The London Supreme Court last week not only confirmed that the Westminster Parliament could overrule at will any Scottish Government legislation, irrespective of the Scotland Act and the Sewell Convention, but it also ruled that Westminster had already successfully done so, by retrospectively passing provisions in the EU (Withdrawal) Act that overruled the Bill on the same subject, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, that had already been passed by Holyrood.
Not content with that, the London Supreme Court confirmed that London ministers may, by secondary legislation, under the Scotland Act decree laws for Scotland that are not even passed through the Westminster parliament.
Which leaves Scotland in this extraordinary situation. English MPs or English ministers in their London Parliament can, at any time, impose any legislation they choose on Scotland, overriding Scotland’s parliament and Scotland’s representation in the London parliament. Yet, under the English Votes for English Laws rules of the London Parliament introduced by the Tories in 2015, Scottish MPs cannot vote at all on matters solely affecting England.
That is plainly a situation of colonial subservience.
I am firmly of the view that the Scottish government should now move to withdraw from the Treaty of Union. Scotland’s right to self determination is inalienable. It cannot be signed away forever or restricted by past decisions.
The Independence of a country is not a matter of domestic law it is a matter of international law. The right of the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence may not be restricted by UK domestic law or by purported limitations on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The legal position is set out very clearly here:
5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of
the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect
of that act on the international plane. 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.5.6 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. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be
predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in
which the secession is occurring.5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim
independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international
law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional
authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative
institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond
the scope of already conferred power.
That is a commendably concise and accurate description of the legal position. Of major relevance, it is the legal opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, as submitted to the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case. The International Court of Justice endorsed this view, so it is both established law and the opinion of the British Government that the Scottish Government has the right to declare Independence without the agreement or permission of London and completely irrespective of the London Supreme Court.
I have continually explained on this site that the legality of a Declaration of Independence is in no sense determined by the law of the metropolitan state, but is purely a matter of recognition by other countries and thus acceptance into the United Nations. The UK Government set this out plainly in response to a question from a judge in the Kosovo case:
2. As the United Kingdom stated in oral argument, international law contains no
prohibition against declarations of independence as such. 1 Whether a declaration of
independence leads to the creation of a new State by separation or secession depends
not on the fact of the declaration but on subsequent developments, notably recognition
by other States. As a general matter, an act not prohibited by international law needs
no authorization. This position holds with respect to States. It holds also with respect
to acts of individuals or groups, for international law prohibits conduct of non-State
entities only exceptionally and where expressly indicated.
As I have stressed, the SNP should now be making a massive effort to prepare other countries, especially in the EU and in the developing world, to recognise Scotland when the moment comes. There is no task more important. There is a worrying lack of activity in this area. It may currently not be possible to spend government money on sending out envoys for this task, but if personal envoys were endorsed by the First Minister they would get access and could easily be crowd funded by the Independence Movement. I am one of a number of former senior British diplomats who would happily undertake this work without pay. We should be lobbying not just the EU but every country in Africa, Asia and South America.
My preferred route to Independence is this. The Scottish Parliament should immediately legislate for a new Independence referendum. The London Government will attempt to block it. The Scottish Parliament should then convene a National Assembly of all nationally elected Scottish representatives – MSPs, MPs and MEPs. That National Assembly should declare Independence, appeal to other countries for recognition, reach agreements with the rump UK and organise a confirmatory plebiscite. That is legal, democratic and consistent with normal international practice.
There will never be a better time than now for Scotland to become an Independent, normal, nation once again. It is no time for faint hearts or haverers; we must seize the moment.
Like it but will EU buy it for Scottish Accession?
Spain???
Spain no linger a problem. They have said quite clearly that they see Scottish independence as a different issue to Catalonia.
Im undsr the impression that at least one Spanish minister has said that Scotland’s accession isn’t a problem.
Spain have never had a problem with Scotland being independent.
Thanks, another great article Craig. Can I ask you, do you know if the Scottish Govt are aware of this? And if so, what is their thinking?
I am very sorry to say it, Mungo, but I don’t think they want to know it.
Bad show indeed. I empathise with your frustration.
Mungo – it’s not correct. See my reply please
It cpould well be that the threatened break-up of the UK would cause many westminster MPs to come round to Brexit.
Dare I say it -” Bring it on !”
FREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM?
Again, I agree wholeheartedly but I don’t think the current SNP leadership have the stomach to withdraw, neither do they have the stomach for independence. From what I’ve seen of their activities since the Brexit referendum, every points to them wishing to remain as part of the UK for whatever reason. In fact, there’s a distinct possibility that withdrawing from the Treaty Of Union has never even occurred to them. My current belief for their support of stopping Brexit is that they don’t want a second referendum because they don’t believe they can win it therefore they’re fighting to stop Brexit and remain in the UK just to try and make the best of a bad situation.
I honestly believe their thinking is that simple.
It might just be that simple.
I more or less agree with Craig.
However, it’s Scotland, so it will probably depend on who wins the football this year.
Sad, but true.
Scotland would certainly meet the usual (Montevideo) criteria for statehood: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states… as Craig says, the only other element – as much practical as strictly legal – is recognition by other States. The EU affording recognition would be the definitive one, as most other countries would follow suit, certainly I think former colonies would do so on principle. Russia of course would (for less than noble reasons). Possibly USA, Israel, Saudi would refuse for a while. China would probably support too. Interestingly, this is where there’s a clear tension with Brexit, because while UK is in the EU (or probably the EEA), the EU would be an obstacle to this (absent a consensual – with the UK – referendum).
Alex, your “for less than noble reasons” implies that Russia is somehow different in acting in their own best interests. The Russophobic trend is well established in the West, a great success in propaganda.
As if Sturgeon and co will make such a move.
Abstracting from all the principles upon which Scotland might base its desire to be independent, as an independent country its economy would be well and truly f***ed, partly as a result of being unbalanced by its long integration with the UK economy as a whole. Presuming membership of the EU in order to ‘survive’ this reality, the shock of adopting the Euro and ‘finessing’ the budget according to strict EU rules has been well documented elsewhere.
Oh dear! Someone doesn’t understand how the EU works. There is NO obligation to be part of the Euro (as has been well documented; see Denmark for how this works in practice). However, if we were to adopt the Euro, it would make seamless trade with our EU partners even easier to accomplish. Since the Pound has slumped (and will sink further post-Engxit), the Euro isn’t necessarily such a bad thing to have.
As for Scotland’s economy being “unbalanced”, that’s as a result of London’s policies for the last three hundred years. Thankfully, however, we have a government in Edinburgh which is attempting to address this situation (albeit with a hand tied behind its back). The economy today is not that of the future, thankfully; and, as has been well documented elsewhere, smaller economies are more able to adapt quickly (see all similarly-sized European nations – James Maxwell’s ‘Arguing For Independence’ is a very informative book on this subject). Conversely, an economy which is pretty much focussed on casino finance (i.e. that of England) will not adapt to anything because all of the eggs are in the same basket.
Craig, would your proposal not immediately trigger an all-out response by MI5, given their mission statement:
“The role of MI5, as defined in the Security Service Act 1989, is “the protection of national security and in particular its protection against threats such as terrorism, espionage and sabotage, the activities of agents of foreign powers, and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means”.
Secondly, do you believe MI5 interfered in the Indyref?
How do you see a way past all UKG attempts to scupper all moves, legal even, by any means necessary, including criminal acts running all the way up to assassination?
I’m at a loss to reconcile the bold rhetoric in this post with your bombshell regarding The Integrity Initiative, as similar (the same) clusters could easily be deployed against Scottish targets to derail any concerted efforts to break free of colonial servitude.
Yes of course MI5 will work against it. I have no doubt that the SNP will already be heavily penetrated by MI5, and some of the influences behind the SNP’s current pusillanimity will be due to that.
Am I over suspicious in thinking Nicola may be one of those individuals? I am having serious doubts about her intentions.
Craig, stop the conspiracy theories. Your article is totally misleading.
I recognise you have a breadth of experience related to international affairs I really must challenge this article regarding the potential for Scotland to essentially, declare UDI.
Whilst any country can do as you say, the practicalities and consequences of such actions have not been highlighted in this article
I doubt very much that any country of note would recognise Scotland’s withdrawal without a westminster manifesto pledge which delivered a majority or a referendum victory.
It doesn’t matter how many countries recognise Scotland … if the G7 dont then Scotland’s buggered..
Look at palestine.. 137 countries recognise Palestine.. even a few european countries… even Russia… but none of the big boys
You draw a comparison with Kosovo but you fail to point out that their becoming an independent country was brought about because of the civil war that engulfed the region and was facilitated by several G7 Countries including the U.K. and the US.
I would also sight the problems encountered by the Catalonians who held an illegal referendum (at least in the eyes of the Spanish Government) and then declared independence – since then, not one country has recognised their Declaration of Independence and their fight for recognition goes on.
I am sure you are also aware that the Spanish Government have never recognised Kosovo’s existence as an independent country – obviously for fear of how such recognition may influence Catalan thinking!
In conclusion, the FM has made it clear to everyone that they have looked at all possibilities and a referendum via agreement with WM (section 30) is the only way that Scotland will be recognised as an independent nation by the EU and rest of world.
As such I believe you should correct your article as it is very misleading and can only create confusion, doubts and friction in the minds of many supporters of independence
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but I find it a bit strange that to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never read any leaks, on Wikileaks or elsewhere, coming from the SNP. Like I say, I may be wrong and maybe I’ve just missed them, but to stop any leaks, security has to be very, very tight, so is there only about two or three people who actually run the SNP? All the rest are just for show?
“Scotland’s right to self determination is inalienable. It cannot be signed away forever or restricted by past decisions”.
Exactly as in the case of Crimea.
Except that about 90% of Crimeans wanted to rejoin Russia; whereas in the referendum a majority of Scots chose to remain part of the UK.
I never cease to find it amazing how even the most intelligent, best educated and most balanced of people are able to bid farewell to their faculties of reasoning when they are emotionally involved.
I am not emotionally involved at all. I cannot understand how any rational person can believe that a referendum conducted by the occupying power within a very few weeks of a military occupation is free and fair. I am all in favour of a genuine referendum in Crimea conducted under UN supervision, as with South Sudan. I should be happy for that to be extended to other Eastern regions of the Ukraine. At present the occupation of Crimea by Russia is illegal. There is no emotion behind that at all; it is a plain matter of law.
Ultimately the most important thing for Crimea is the return and reinstatement – or proper compensation by Russia – of the original Krim Tartar population deported by Stalin.
‘I am all in favour of a genuine referendum in Crimea conducted under UN supervision, as with South Sudan. I should be happy for that to be extended to other Eastern regions of the Ukraine. At present the occupation of Crimea by Russia is illegal.’
And why would a non UN sub]pervised Scottish vote of independence be more “legal” than the Crimean vote to do the same by over 80%? Of course Scotland would have to invite independent observers like they had in Crimea.
Crimea had the status at the time of an autonomous republic:
“The Russian-speaking and Russian-identified people of Crimea were unhappy about Ukraine claiming sovereignty over them. They had been an autonomous republic within the USSR, and after its dissolution, they still retained their constitutional autonomy. That’s what gave them the right to hold a referendum to join the Russia Federation in 2014.
If the West is involved in an uprising, as in Ukraine, it recognizes the “independence” of the government it puts in power. It won’t recognize the constitutional autonomy of Crimea, which predated the 2014 Ukrainian revolution or illegal armed coup, whichever you call it, because it wasn’t part of their plan”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/12/17/latest-odds-of-shooting-war-between-nato-russia.html
Not to mention there were several referenda after the dissolution of the USSR by the Crimeans to gain independence or an increase in autonomy that all were successful.
Original Kirimtatarlar population was deported to Uzbekistan, for their massive collaboration with Hitler.
As soon as they compensate 8 000 lives killed in concentration camp under the command of SS Obersharführer Speckman, then they can ask for compensation for their deportation.
What, all the Crimean Tatars were guilty of “massive collaboration with Hitler”?
Most of the Soviet nationalities that fought against Stalin and the USSR had been pretty comprehensively repressed before Hitler invaded. How many Crimean Tatars did Stalin and his chums kill and deport before they got round to doing for them all?
Wèe Jim
From the history of my own family, my grand-grandfather fought against Soviets, he was “white kossak”. Later he was repressed and deported to Kazakhstan with my grandfa, my grandma, their two daughters (one of them has died during the transportation, the other is my aunt Alla).
Nevertheless, later my grandfa joined the Red Army and fought against Hitler. Because there is difference, great difference between a civil war, where people fight for desirable government, and patriotic war, where people fight against external military threat.
Kirimtatarlar hated Soviets more than they ‘hated’ Hitler. They didn’t think of themselves as ‘russian people’ and I’m greatly surprised they were OK to be ‘ukrainian people’.
I don’t say all the Crimean tatars collaborated, of course there were children and old people among them. 200 000 population, 20 000 joined Hitler. You can refer to historic documents.
200 000 population, 20 000 alleged to have joined Hitler. Stalin’s statistics were notable for their convenience, not their accuracy. Even if those figures are actually accurate, punishing ten to get one is a little…drastic, shall we say?
“Because there is difference, great difference between a civil war, where people fight for desirable government, and patriotic war, where people fight against external military threat.”
For most of the non-Russian nations – and especially the non-Slav nations – fighting against Stalin, people were fighting against an external military threat. They found out they’d allied with someone even worse than Stalin only when it was too late.
Russian sources refer to Report of Oberkommando des Heeres March 20, 1942, saying ‘all who are capable of military service’ collaborated with German Army.
Don’t you find it at least a bit weird to spend money and time and human resources for moving 200 000 ‘patriotic’ people, when your country is in utter need for every single soldier? Let me remind you, it was May 1944.
When you say ‘only when it was too late’, what do you mean? There already existed Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec, Htutthof, Auschwitz, Majdanec not far away, in neighbouring Poland. And “Red” death camp in Crimea itself.
And, regarding Stalin’s statistics.
In my comment above I mentioned German statistics. It is exactly what is written here
https://www.libex.ru/detail/book503664.html
“The book is a documentary historical basis for the measures taken in the Russian Federation to rehabilitate abused and punished peoples.”
Considering some of the other things Stalin did – killing senior generals when war was obviously imminent, starving millions of peasants, for example – spending money and time and human resources to move 200 000 ‘patriotic’ – people or unpatriotic people, when the Germans were retreating – when your country is in utter need for every single soldier looks like being par for the course in murderous eccentricity.
Stalin and the Soviet Union had announced that the Nazis were mass murderers. However, as they had also denied that Stalin and the Soviet Union were mass murderers, they didn’t carry much credibility. It was only after the Nazis arrived that they showed what they were like and that – for once – Stalin was telling the truth. Even then, it would take some time to realise they were even worse than Uncle Joe and his little friends.
Wee Jim, your very complicated comment leaves me at a loss. What I managed to understand is: Stalin was evil and excentric, so Krimean Tatars had to colloborate with Hitler.
—
The problem put by Mr. Murray is of “the return and reinstatement – or proper compensation by Russia”
I looked over Wiki to get dates.
1967 – sanctions against Qirimtatarlar were abolished
1989 – whole rehabilitation and recognition of their right to return to Crimea
1990 – free land offered and massive return began
2014 – assigning to the Crimean Tatars who were in deportation the status of rehabilitated, that means payments and benefits
—-
If now my government would tell me that’s not enough, and I must work hurder to earn more and to pay more tax to give more to Crimean Tatars, so my answer… it would be so impolite they will not like it, at all.
Ah, of course: collective guilt, so collective punishment.
Nevertheless, Tatyana, much of the rest of the time you do sound fairly sensible. But this sounds as nutty as a comment from “no parmesan” Molloy.
I just try to keep to facts. Stalin died about 60 years ago, if not, he could probably answer himself.
Today we can only guess, why he didn’t punish tatars individually. Due to martial law, killers would be killed, traitors jailed. If any men of reproductive age remain in this case? I don’t know. Demographers can tell better.
May be Stalin deported them to secure the territory from partisans?
It seems to be common practice in that time. USA acted in similar manner after Pearl-Harbor towards citizens with Japanese roots. Britain did something similar towards German and Austrian immigrants.
Also, if we want to keep to facts, Crimean Tatars are not the original population, they invaded Crimea with the ‘Golden Horde’.
Among now-existing countries, Greece could probably claim to be the first who established Bosporus State in the territory.
Thanks for saying this Craig.
We do not have to make the choice between either blind support of the Russian Federation or the US and its NATO satellites.
Just a day or two ago, Mr Putin was railing against Russian rap artists as the authorities (police, FSB and local politicians) were busy disrupting gigs across Russia. That is not the behaviour of a modern, liberal state.
Not to forget fact-checking, James 🙂 when they speak of prohibiting obscene words, thus concerning the texts of rap artists.
Spasibo Tatyana!
I think you have just reinforced my original point.
Na zdorovie, James 🙂
You are free to keep to any point, indeed. I’m just curious how you come to the conclusions.
If the UK is out on WTO rules you have a hard border between Scotland and England if Scotland were to secede. Leaving the EU paradoxically makes independence less, not more likely.
Yes the Scotland/England border will eventually end up in precisely the same situation as the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border. I am relaxed about that.
“secede” ??? Simply repeal the Scotland Act or remove Sturgeon. Ken Livingstone has a much bigger electorate than she does and he still saw the GLC abolished in 1986
A hard border is a small sacrifice when we have over 10 times the market open to us.
And it won’t be a bad thing to have it as a reminder to our erstwhile colonial masters that they are now crossing into an independent country.
> That is plainly a situation of colonial subservience.
Indeed, Scotland should become independent from the UK. Preferably to join the EU ASAP and be subservient to the CJEU.
“colonial subservience.”
Like an Order in Council – the colonials have no power and very little say ( even if complaint is made) – there is legal override.
CM,
Another barnstorming dispatch from your keyboard which I eagerly endorse – if only the SNP suckling on the expressed milk from an English teat would remove themselves from such personal pleasure and begin standing up for the rights of all those living with Scotland’s borders – it is after all a civiv nationalism we are supporting.
With the above facts, I still find it odd that Scotland would want to belong to a club that would deny its independence, luckily we have the UN, who’s endorsement is all that is needed, as well as the political will of the Scots themselves. As such, you are lucky to have a real opportunity to breakaway from an English dominated Parliament that has witnessed the harmful impact of possibly the UKs worst government since the days of Lord Liverpool, a Parliament that supports wanton warmongering all over the show, whilst inflicting massive on much of the Nation State, and this attack is on the Lib Dems, Tories and new labour folk who detest Corbyn.
It is a sad fact that Wales is unlikely to follow Scotland’s lead, support for actual independence is weak, whilst our own elected officials too seem content on suckling on an English teat, whilst their fellow countrymen suffer from perpetual austerity and de-industrialisation, which I’ll remind you EU membership has done zero to halt – sticking plaster efforts don’t cut it I’m afraid, hence my own country’s Brexit vote.
Given the socioeconomic and political realities on the ground in Wales, 27% of those resident in our borders being English, many over 50, the best this poster could hope for is a federal rUK structure where at least Wales has equality with England in any Second Chamber, however, even this may not stop my fellow countrymen being used as cannon fodder for a Colonialist Elite happy to follow the USA into one disastrous foreign adventure after another. And again, we too have the issue of the EU to contend with, that actually denies independence aspirations, hence my confusion as to why so many elected Welsh officials seem to adore it, despite the austerity riddled economic costs of membership.
Once more a fine post that does at least get readers to think.
The Independence of a country is not a matter of domestic law it is a matter of international law.
What a strange conception ! The sentence itself is so internally incoherent as to be a jurisprudential and philosophical maelstrom of inanity. I cannot imagine being in a room hearing anyone utter such a confused concatenation of words
This may help you.
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml
Paul Greenwood
Just listened to a repeat of Ken Dodd on Radio 4, so my funny bone is well tickled.
I was taught by my English teacher that incongruity is the source of comedy, and poetry, and much else besides.
My parents took me to a Ken Dodd show when I was about 12. A magician in the art of the possible, he could have probably have sorted out Brexit in the twinkling of an eye. The British government just needs to be told NO, we are not going to allow our legal rights to be confiscated by a power grab concealed as populist racism. Neither England nor Scotland will stand for it, however skilfully the dark arts of colonial Empire are being exercised
The Diddy Men would have made a better job of the Brexit negotiations than May’s lot.
Paul,
There is a distinction between ‘domestic law’ and ‘international law’.
International law takes precedence over domestic law.
The legal issue of a territory’s or country’s sovereignty falls under the ambit and within the domain of international law.
Three sentences instead of the one which Craig used accurately to state the law.
My – another “confused concatenation of words” ( smile – chuckle).
Obviously you weren’t in the UN when the UK subscribed to this then…
What Craig is saying is that in this day and age, it takes international recognisation for a country to be established, the Banat Republic springs to mind.
Wow. You’ve just thought Scotland out of a box. I’ll remember today.
I’m guessing that the same legal opinion/position applies to Catalonia and West Papua.
As one who lives outside of Scotland, I beseech my fellow countrymen and women to do whatever is possible to terminate this vile so called partnership. Without Scottish trade, oil, whisky etc, England is a dead duck and the posh Etonians know it only too well. Get rid of this burden called the ‘union’ and let scotland flourish. I only hope the Scottish government heed Craig’s advice ?????????????????????
Even with whisky oil and nukes England is a dead duck. I’m surprised they haven’t floated Scotland to pay for their national gambling debt, as they are about to float the NHS. But maybe they are saving Scotland for a rainy day.
Thank you, I didn’t realise the Kosovo precedent, very interesting. Agreed, I think the FM should be making strenuous, discreet, efforts to get support from within the eu as well as others. I can see stiff resistance from Spain and others fearing their own independence movements, so preparation is everything (cf: breit fiasco).
I would support this.
And here, Craig, is the chief reason why Nicola is going on about Brexit. She is speaking to Europe
Either one day Nicola will swoop for Independence as she springs shut her brilliant strategic trap, and I will be delighted though proven wrong about her intentions. Or the SNP will gradually fall from power and influence as a disillusioned public sickens of their lack of interest in Independence and their blatant careerism, and I will be proven right but deeply saddened.
all depends if another sovereignty party emerges [which is what happened in Ireland]
Agreed.
well in Ireland it wasn’t gradual – real overnight stuff
CM,
Although not a gambling man, just can’t afford such pleasures I’m afraid, if I were to wager a bet, and based on previous experience of the sell-outs in New Labour, I’d wager personal careerism takes precedent over Independence aspirations, but like you, I really would like to be proved wrong on at least one occasion.
Their performance in the 2017 election might be a straw in the wind there Craig.
And if they had done no better than just hang on to their existing share of the vote, there would have been no May government.
That was 56 MPs down to 35!
A Brilliant article. Would that the SNP leadership were of the same mind (I’m a member of circa 30 years).
I fear they are too comfortable and enjoying red boxes and government cars.
Seven: “Am I over suspicious in thinking Nicola may be one of those individuals? I am having serious doubts about her intentions.”
Not sure about that – she is an over-cautious lawyer. But there are those at the top of the SNP (and buried within its membership) who have had clear involvement with the UK military/deep state.
It would be surprising if MI5 were NOT active in the SNP.
In the end, it will be the hunger of the Scottish people that will lead to freedom.
Absent that, forget it!
Perhaps this could be Scotland’s answer to my deal or no deal.
Revoke article 50 or we leave the U.K. and rejoin the EU.
Who blinks first ?
Craig most of us probably agree with you, but it would take a change of leader I am afraid. Nicola has absolutely no plans to go down this road. Most recently she is still banging on about a 2nd EU referendum as a means to save the UK. I get the impression she is now scared of a media backlash on everything she says or does. To get to where you have suggested we need someone with a thick skin , the will, bravery and above all else a stomach for the fight of our lives.
Yes please.
Junker called our government nebulous in public. a more accurate description to use in private might have been headless chickens. While British politicians are temporarlily detached from their brains, on account of having had their heads pulled off by the Russian Bear in Syria, for using violent crazy proxy Islamist terrorists on a neighbour to the EU, it might be a good idea , Craig, to put your plan into action before they resign. Corbyn might not be so favourable to losing Scotland when he accedes to power in a few weeks time. It would be like losing an heirloom in a fire, instead of flogging it at auction.
“Corbyn might not be so favourable to losing Scotland when he accedes to power in a few weeks time.”
A poll showed that the people of England would rather lose Scotland than Gibraltar, NI didn’t fair to well either.
So if the people of England aren’t too bothered about losing Scotland then who is? And why?
“So if the people of England aren’t too bothered about losing Scotland then who is? And why?”
The ones that have done the sums. That’s why. They can’t afford to lose Scotland.
Excellent article.
Well, put Craig, May would definitely not sanction a Section 30 Order. So a viable route, out of the UK as you’ve pointed out is vital.
I don’t know if Sturgeon is attempting to win over soft noes, with her, try hard to keep us in the EU stance. However it’s now becoming apparent that not only is Westminster a lost cause, but the persistent attempts to push the two major parties back onto the straight and narrow by the SNP, is endangering our route to independence.
I already think we have an abundance of goodwill in the EU, so convincing them wouldn’t be too difficult. As you riightly say a consensus of nations in Scotland’s favour would be useful against Westminster.
As for timing when? January sometime, followed by a February vote, would be nice before the Brexit exit date.
How to persuade Sturgeon? though to be fair she has said she’ll say something on independence in the New Year.
I’m sure many including myself agree, you’d be an excellent ambassador for Scotland with your wealth of knowledge, and years of experience on these matter.
I think the real reason. The SNP are not holding ref.,2 is they a re afraid they would win it. And they are not able to handle it