.
But you have been selective in your reply, haven’t you?
As anyone can see if they check things like standing charge, and the prices for “Southern”. That N Wales and Mersey are fleeced for unit charge even more than we are, is little consolation to those struggling to pay bills in Scotland!
Selective how?
If you do the maths and combine the standing charge with typical household demand of 2500 kWh then you get the answer I already told you:
Scottish electriicity prices are middle of the range for GB. (BTW we use “GB” because it doesn’t include NI, where things work differently.)
So what’s your idea – cut off the interconnectors so loads of wind farms go idle and bust, and nobody ever invests in Scotland again?
You just repeated yourself without answering my comment itself.
But thanks for asking me “So what’s your idea”
Independence allows us to introduce “zonal pricing” with, of course, Scotland NOT having to subsidise rUK zones, in particular “Southern”. Zonal pricing is: “lower electricity prices in areas where supply far outstrips demand”.
But this could of course be done within the UK except the “Southern region” would turn on Labour complaining about losing the heavy subsidy from the rest of the UK. But that’s not my idea, it’s from the boss of Octopus and indeed, Ed Miliband until over-ruled:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/08/government-rules-out-zonal-pricing-and-starts-search-for-alternative-plan
I’m sure you’d agree that zonal pricing would be completely fair!
Independence allows us to introduce “zonal pricing”’
You are not listening or understanding.
That would indeed collapse the Scottish wholesale price. Which would just mean that the difference payments needed to fund the renewable projects would go up, leaving the retail price at the same level.
Of course there would be tens of millions in legal costs renegotiating all those contracts.
I used to work on this stuff in the electricity market. Where is your expertise from?
But that’s not my idea, it’s from the boss of Octopus
I am an Octopus customer and they seem to be OK.
But you’re citing the CEO of a private company as an unbiased source? Really?
I suspect Octopus have less exposure to long-term contracts and more on the wholesale spot market. So zonal pricing would benefit *them*. Not the Scottish consumer.
“I used to work on this stuff in the electricity market.”
Did you? Gosh oh golly, are you claiming yours is bigger than mine? Which means in the real world that you are accepting you lost the argument.
Ever heard of the CEGB ……..
“But you’re citing the CEO of …” actually, included Ed Miliband, but on the other hand, you are citing only yourself.
“I suspect Octopus have … ”
Goodness gracious, now you’re quoting suspicions!
I suspect you are wrong and you know it.
Don’t cry 🙁
So, to put together points about the usefulness of this article, which was reported in the National, and discussed on SGP:
1. At least it gets more people thinking and talking about the notion of UDI, which makes it more generally acceptable. Go back 10 years or even 5, and even talk of UDI in the Independence movement would have raised eyebrows, got tut-tutted, and had the “perpetrator” scorned, such as the comments made by some about Peter A Bell and his “Scottish UDI”.
2. Outside the Independence movement, i.e. the general uninvolved people of Scotland, it helps to introduce the idea of UDI – and get them thinking WHY it might be the only way to express our self-determination – i.e. the UK – the overall State – is denying Scotland the right to self-determination by not only refusing to co-operate with a referendum, but actively obstructing one. First May, then BoJo, then Truss, then Sunak, then Starmer, now Burnham – none of which can call themselve “Democrat”.
3. The UK State is in the position where it is supposed to facilitate elf-determination for the People of Scotland. It is clearly failing to do so. The more UDI is discussed openly in Scotland – and elsewhere – the more Internationally it will be known that another UDI might be on the way, with all the uncertainty that brings for international relations, globally to varying extents. Stability is mostly preferable to them.
4. It puts the UK Government and Parliament under increasing pressure. This should be to urgently discuss with the Scottish Government, permanent changes to the Scotland Act to remove restrictions on a Constitutional Referendum, or at the very least, a draft Section 30 for one – something which could at least be quicker.
I might “repurpose” my wordpress for the UDI thing. And I’d recommend the Indy movement as a whole to debate UDI as much as possible, including bloggers who might otherwise be averse – at the very least, that increasing debate puts increasing pressure on the UK Government, and helps Swinney to put pressure on – I am fully aware some people hate Swinney, but please, put Indy front and centre ahead of other beliefs or grudges about the SNP.
“elf-determination”
So we consult Elrond, Galadriel and Cirdan first?
Maybe Legolas?
Stop being so cordial to the likes of him/her/bot if he/her/bot is Scottish he/her a traitor, if not he/she/bot is spouting propaganda for our colonial oppressors, either way its the enemy.
It’s about hearts and minds, with Independence at the end of a very long tunnel which we may be coming to the end of at last. Daylight in sight and full steam ahead!
You seem to be a very angry person. Why is this? Seek help.
e5440
Angry yes, and with good reason – many Scots don’t realise what 300+ years of colonialism has done to the people of Scotland, 300 + years of lies, deceit, theft and mass murder to quell a nation of people into falsely believing they are in a union.
More Scots need to wake the f*ck up and get angry.
As Professor Alf Baird said, it will be much harder to decolonise Scottish minds than it will be to decolonise our lands.
yesindyref2
We’ll be declared a colony first, and the UN on colonised/oppressed people says they have a right bear arms to remove their oppressors, on your hearts and minds – you don’t even know who is behind that moniker – if you really want to try and change hearts and minds do it on the street/cafe/pub/shops etc with real Scots face to face, then you’ll know who you are talking to.
I talk with a lot of undecideds, soft and hard NOes. Mostly listen.
yesindyref2
And I’ll tell you another thing, most Scots don’t even know about the Claim of Right or that Scotland is going through a decolonisation process at the UN, simply because our colonial oppressors control the media, and its never mentioned, or that England had over 300 Cantonments at one point (army camps) spread across Scotland to quell any unrest – no most Scots are utterly ignorant to Scotland’s plight, because they don’t search for info on it, because they actually believe the long time lie that Scotland is in a union.
They go about their daily lives – blissfully unaware that a foreign nations government is stealing their children and grand-chiildren’s futures – by stealing our assets, and it will continue until we rise up and do something about it.
Back in 2015 I was strongly supportive of “Remain” (UK not to leave the EU). Nearly all of my online friends were Brexiters so naturally enough we had plenty of spirited and robust discussions.
I never felt I understood their position. My own feelings were based on economics and practicalities but theirs were based on more complex concepts like “Reclaim our Sovereignty” and “End the oppression of unelected Brussels bureaucrats”.
As we all know the UK did leave the EU but at the present time those same friends are not happy. They won, they got what they wanted, but they are unsatisfied. I am not sure what they really expected but they haven’t got it. Meanwhile the negative effects I predicted for myself have indeed come to pass with a generally more difficult experience when doing business with or travelling within the EU.
I have a sinking feeling that the pro-Independence for Scotland movement will fall into a similar trap. Pause, pretend that you are 30 years in the future with a successfully independent Scotland firmly in the rearview mirror, and ask yourself if it is still a good idea.
There’s no need to speculate and play Mystic Meg. You can ask billions of people right now, from a vast variety of nations, if they regret no longer being ruled by the English.
Contrast their answer with the answer supporters of the English ruling class expect to get.
No offence but yr moniker is a bit of a misnomer. By asking to project 30 years into the future and assume that a ” successfully independent Scotland….” would be something those who wanted it would then be regretful of getting is, well, * something * of a contradiction.
Why would anyone regret a successful independent Scotland? Maybe you mean the only success was the realisation of Independence, if so, what would be the grounds for assuming Scotland would be worse off in that scenario than with the status quo?
It is, of course, all speculation; neither I nor anyone else can claim the clairvoyance that would be required to accurately predict conditions a week, month or even a day in advance, let alone 30 years hence. The best we can do is deal in probabilities based on present conditions and LIKELY trends; even then, what’s ” likely ” today may become ” unlikely ” by tomorrow.
On those, admittedly tenuous, bases, I believe the probability of Scotland being in a better condition in 30 years time as an Independent Nation, than if the status quo prevails is high.
As Zoot says, below…….I paraphrase, there has never ( that I know of ) been an instance where a formerly colonised country has sought to return to that state ( of being colonised ) after having achieved it’s liberation; and this even if that country didn’t particularly thrive in it’s Post- Colonial state. That surely tells us something about the deeply imbedded desire – need – of peoples to have freedom from external – or otherwise – domination, even if that means the freedom to make their own mistakes
Of course it is your country so you must decide as you see fit. I was merely pointing out how the Brexiters failed properly to think through a very similar decision.
As an English man I too.would like to see the end the Union with the other countries and I offer my full support for Scottish independence.
“As an English man I too would like to see the end the Union with the other countries ”
That is your right. But would you then wish the borders between England and Wales, and also between England and Cornwall, to become international frontiers, albeit perhaps part of a “Common travel area” with Ireland?
And why stop there? Our current PM seems to be quite enthusiastic about regional devolution.
As Shakespeare might put it, “Why, this is very midsummer madness.” (Twelfth Night, Act 3, Scene 4, line 51). Understandable for early August with promised heat waves, I suppose.
Must it be pointed-out that Cornwall is not a Nation and Wales is? Just like Catalonia is not a nation and Scotland is: much as I’d like to see Catalonia become a separate nation; it has sufficient ‘ individuality ‘ to merit becoming so. Anyone who has lived in both Spain & Catalonia should be able to see that.
The specious ‘ argument ‘ about increasing fragmentation of previously united areas is a reductio-ad-absurdum in the case of Scotland, no-one is advocating for further division within an iScotland, other than maybe agitators using the idea as you have, ie as an argument against Independence. I imagine regions like Cornwall might be satisfied with a degree of increased autonomy within the UK. As in the case of Catalonia, that is up to the residents of those areas – in terms of * fighting * for those things: my focus is on Scotland
@ Robert Hughes August 2, 2026 at 12:15
“Cornwall is not a Nation ..Just like Catalonia is not a nation”.
Tell telling Cornish and Catalonian people that. Cornwall Council has called for recognition.
As for Catalonia, here’s a good article. I see a certain parallel with the history of the SNP and Scottish parliament.
Scottish separatism raises the interesting question of what a nation is. I suppose it is a historically stable and recognisable communal culture, or even union – of Picts and Scots in the case of Scotland, of Anglo-Saxons and Norman-French in the case of England. Whether the UK is a nation is a good question. What of citizens of the union who are not born natives of any of its parts? I suspect that depends on the ability and willingness of natives to absorb immigrants and theirs to be assimilated. There may be degrees of this.
But humans are genetically the same species, notwithstanding surface differences, so that human communities are not things like homogeneous chemical compounds.
I would never – and did never – tell a Catalan that Catalonia was not a nation: though I did hear Catalans say it themselves, granted on very few occasions; the overwhelming majority of those I met and interacted with feel VERY strongly that it/they are a nation.
Nonetheless, the fact remains it has never been a nation in the way Scotland has; or only for very short periods, ie for approx one year under the aegis of France, and – abstractly – for a few hours immediately after the Referendum in 2017; on both occasions being forcibly returned to Spanish control.
I do agree there are significant parallels between the two regions in terms of their relations with their respective overbearing, controlling neighbours and the quite extreme polarity of views regarding their future status as Independent or Dependent regions. I think the % breakdown of those positions is roughly similar also, though maybe consistently higher Pro-Independence % in Catalonia.
Hmmm, were/are the two situations that similar though? Is the similarity not more one of nomenclature than anything deeper, ie the leaving or otherwise of two ” Unions ” – European and Anglo/Scottish?
One massive difference is that the EU didn’t try, have the power, to prevent the UK’s departure; whereas England-as-Britain in every meaningful way does have the power to prevent Scotland leaving the * Union *: albeit a power that has been implicitly accepted by successive Scottish Govs and tacitly by successive SNP Govs – to their eternal shame
Oh it pays lip-service to Scotland’s ” Freedom to choose ” then in the same breathe insists the latter does not have the right to, eg hold another Referendum – a power the Brit State has unilaterally arrogated to itself.
I agree that there appears to be a significant degree of ” buyer’s remorse ” among those who voted Leave in the EU Ref, though that opinion is far from universal; it may also be the case that there is another significant % of those who voted Remain that would vote Leave now – to put it more concretely…..would vote against re-joining the EU. I’m one of them
I didn’t actually have a vote in that Ref as I was living abroad at the time, but would definitely have voted Remain if I had been eligible. The reason for my change of position is witnessing what an utter shitshow it has become under VdL an Co. I’ve written often enough about the nature of that shitshow IMO, so won’t go over it again. Suffice to say I find it difficult to understand how anyone could think that the current VdL Regime is doing a good job
Realistic
For me joining the EU is a bad idea, the EU (Brussels) has become a very authoritarian body now, especially with the likes of Kallas and von der Leyen at the helm, the EU has interfered in several European nations elections, even having opposition figures arrested on trumped up charges, it (EU) had a hand in the attempted assassination of Slovakian PM Fico – and EU bigwigs have had people such as Arno van Kessel arrested and imprisoned without charge, along with placing severe sanctions on anyone who speaks out about EU policies and dodgy deals.
Brussels is also obsessed with breaking Russia, to the point that EU citizens are suffering greatly economically, and businesses are going to the wall at an alarming rate, and its all to keep funding the Neo-Nazi dictatorship running Ukraine, and to support the genocide of the Palestinian people – access to the market without membership for Scottish based businesses is the way to go – what we are seeing in the West is the weakening of sovereignty to allow big business access to all quarters – also European leaders and most of the West are destroying their way of life – by flooding their nations with folk from the four corners of the world, and its intentional.
Yes, I wanted to Remain but that doesn’t mean I have any liking for Queen Ursula and her awful crew.
The EU isn’t what it once was, (a fairly good idea) neither is Nato, ( a warmongering bullyboys club) – in opinion both should be broken up.
I just heard this – breathtaking – podcast that appears to show that the Union of GB in 1707 is completely illegal. Lots of historical stuff I didn’t know. Totally fascinating.
The United Kingdom is a Fiction – interview with Sara Salyers
One further thing: having campaigned for Corbyn’s Labour Party in 2015-2019 and witnessed the demonisation of what was a very mild leftist programme, I don’t doubt that the British state would be absolutely vicious towards anyone who supported independance, with blackmail and false flag terrorism, up to and including dispatching troops and far right mercenaries to subdue the Scots (again).
RoS and others are right to worry about this; Craig has suffered from the cruelty of the British state twice in his career, but I feel he underestimates the maelstrom that would be unleashed.
(I’m not saying don’t go for independence. I’m English and would be in favour of this, although it is not up to me but Scots.)
PREVIOUS LINK:
https://substack.com/@liberationnewsnetwork/note/p-209365108?r=3a5wt
Total garbage.
Do you realise Salyers is a retired ex-English teacher at a US community college? No credibility at all.
You might like to read the first few articles of the Acts of Union. That makes it pretty clear. All passed and signed off by the legitimate, recognised Parliaments of the time, unrepresentative and undemocratic as they were.
“You might like to read the first few articles of the Acts of Union. That makes it pretty clear. All passed and signed off by the legitimate, recognised Parliaments of the time, unrepresentative and undemocratic as they were.”
The Acts of Union aren’t worth the paper they were written on, the bought and paid for (Equivalent) Scots that signed it, didn’t have the right (sovereignty) over Scots of the day (who were sovereign) didn’t give them permission to do so.
I think you’ll find that Queen Anne was the sovereign of both Scotland and England and could sign what she watned to.
pre-1707 Scottish “popular sovereignty” was and is a lie and a myth.
There were no referenda. The parliament was composed of heriditary nobles and indirectly elected male burgesses subject to a property qualification.
The total electorate amounted to 0.2-0.5% of the population.
Please look all this up if you disagree…
I wouldn’t waste my time engaging with the likes of Mr E number Anonymous, RoS, it’s probably one the time-wasters that have made BTL on WOS not worth reading. All they do is moronically repeat the same pish we’ve heard from their ilk for years. They only seek to distract % irritate. Best to ignore them
“pre-1707 Scottish “popular sovereignty” was and is a lie and a myth.”
“2. 1286 Guardians of the Realm – Popular Sovereignty
A non-parliamentary body representing neither monarch nor the monarch’s government but the
‘community of the realm’ can be traced from the time of the Guardians of the Realm in 1286,
through the period of the General Council, (from the late 1300’s), to its final expression as the
Convention of the Estates, (meaning ‘assembly of the communities’) in the late 1400’s.
The parliament of ‘Estates, later ‘Three Estates’ developed from the king’s court, advisers and
council and separately from the Guardians, the General Council and Convention of the Estates.
The General Council, like the Guardians of the Realm could govern in the absence of a legitimate
monarch as it did in the minority of four Scottish kings. It was therefore a continuation of the idea in
practice of a body representing the community of the realm from which the power of government in
Scotland stemmed. The Convention of the Estates similarly might approve or withhold approval for
taxes, instruct parliament, pass legislation (thereafter ratifies by parliament) or conclude
international treaty or, as in 1689, depose a government.”
And.
“4. Declaration of the Clergy of 1310 – Popular Sovereignty:
The people, therefore, and commons of the foresaid Kingdom of Scotland, … agreed upon
the said Lord Robert, the King who now is, in whom the rights of his father and grandfather
to the foresaid kingdom, in the judgement of the people, still exist and flourish entire; and
with the concurrence and consent of the said people he was chosen to be King, that he
might reform the deformities of the kingdom, correct what required correction, and direct
what needed direction; and having been by their authority set over the kingdom, he was
solemnly made King of Scots…
5. 1312 Scotland’s early parliament ‘the Estates’, began to represent the full community of the
realm. In an acknowledgment of the equality of the ‘estates’,
Bruce summoned a small number of burgesses from each royal burgh to attend sessions in 1312
and 1326, after which it became normal practice. This is the earliest representation of the
‘commons’ in a UK parliament. England followed suit in 1327 when burgesses became a
permanent feature in the English parliament – Popular Sovereignty”
Also.
“7. Declaration of Arbroath 1320 – Popular Sovereignty:
Him, too, (King Robert) divine providence, the succession to his right according to our laws
and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all
have made our prince and king. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been
wrought unto our people, we are bound both by his right and by his merits that our freedom
may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should
give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of
England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy
and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to
defend us our King”
There are other examples in the link.
https://salvo1689.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Time+Line+3.pdf
“There were no referenda. The parliament was composed of heriditary nobles and indirectly elected male burgesses subject to a property qualification.”
On the above yes we know, accounts from the English spy William Defoe, reporting back to London said that there were widespread riots all across Scotland because of it, and that’s probably why the “Treaty was signed in the basement of a corner shop in Edinburgh away from the rioting mobs and prying eyes outside.
As for those treacherous Scots that signed it, they did not speak for the people of Scotland – On 16 January 1707, the Scottish Parliament voted 110 in favour and 69 against ratifying the Treaty of Union, of course there was an English army waiting at Berwick to invade if those “Treaty” didn’t pass,
Of course we know fine well there was no legal union, as esteemed law professor Robert Black adequately points out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cGi7Q-EcyU
Robert Hughes,
Robert you are correct, I don’t know how many of his kind I’ve jostled with over the years – its the same old chestnuts spewed out repeatedly, it becomes tiresome after a while.
@Dell-boy: Why attack Sara Salyers, rather than address her points? Maybe because your knowledge of Scottish history is very selective for some odd reason. Here’s a start:
https://www.scottisharchivesforschools.org/union1707/index.asp
here’s another:
https://www.sqa.org.uk/pastpapers/papers/instructions/2022/mi_NH_History_Scottish-History_2022.pdf
(particularly PART C – pages 20-27 – for instance:
“After union, allegations were frequently made that Scotland was being immediately ‘bled’ by heavy taxes imposed on Scots to fill the government accounts in London.
Tax increased in Scotland due to taking on part responsibility for the English national debt.”
Nothing changes, and a calculation going back to 1707 might show that the Union (UK – England), with accumulated excess taxation to date, adding interest at a nominal legal 8%, in today’s money, owes Scotland in excess of £3 trillion.
Squadron volante were indeed, bought and sold for English Gold.
I see no-one had attempted to refute the fact that the old Parliament of Scotland was riidiculously undemocratic and un representative, and that therefore “popular sovereignty” was a myth.
Nonetheless it was the recognised and legal authority and source of law. And afterwards the united parliament had the right and power to legislate for taxation as it wanted – your idea of a “£3tn debt” is frankly risiible.
I see you cited an *SQA mark scheme* as a source. Seriously? Did you mean to do that?
Another one wakes up – read the below.
https://www.decolonise.scot/
There is no UK or GB, the correct term is the Atlantic Archipelago.
Yes, saw that a few days ago. Interesting the union has been a fraud all along, though hardly surprising.
They should also have pointed out that even if the approved story were correct and the union was completely legal, look what else was completely legal back then in the golden age of English liberalism after 1688. The poor were subject to legal brutalization at home while abroad English liberalism brought slavery to its maximal development, in the vilest form the world has ever seen.
That was the world of 1707 in which England brought Scotland to ‘constitutional’ heel.
From the Articles of Union passed in the Parliament of Scotland, January 16, 1707:
I. ‘That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May
next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name
of Great-Britain.’
III. ‘That the united Kingdom of Great-Britain be represented by one and the same
Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great-Britain.’
The full text of all the articles can be found here.
For the scurrilous way it was bribed and blackmailed through the Scottish Parliament, what better source than your BBC?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/briefing/1707.shtml
Thanks for the link. I note the last para but one (modernised spelling):
On 25th May 1707 at the end of the last session of the Scottish Parliament, Commissioner Queensberry spoke to the assembled Estates. In his speech he stated that:
“I am persuaded that we and our Posterity will reap the benefit of the Union of the two Kingdoms, and I doubt not, that as this Parliament has had the honour to conclude it, you will in your several Stations recommend to the People of this Nation, a grateful Sense of Her Majesty’s Goodness and great Care for the welfare of Her Subjects, in bringing this important Affair to Perfection, and that you will promote an universal desire in this Kingdom to become one in Hearts and Affections, as we are inseparably joined in Interest with our Neighbour Nation.”
Heart-warmingly well-spoken!
Glad you selectively quoted the one bit which seemed on the face of it, to support the Union. However, had you researched for yourself a little further, you’ll find this for instance about Queensberry:
“Reinstated as Keeper of the Privy Seal in 1705, he was among the Scottish commissioners who signed the 1706 Treaty of Union with England, ratified by the Acts of Union 1707. For this he was very unpopular in Scotland, but he received a pension of £3,000 a year.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Douglas,_2nd_Duke_of_Queensberry
and this:
“In 1708 he was appointed to the British Privy Council and created Duke of Dover, Marquess of Beverley and Baron Ripon in the Peerage of Great Britain (titles extinct on the 1778 death of the second holder). He was Secretary of State for Scotland from 1709 until his death.”
He was VERY well rewarded for his part in the betrayal of Scotland.
“Come into my parlour”, said the spider to the fly. I know my history.
And I know my tools 🙂
Value of £3,000 in 1707 in June 2026 = £641,834.83 PER YEAR.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
If Scotland really wants independence, it should campaign for the English to have a referendum about the union.
Neither the English government or the Scottish colonial admin want to restore Scotland’s sovereignty, that’s why we’ll need to take our sovereignty back – in anycase Westminster/England should not – and will not play any part in our restoration of sovereignty.
That’s a good point. The UK belongs to all the UK. So England also belongs to Scotland in that sense, and Scottish voters should have the right (as UK citizens) to vote against English secession from the UK, if it should ever come up. So a referendum on Scottish secession should be UK-wide. To anticipate one question, of how Cameron could have held a Scotland-only referendum, parliament is supreme.
Thankfully the enforced upon Scotland – the Colonial Games finished last night, what do the colonies and ex-colonies have in common with their coloniser (England), they were all rob and subjugated by it, some still are, yet the absurdly named Commonwealth Games – has nothing to do with wealth or a commonality unless of course your nation is/was a colony of England’s.
Anyway I’m not surprised by the below.
“Those based in England coming to work at the Commonwealth Games Glasgow are given all free: accomodation+meals+ transport to sites.
Those based in the Highlands, Edinburgh, Borders anywhere in Scotland have to make their own way at their own cost no meals provided.”
The Glasgow 2026 Volunteer FAQs explicitly state that all volunteers must arrange and pay for their own travel and accommodation, regardless of where they travel from. A volunteer coming from London receives the exact same treatment as a volunteer from Edinburgh or the Highlands: no free housing or long-distance travel expenses are provided by the organisers.
“Those based in England” likely refers to specialised commercial contractors—such as technical broadcast engineers, anti-doping specialists, or elite event managers—hired by external agencies. When a specialized agency sends staff from London to Glasgow, that independent agency pays for their hotel and travel as a standard corporate business expense. Local Scottish workers hired directly for general roles commute from home, meaning their contracts naturally do not feature hotel or flight stipends.
Scotland suffered, and is still suffering from these markers of colonialism.
“Colonial Marker 1:
Military Threat, Occupation, Subjugation: conquest, garrison, and the armed suppression of a nation.
Colonial Marker 2:
Ethnic Cleansing, Displacement, Settler Replacement: forced dispossession, the Clearances, transportation, and the emptying and repopulation of a native land.
Colonial Marker 3:
Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism, Cultural Genocide and Cultural Assimilation: the suppression of Gaelic and Scots and the erasure of national identity under “North Britain.”
Colonial Marker 4:
Colonial Administration and “Reserved Matters”: governance by and for a metropolis, structured to benefit England to Scotland’s detriment.
Colonial Marker 5:
Colonial Exploitation: the extraction of a nation’s wealth, resources, and manpower.
Colonial Marker 6:
Denial of Self-Determination: the withholding of a colonised people’s recognised right, in international law, to choose its own future.
Colonial Marker 7:
Shared Features of Colonized Societies: the internalised marks (the psycho-existential complex, the cringe, the dependence) that colonialism leaves in the mind of a subjugated people.”
As some who accepts donations in bitcoin, i am quite surprised that you have “central banking” as some kind of critical to-do , while not perfect, 17 years of hard evidence has shown that satoshi obsoleted central banking… That said, i hope that you have not chosen to employ a coldcard to secure your address!
Eric,
I regret to say I understood not a word of that. I am not disinterested, so if you could rephrase for someone not familiar with your consepts I should be grateful.