Consenting to be Insulted, Abused, Degraded and Ignored 152


Scottish politics has been dominated these last few months by the attempt by Westminster to seize wide ranging powers in major policy areas shortly formerly held by Brussels, which under the Scotland Act would come to Holyrood as they are not “reserved matters”. The Tory plan is to use the EU exit legislation to override the Scotland Act and seize these powers initially for a period of seven years, after which rather arbitrary period the matter will be looked at again.

This ties in to a wider row that any changes affecting the powers of the Scottish parliament require a Consent Order of the Scottish parliament, again under the Scotland Act. The Tories have however a brilliant way around that one by redefining “consent”, which is this latest government amendment to the EU withdrawal Bill:

30 (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a consent decision is—

(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,

(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or

(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;

Yes, honestly, I am not making this up. You can find it at the bottom of page 6 here.

The Welsh parliament under the spineless leadership of Carwyn Jones and his crew of Blairite lickspittles, has already happily agreed to Westminster’s power grab. The outrage of the move against the Scottish parliament is reported in the corporate and state media here in Scotland as “Sturgeon fails to secure brilliant deal agreed by Welsh”.

I am very much behind some brilliant fellow bloggers like Wings Over Scotland and Wee Ginger Dug in discussing these matters, which they do much better anyway. The reason for this is I do not really care.

I do not really care because it is axiomatic that so long as Scotland is in the Union, Scotland will be abused, degraded and ignored. There is no happy devolution settlement to be reached within the UK. I am not greatly exercised about who sets the amount of subsidy on a neep, when my taxes are wasted on massive nuclear WMD, when the nation to which I involuntarily belong is supplying bombs to kill children in Yemen, and when Scotland’s own young men and women can be sent to kill others and be killed themselves in yet another neo-colonial war.

The UK Parliament and Supreme Court have both made abundantly clear in the last year that any powers of the Scottish parliament may be overriden by Westminster at will. Having temporary powers, by Westminster’s grace and favour, in a glorified regional council at Holyrood does not interest me at all. It is time to move to real Independence.

Two things are very clear to me. The attitude to the Scottish parliament shown by the above amendment, makes it very plain that Westminster will not agree another referendum to be held on Scottish Independence. It is also the case that Independence is conferred not by Westminster but by recognition by the United Nations, and there is no requirement for a referendum. The majority of countries in the World today achieved independence without a referendum, including almost all of Africa, South America and Asia. More to the point, seven EU member states achieved Independence in my lifetime without a referendum.

The Scottish Parliament should simply declare Independence, just as it was the the corrupt Scottish Parliament that abnegated Independence in 1707. There was no referendum on joining the Union. An alternative to a vote in Parliament would be to call a National Assembly comprising all Scotland’s MP’s, MEP’s and MSP’s. The Independence decision should be effective immediately, but followed by a confirmatory referendum.

Scotland is going to be seeking its Independence shortly, in a situation akin to Catalonia and not to 2014. The argument over who controls neeps has played a useful role in making plain Westminster’s contempt for Scotland. It is now time to forget it, and move on to Independence. To do otherwise is to consent to permanent abuse.


152 thoughts on “Consenting to be Insulted, Abused, Degraded and Ignored

1 2 3
  • Malcolm Ramsay

    “There is no happy devolution settlement to be reached within the UK”

    Not within the UK as it’s currently constituted, certainly, but England is failed by the current UK constitution just as much as the other nations and I suspect a proper overhaul of the Westminster government might well make the Union much more acceptable to many people who currently advocate independence.

    Though, judging by the lack of interest when I tried to get a constitutional reform party going last year (Local Sovereignty) pushing for independence probably is your best course.

    • John O'Dowd

      Too little too late Malcom.

      England is a lost cause – yokels forever in forelock tugging thrall to their betters.

      Scotland cannot remain part of this. We must leave.

      • Royd

        Sadly, in England we cannot be rid of whichever Party holds power in Westminster. What England needs is a different electoral system that better represents the interests of those who reside in England. As each year passes the London-centric perspective and focus only ever deepens. It’s as if there is only London and the South-East. By the way, I’m all for Northern Ireland and Scotland being independent (or NI being reunified with the South to be more precise) and determining their own presents and futures. Not so sure about Wales to be honest.

    • reel guid

      Total rubbish. The majority in England is getting the departure from the EU that it wants. England gets the governments it votes for. England is not failed by the UK set up and any talk of change is just an attempt to string Scots along. And there is no political union left to be made more acceptable. The Westminster redefinition of consent regarding Holyrood shows that.

      • J

        Total rubbish. Similar to arguing that Scotland gave informed consent to remain part of the UK.

      • Malcolm Ramsay

        “England is not failed by the UK set up and any talk of change is just an attempt to string Scots along”

        Strangely enough, reel guid, there are many people in England who don’t regard Scotland as a central issue around which all their political thinking revolves, and many of us are just as keen to see real autonomy for our own local communities as people in Scotland are. Personally, I don’t care whether Scotland stays in a formal union with us or not. I do think, though, that in the current context a movement focused on genuine local autonomy throughout the UK would have much wider appeal than separate nationalist independence movements that seek autonomy for their own national governments but would do nothing to help others who would also like to be free from the unfettered domination of central government.

        • J

          Agreed. Although I want nothing less than Scottish independence (for the sake of all Scots) while we’re divided and ruled, we all fail. If independence took place as part of a larger strategy of democratic reform and local autonomy nationwide (not least reversing the corporate capture of Westminster) then the arguments should become less vulnerable to accusations of nationalism and separatism and focus on real issues, regularly highlighted here and elsewhere through Indy media.

        • reel guid

          Malcolm Ramsay

          You say you don’t care if Scotland stays in a formal union with England. Read Craig’s post again. There is no formal union left if Westminster reckons it has the right to override all Scotland’s choices.

          And you talk of wanting a movement for local autonomy when staring you in the face is the attempted stripping of any autonomy for a nation.

          • Malcolm Ramsay

            reel guid

            As far as I can see, there’ll continue to be a formal union as long as a majority of Scots continue to accept, in practice, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. If this latest exercise of it provokes your nation into throwing off the shackles, then good for you – but I’ll believe it when I see it.

            To me, national autonomy should be a consequence of local autonomy, whereas you seem to think local autonomy should be for national government to grant, if they wish. If that’s the case you’re effectively suggesting that Westminster’s dominance over local communities in Scotland should be replaced by Holyrood’s. If that’s typical, it could be a reason there’s less support for independence than you’d like.

          • reel guid

            Holyrood already has control over local autonomy in Scotland and it’s being used progressively. The SNP Government’s Islands (Scotland) Bill is currently going through. It increases the autonomy of Scotland’s islands. You don’t know any of this and so it doesn’t stop you sneering that Edinburgh based government is no better than London based.

            If the Scottish Parliament goes there’ll be no autonomy for Scotland, nationally or locally. You prefer not to see that despite your pose as a passionate supporter of devolved power away from the centre.

          • Malcolm Ramsay

            Well, that’s good that the current Scottish administration is using its control over local autonomy progressively but, to my mind, as long as it’s merely a policy that central government can reverse, it’s a poor substitute for a constitution that recognises that sovereignty needs to be distributed between different levels of society and provides mechanisms for individuals and local communities to defend their sovereignty when it’s infringed.

            And who’s suggesting that the Scottish Parliament will go? I’ve certainly never thought it would.

  • Mist001

    No politician currently within the SNP nor indeed, any Scottish politician has the backbone to stand up and declare independence. Everything’s too cosy for them now.

    You are of course correct. A real leader who desires Scottish independence would be standing on the steps of Bute House at 10am this coming Monday morning and making the declaration to the world and its media.

    Of course that’s not going to happen with the current leadership. I’m younger than Craig and I seriously doubt that I’ll ever see an independent Scotland.

    • Jones

      it seems to me many independence leaders have had to make a sacrifice to achieve their goal, some a very big sacrifice, some just see their role as a well paid job offering a comfortable life, perhaps the sacrifice one is prepared to make distinguishes the sincerity of the individual.

  • quasi_verbatim

    Caveat Caledonia! Missile maggot May will bomb your chemical weapons facilities and release clouds of toxins over hearth and home if you persist in this folly.

    You haven’t got the guts of Catalonians anyway, poor schmucks that you are.

    • Ophelia Ball

      tish tish! No need to get abusive!

      however, speaking as a for-the-time-being-Englishman, if the Scots do decide to go their own way, do you think we might perhaps be allowed to have a moat?

      personally, although I have never invested much thought into the pros and cons of Scottish independence (what with the rest of the UK apparently having no say in the matter), I would be fascinated to see what became of our Northern cousins 10, 50 or 100 years after succession. Absolutely fascinated. A larger version of Shetland? A semi-detached Greenland? A slightly-less geographically-advantaged Ireland? Or the economic, cultural and geopolitical stature of Rockall?

  • Ophelia Ball

    “Consenting to be Insulted, Abused, Degraded and Ignored!

    So, you have tried calling Southern Electric’s Customer Services Hotline too, eh?

  • pete

    Doesn’t it also say:

    “(6) See also paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Parliament).”

    Surely if it is explained why it is going ahead without any consent that makes it okay?

    The correct answer to this question is: Of course not.

    England gets the government of the winners of whoever voted in a first past the post system, not a majority of all the people, nor a representative majority of those who actually voted. It is hopelessly biased.

  • Graeme Fraser

    I agree with every word Craig, our time is now, recall our MP’s and MEP’s take a vote and be done with this disgrace of a Union with ‘pernicious Albion’.

  • reel guid

    Craig you rightly describe Carwyn Jones and his Welsh Government as Blairite lickspittles happily agreeing to Westminster’s demands. There is however no indication that Corbyn opposed or disapproved of Jones’ capitulation.

  • Margo Stronach Allan

    My thoughts, In 2014 Westminster unionists worked out that there was enough gullible people in Scotland who would accept fear over hope ,and would hang onto the honeyed words of their unionists party’s leaders .Their “vows ” and fears won and temped Scottish voters into selling out their country .Sadly these decent people never saw the unionist “snares ” until to late and the unionist “trap was sprung . 2018 and now Scotland is having to live [at great cost] with the consequences of undemocratic decisions taken by Westminster [ a government from another country ] on Brexit .Westminster now preparing to steamroller over legitimate Scottish concerns and economic interests , whilst our SNP Holyrood government have an unimpeachable mandate from the Scottish electorate to determine the best interests of our Great Nation of Scotland . Yes I am 100 % behind Scotland’s government in refusing to hand over our hard won and precious powers and the dilution of Holyrood and our own culture traditions .

  • Loony

    This article is predicated on a toxic combination of sophistry and ignorance of reality.

    The UK has intention of actually leaving the EU. Given that a majority of the UK population voted to leave the EU and a majority of the Scottish population voted to maintain the union then a refusal to leave the EU would appear a much larger issue than Scottish independence. But hey who really believes in democracy anyway – not Scottish nationalists apparently.

    Sure a lot of African and Asian countries became independent absent a referendum. You seem to neglect to inform the people that in a lot of cases war served as the substitute for a referendum. Somewhere between 1 and 2 million people were killed during the partition of India, the Biafran war did not work out too well for the roughly 2 million starvation victims, no one bothered to count the number of people killed in Vietnam – but around 3 million seems a reasonable estimate. The list is long.

    Still there are no worries for Scotland – as absolutely no-one cares enough to start a war. The fact that no-one cares differentiates Scotland from Catalonia in every respect that is important.

    • Gary

      Your comment makes a LOT of assumptions, and you know what they say about assumptions?

      But the one MAJOR flaw I find is that it doesn’t actually reference the article it is allegedly commenting on…

      • Loony

        Let me help you out Gary.

        The article references independence being achieved by African and Asian states absent a referendum – my comment addresses the actual way independence was achieved in a large number of cases.

        The article seeks to draw equivalence between Scotland and Catalonia – my comment highlights the single most important reason as to why there is no equivalence.

        The article refers to the powers of Scotland being further limited through draft EU withdrawal legislation. My comment addresses the reason why this is wholly bogus – i.e. there is no intention of the UK leaving the EU. Of course this is not yet publicly admitted and those that hate the people will naturally deflect from this contention by claiming it to be an assumption unsupported by facts. Not many people would describe it as a “LOT of assumptions” – but I guess any smear will do when you are desperate to force others to bend the knee in perpetuity at the alter of German mercantilism.

        • Woke Too Late

          Many African & Asian states didn’t really gain independence through war (although, it may appear so). They gained independence because the former colonial powers no longer had the means or will to impose control. So the issue is really whether the UK has the will and resources to keep Scotland under control. I doubt that English people really do anymore (although, this doesn’t mean the UK government lacks the will). I guess I am suggesting that, just like the will to maintain the British Empire disappeared, the desire to maintain the UK is dissipating.

          Scotland is bigger than Catalonia, and more of a separate entity. Catalonia was unable to assert independence because it was not able to exert authority over state institutions in its area and unable to prevent an influx of police enforcers from outside Catalonia. There are lessons to be learned here and I guess that is why Parliament is exerting control and diminishing Scottish powers.

          No one in their right mind should really cares enough about anything to start a war over it but this also applies when the dominating power (e.g. UK) provokes a senseless war (e.g. with Russia). What this means is that crisis (a calamity provoked by the ruling power) provides an opportunity for freedom. To be clear what I am saying is that constitutional route to independence doesn’t really exist (not just in the case of Scotland); however, exploiting a crisis is a proven method.

          There is ‘conspiracy’ type talk that leaving the EU won’t happen. If so, there are implications for the UK as a whole, specifically that England will be seen to be kept in the EU against the will of English people. Again, this threatens the cohesion of the UK.

          As you say, constitutional means and war are not paths to independence (but they never were). Dissipating cohesion of the UK and exploiting a crisis are.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    There is permanent abuse of people living in England too, you know.

    Councillors have the legal right to hack the computers of every household and steal whatever they wish. They are legally allowed to be mafia criminals.

    America has the right to steal English football clubs and make fans pay for the privilege. Man Utd did it, Arsenal wanted to do it, will Khan try and steal Wembley that way? Khan borrows money to buy, then loads debt onto corporate vehicle of Wembley stadium. It is like paying off your mortgage, then start paying again. Khan does not pay for ownership, the paying customers do. It is mafia robbery, pure and simple. The BBC approves, it representing the USA, not the UK license payors that fund it….the Glazers made Utd fans pay £1bn in interest and debt repayment, when the club was purchased debt free as the biggest cash cow in world sport. The City of London should not be allowed to condone this and UK law should not allow it. Damian Collins is conspicuously silent about the Glazers: he is unfit to chair the Select Committee as he represents America, not UK……and £1bn robbery from fans is ok, but Platini getting £1m from Blatter is revolution time. Lawless America, once again….demand ownership abroad, never sell anything at home. Bombing 100 US sports moguls and families to death is less criminal than bombing millions in Iraq and Libya…..and they are absolutely acceptable collateral damage…it is time to value US lives at zero…..worthless detritus whose death will make planet earth a better place.

    AllI am saying is apply Neocon values to Neocons and their ilk.

    ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto thee’ is no doubt preached across America every week and every US politician is a Christian, eh??

  • DiggerUK

    The only english translation I have for “neep” is turnip. Or am I out of context here…_

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      Also applicable, tumshie. Yes, the Scots have a number of terms for turnips. Rain likewise.

      1st person: What kind of vegetable makes your eyes water?
      2nd person: An onion.
      1st person: Naw, a tumshie.
      2nd person: How does a tumshie make your eyes water?
      1st person: Ever been hit in the baws with a tumshie?

  • Gary

    ‘Consent decision’ is a very interesting point. I have read what you have printed from it and also the document version via your link.

    At first reading you seem to make the point that whatever is decided, consent will have been assumed? Is that what you mean? In the document it IS clear that they are defining what a ‘consent decision’ is. The are literally spelling out that a consent decision can be either in agreement or in disagreement, either way it IS a decision. Are you making the pint that it is condescending to have to spell it out?

    Either way I don’t agree. Unless I am VERY much mistaken this is not trickery and it IS normal to spell out what will. and what won’t be considered a ‘decision’ They are spelling out that it must be voted on.

    I agree that Scottish governance IS being degraded, demeaned and ridden roughshod over. But I do not believe this extract is what proves that. I’m just not sure what this portion of the document IS meant to demonstrate. Would you care to elaborate on this?

    Maybe I have missed this point entirely, Craig? Remember though, it’s idiots like me you are writing for! Keep it simple..

  • Kenneth G Coutts

    Yes Craig, enough is enough, we have been nice and accommodating for too long.
    Our Scottish government has played the politics game
    With diplomacy to no avail.
    We’ve all been saying it, champing at the bit, as it turns out
    The Scottish government has played a blinder.
    I/we hope it happens, end this despicable union.
    We’re ready willing and able.
    Regards
    ??

  • David

    Thatcher definitely didn’t see the need for a Scottish Parliament but she said there was a simple way to achieve independence. All we had to do was elect a majority of SNP MPs to the House of Commons. Well we’ve done that twice but unfortunately muddied the waters with campaigns that were constructed around the idea that you could vote SNP in those two GEs and the party that was created to campaign for independence would not assume your vote was a vote in support of independence. Can we please have a party that supports independence in every election. That same party can also, when in power, set different income tax from UK for Scotland, build more affordable homes, put a new bridge over the Firth of Forth, remove university fees, etc but NEVER EVER again play electoral campaign games with its raison d’etre. The refeferendum road is not the only road to independence. I think I’ll chant that every day as I wake up.

  • Craig P

    UDI would be fine if the clear majority of the population supported it.

    But the hearts of so many Scots (at least, of those that I know) are British nationalist – they do not recognise Scotland as a country in its own right – that I doubt it would end well.

    The way of success is to get the English to end the union…

    • Doodlebug

      @HateWarMongering 11:01

      “The OPCW is not a theatre,” said Peter Wilson, UK envoy to the watchdog.

      Nor is Salisbury. Oh, wait a minute….

      • Michael McNulty

        And at least the Russians have given us proof of life for these people which the UK hasn’t done with the Skripals. (I don’t include the policeman because he may not be the identity we’re told. He could be an intelligence agent given a phony persona and may even be the one who poisoned them as some have suggested.)

      • roddy mackenzie

        Salisbury was a Brian Rix farce and should only have been performed in a theatre – Not in an English town!

        The 2nd act was then set in Syria but it wasn’t so funny.

  • Canexpat

    I find it interesting that people who in other circumstances and on other issues would no doubt be virtue signalling their opposition to racism in all its forms, think that it is acceptable to come up with comments like “England is a lost cause – yokels forever in forelock tugging thrall to their betters.”

    All the English are not the same, just as I would venture to suggest that all Scots are not kilt-wearing chip-toting skinflints. Radical I know. 🙂

    • reel guid

      Brexit, Windrush deportations and anti-democratic power grabs. These phenomena are emanating form England. They aren’t coming from anywhere else. It’s not racist to point that out. Nor is anyone saying all English people approve of these things.

      • Canexpat

        @rg

        I agree entirely. There are many aspects of ‘English’ politics and the actions of the English component of the government that I despise. My objection was to the obviously racist phrase “yokels forever in forelock tugging thrall to their betters.”

        BTW Tony Bliar ’emanated’ (or perhaps oozed) from Scotland. I do not hold the Scots responsible.

      • flatulence

        you said yourself a few posts back that the English get what they vote for. If that isn’t tarring us all with the same brush then what is. You fight for your own country’s freedom if you want, but I will fight for us all while we are all in this together. My view is that you are playing right into their hands though because you weaken the already broken democracy we have by splitting the vote. The success of the impotent SNP plays right into the torries hands. Vote for your own party when you have your country back, until then you’re just helping our government rape all of our rights. If we could get Corbyn in power I truly believe he could give you a real and fair referendum. I know blarites etc would try and stop him, but I know I would not be alone in calling for your right to a real referendum and of all the politicians I think he would listen. If Corbyn can’t sort it out then I will rest assured that we are ruled by some deep state and it is all pointless, in which case you may have go Catalonia style but make it stick. Until then we are fighting the same enemy and we are surely stronger together.

        • FranzB

          ” If we could get Corbyn in power I truly believe he could give you a real and fair referendum. ”

          I’m not so sure about this, all of those right wingers on the back benches would probably oppose this on the principle that if Corbyn is in favour, then they are against.

          • flatulence

            I totally agree, he needs need to get rid of the rot. He seems to be making some progress, but it’s knowing the right time and appears it can’t happen over night. It seems like an extremely precarious operation balancing between the daggers that have polluted the party since Blair and the ones wielded in the press and their masters. The problem with Corbyn is he is a very good politician, so he will try and do things the right way when a lot of us are dying to see him just end them. But this may also be a great strength. It’s also possible he doesn’t have the power to do so yet, or it needs to be done gradually or whatever. But if he can’t do it, I don’t think it can be done politically and without corruption and then just being the same as them, corrupt or corruptible. He is clearly a serious threat though which is why the media war machine has dedicated so much of it’s time and resources to damage him and his credibility as a leader, and the blarites are willing to sacrifice the party for a decade or so just to keep a real Labour party out of power.

  • Tombee

    I have no wish whatsoever to remain shackled to a Westminster parliament. A parliament which, to all intents and purposes, is an English parliament. So dominant is it, that by virtue of the number of English constituency seats, England MP’s are able to out vote, at every stage, on any issue, the other three National elements of this so called Union. Even when all of the constituency seats in these other three Nation’s. The other component parts, are added together.
    I do not wish Scotland in any way to remain a Vassal State of England. Nor do I consent to be treated as a second class citizen, in a Union where my elected representatives cannot, due to the E.V.E.L. impediment, vote on all government issues. Whilst all English MP’S can vote on all matters pertaining to Scotland, and which are debated at Westminster. Nor can Scottish MPs occupy all high offices of state.
    I find the proposed so called ” Consent” amendment, as described, clearly and concisely, in this publication, to be an abomination in form, and a preposterous notion, in reality. That Scotland’s National Government should be invited to consider consenting to such a situation, is an insult to intelligence and demeans our status. To submit to it would render Scotland into becoming just that, a Vassal State of England. NO, NO, NO..
    It is my earnest wish that the Scottish government resists this vulgar attempt to perpetually subjugate the People of Scotland. That In order to resist that, seeks to make use of the mandate already provided by the Sovereign People’s of Scotland, to free us from this dilemma. By whatever legal means aplicable to international recognition.
    The “Change in circumstances” have moved on in leaps and bounds from being ripped out of Eurooe agsainst Scotland’s will. They have been exacerbated by this intent by Westminster to grab the powers they seek to do. On the finalisation of Brexit. This has to be resisted.

  • Fleur

    An interesting (but little remembered) example of the perfidy of the UK government in relation to the 2014 referendum was discussed in an article in The Scotsman (20 April 2015): “DAVID Cameron met with Sony representatives ten weeks before the referendum on Scottish independence to discuss the release date of TV show Outlander in the UK, according to leaked emails published by Wikileaks.”

    The email (dated 28 June 2014), sent from Sony vice president Keith Weaver to chief executive Michael Lynton and other senior Sony figures, outlines the focus of the meeting, with particular reference to Sony’s ‘overall investment in the UK’. The email states:

    “Your meeting with Prime Minister Cameron will likely focus on our overall investment in the U.K. – with special emphasis on the importance of Outlander (particularly as Scotland contemplates detachment this Fall).”

    The whole email exchange makes it clear that the quid pro quo for Sony’s cooperation in airing the programme in the UK (it was shown earlier in the US) was related to provisions in proposed copyright legislation.

    Why was the TV series Outlander important? The TV series is based on the enormously popular novel series by Diana Gabaldon which describes, in gory detail, what it might have been like in Scotland – for the Scots – in the period leading up to, during, and after what has been described as “the horrors of Culloden Moor and the genocide that followed.”

    So it appears that suppressing a powerful reminder (albeit in fictionalised form) of this bloody period in past interactions between Scotland and England prior to the referendum was traded by Cameron for a more commercially advantageous position for Sony vis a vis copyright.

    Hard to find a clearer example of perfidy than that.

    • N_

      Interesting stuff, Fleur – thanks for this.

      Of course the truth of what happened nearly 300 years ago has little relevance. It’s the emotions that can be hooked and the ideas that can be stoked that are important.

      • Fleur

        Thanks for your comment. But I beg to disagree.

        The past is always relevant. It lives on in our bodies (our very DNA) and in our thoughts and feelings, in our culture, laws and institutions. If we misremember our past we are disconnected from our very selves.

  • JackM

    In 1919, Ireland elected 80 MPs who decided not to go to Westminster but declared independence and set up a parallel State much to the consternation of London. After 3 years ,83%of the land gained limited independence after fighting a war for freedom, this eventually grew to full independence in 1948 with a declaration of a Republic and exit form the Commonwealth. Scotland never showed any hunger for independent compared to Ireland but if it does intend to seek it then must prepared to fight for it, hopefully without violence.

    • frankywiggles

      The difference is Scots have not been treated any worse than the English north and Midlands and Wales. Britain’s abuse of the Irish was of a different scale – penal laws, famine, rack renting, minimal investment/development, general dehumanising. They were treated as contemptible, inferior aliens compared with the inhabitants of Britain. That’s why violent passion and rebel hearts characterized the Irish.

      • N_

        Have you been to London recently? Much of the city is a shithole that can easily rival some of the shitholes in other regions of Britain. How about Margate? Portsmouth?

        Divide and rule. Get the proles to fight each other over England and Scotland, or over Coca-Cola and Pepsi, or Rangers and Celtic, and the bosses laugh all the way to the Barbican or Bermuda. It is so sad that this is so hard for many middle-class and middle-class-influenced tossers on the left to understand.

        • frankywiggles

          With that manner, I’m sure you’ve persuaded a great many people to your point of view.

      • Hatuey

        All verifiably false. Actually, wha you say here is a poor regurgitation of the sort of junk they say in the daily express.

        There’s no comparison with the English North, Wales, and the midlands. Those regions all voted for Brexit. Scotland didn’t. Wales was annexed, they didn’t sign up for the Union as a sovereign power. Scotland did, and Scotland can leave as a sovereign power just as the UK is leaving the EU.

        As for the abuse of the Irish being much worse than that suffered by Scotland, you clearly have no idea of what happened in the aftermath of Culloden. In Scotland the debate is whether it constituted genocide or not.

        Seriously, go read before opening your mouth. That’s a favour you owe yourself. Read and learn.

        • frankywiggles

          Yes, the Daily Express is one of the great sources to find out about British crimes in Ireland. And if Culloden was the issue then it’s taken Scots an awful long time to try and throw off the yoke of their genocidal oppressor.

  • N_

    So a consent decision can be either a decision to give consent or a decision to withhold it. Wow! 🙂

    Then again, Scotland is not sovereign and the British parliament can repeal any of its own acts that it wishes to, including the Scotland Act. (I’m not defending this, just stating that it is the legal position.)

  • Hatuey

    I now officially love Craig Murray. In a healthy comradely way, of course.

    Let’s go to the mattresses. Even if we don’t get Indy, we can massively destabilise their apple cart. See how fruitcake May handles a constitutional crisis as she goes to negotiate Brexit.

    At the very least the snp politicians should all be resigning and forcing elections on a single issue — a vote for the snp is a vote for Indy.

    • N_

      What if the British elite want a “constitutional crisis”? (Oh and are you Hasbarakook?)

      Imagine a “crisis” develops. Imagine the call grows to “Stay the fuck in the EU to get out of this mess”. (It’s already obvious that the only way to avoid a hard border in Ireland is for Britain and the Republic of Ireland to be in a customs union and single market with each other; the same applies to any two countries.) Say a referendum on said question ensues. Do the SNP boycott it? Do they say it’s the English trying to twist the Scots’ arms to make them vote on a non-Scottish issue? I wouldn’t put it past them.

      Nice idea, that all the SNP constituency members in the Scottish parliament resign and fight by-elections. (There are only by-elections when there’s a vacancy for a constituency member, not for a list member.) While the notion appears to be in the air (has Stephen Bannon been busy?) that what’s needed is some kind of Tartan IRA, I doubt any SNP pols would have the guts to risk their nice little earners seats.

      • Hatuey

        Forget all that. I’m trying to work out what age you are… you’re either about 85 or about 18. At those ends of the spectrum people are often a bit “impulsive”.

  • bj

    Scotland is going to be seeking its Independence shortly

    I wish you well. As a Dutchman of partly Frisian descent, I have a like towards the Scots.

    • N_

      How do you feel about Pakistanis? Which ethnic groups don’t you like? Do you like Scottish mass murderers like Thomas Hamilton, or is it only the nice Scots you like?

      • bj

        There’s too much presumption in your questions. They are loaded. Or are they rhetorical and argumentative? I don’t know how to answer them, other than to dismiss them. Sorry.

  • May hughes

    I agree with everything you said. We are never going to be ‘given’ our independence, now is the time to simply take it back.

  • Radar O’Reilly

    BBC TV 1pm news from the English point of view, reported the astonishing images of the Nork Supreme leader summiting with the uncorrupt Sork president Moon Jae-in. Very similar report to how French TV ch 2 reported the news this morning, but just now the English tweaked the news agenda and showed us a clip of a launching ICBM and warned about the increasing risk of the Nork missiles. What!?, what Planet, What script is BBC following that French news isn’t?

    Beeb quoted BoJo urging caution, then Beeb expert worried that the Norks might wish to have less sanctions!, as if. But I still don’t get why the lead-in to the first news item on the Korean reunion required a missile launch image, BBC. French TV just reported facts, Beeb descended into a typical, unnecessary, psyop image association.

  • Mary Paul

    There is still the issue of what currency an independent Scotland would use as the The UK Parliament has made it clear it could not be the £ sterling.

    • craig Post author

      Not much of an issue. Approximately a hundred countries became independent during my own lifetime and they all managed.

      • morag

        Gosh, haven’t you noticed we have the Pound now and how easy to call it the Scots Pound! Or we can move on to something else of our own choosing..

        • MJ

          You can call it what you like but if you’re beholden to the central bank of a foreign country then you’re not independent.

        • oah

          You can have the Scottish pound as you do now in a colonial relationship to the gbp a la gibraltar the falklands jersey etc. But when you have built up the capability of the Scottish Central bank you can float against the gbp or the eur.

          • Kenny

            Scotland already has its own pound notes.

            The Scottish pound would, over time, appreciate against the rUK £ (as a petrocurrency).

            Money is fiat the world over. And the Scottish pound (or probably the “merk”, I think) would be backed by Scotland’s massive oil reserves anyway.

            It would make economic sense for Scotland to use the euro for the same reasons as countries like Germany benefit from it. Or we could just become a second Norway, with its own very strong currency. A shame our pensioners cannot see the benefits of having strong Scottish pounds to spend in France or Italy or Spain.

  • Anon1

    So you had a referendum, which you lost, so you now want to do away with referendums and have your way anyway.

    What is it with you and democracy, Craig? I seem to recall you saying the result of the EU referendum should have been ignored as well.

    • flatulence

      it’s because the results of any referendum cannot be trusted when the government running them so blatantly corrupts the views of its people and therefore any result.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.