The Supreme Court Judgement and Scotland’s Colonial Status 155

London’s Supreme Court, sitting in judgement on its Scottish colony, has ruled that parts of the Scottish Government’s UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill exceed the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

The judgement is absolutely specific that the Scottish Bill breaches both the Scotland Act, the original devolution settlement, and the Tory/DUP government’s recent European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which rolled back devolution, grabbed powers from the Scottish Parliament over previously devolved areas and wrenched them back to Westminster. The Tory/DUP European Union (Withdrawal) Act Schedule 4 specified that it overruled the Scotland Act devolution settlement.

If you carefully read the judgement, especially paras 47 to 65, the Supreme Court has gone still further than ever before in saying that neither the Scotland Act nor the Sewell Convention in any way limits the power of the UK Parliament to legislate for Scotland, even in devolved areas, without any need for consent from Scottish ministers or parliament. They even go so far as to specifically state that London ministers have an untrammelled power under the Scotland Act, without needing consent from Scotland or specific further endorsement from the Westminster parliament, to impose secondary legislation on Scotland.

It is a long judgement but its heart is at para 53:

That conclusion is not altered by the other arguments advanced by the Lord Advocate. In relation to the first argument (para 47 above), a provision which made the effect of laws made by the UK Parliament for Scotland conditional on the consent of the Scottish Ministers, unless it disapplied or repealed the provision in question, would for that very reason be inconsistent with the continued recognition of its unqualified sovereignty, and therefore tantamount to an amendment of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act. In relation to the second argument (para 48 above), the question before the court is whether, if the Bill were to receive Royal Assent, section 17 would be law. If not, there would be no question of its having to be disapplied or repealed by the UK Parliament: it would be of no legal effect whatsoever (“not law”, in terms of section 29(1) of the Scotland Act). It is therefore no answer to an argument that section 17 of the Bill would be outside legislative competence, to say that it could be disapplied or repealed. In relation to the third argument (para 49 above), this submission resembles the Lord Advocate’s first argument, and for similar reasons we are unable to accept it. A provision which imposes a condition on the legal effect of laws made by the UK Parliament, in so far as they apply to Scotland, is in conflict with the continuation of its sovereign power to make laws for Scotland, and is therefore equivalent to the amendment of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act.

Having asserted that the London Parliament and Government can do anything to Scotland it wishes under its “sovereign power to make laws for Scotland”, the judgement logically asserts that the power grab contained in the EU (Withdrawal) Act was perfectly legal. As the Supreme Court said in its published explainer for the media:

What is the effect of the UK Withdrawal Act on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the Scottish Bill? The UK Withdrawal Act is not a reserved matter but it is protected against modification under Schedule 4 [99]. Several provisions of the Scottish Bill in whole or in part amount to modifications of the UK Withdrawal Act. These are: section 2(2) [101]; section 5 [102]; section 7(2)(b) and 7(3) [103-104]; section 8(2) [105]; section 9A [106]; section 9B [107]; section 10(2), 10(3)(a) and 10(4)(a) [108-110]; section 11 [111-113]; section 13B, section 14, section 14A, section 15, section 16, section 19(1) and section 22 (to the extent that these provisions relate to section 11) [114-118, 120-121]; section 26A(6) [122]; and section 33 and Schedule 1 paragraphs 11(a) and 16 [123-124].

The judgement is as expected and reaffirms Scotland’s colonial status and the London view that the Scotland Act did not recognise any inherent Scottish rights, but rather graciously handed down from above some powers that London may change at a whim, exactly as though Scotland were an English County Council.

Given all this, the part of the judgement which states that it was not in itself outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament to pass a bill which relates solely to the domestic effects of EU withdrawal, is a very small victory indeed – and utterly irrelevant in the wider scheme of things.

Anybody in the SNP today touting this judgement as a victory, has either not read it, or is worryingly comfortable with vassal status inside the UK Establishment.

Devolution is not just a sop, it is a trap. It is a device by which the SNP has its energies sapped dry in a Herculean effort to maintain Scottish services and public welfare while being perpetually undercut by Tory austerity. The Scottish government are trying to defend the Scottish people with both hands tied behind their backs, while a unified Tory media attacks them relentlessly for every public service failure in Scotland, as though the Tories were not the cause.

Not only was the Vow of increased powers for the Scottish Parliament, which turned the tide of the 2014 referendum on Independence, an abject lie; what the Supreme Court has affirmed is that the English Tories and Northern Irish unionists can strip powers from the Scottish Parliament at will.

What the Supreme Court have done today is to provide crystal clarity that Scotland has but two choices; complete subservience to Tory England or Independence. All else is fiction.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

155 thoughts on “The Supreme Court Judgement and Scotland’s Colonial Status

1 2
  • isa

    This is getting more and more bizarre : Simon Bracey-Lane is a Labour member since Corbyn and also worked in the Bernie Campaign in the USA. It appears to me the Integrity Initiative could have been planting people in key places or this makes zero sense to me?

    “It’s the afternoon of December 11 and I’ve just been aggressively turfed from the offices of the Institute for Statecraft, an until recently virtually unheard-of think tank, secreted in the basement of Two Temple Place – a crenellated Gothic-style mansion overlooking the River Thames.
    Things started promisingly, as Simon Bracey-Lane — a research fellow at the Institute — welcomed me in the foyer with a warm hello and handshake. His demeanour shifted seismically mere seconds later when I revealed I was a journalist.

    “You need to leave right now!” he intoned urgently, eyes wide and face rapidly growing pale, “you haven’t arranged to see us! Go! Right now! Please leave immediately! Leave!” (…)

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      Poor wee Simon’s nascent career as a spook blown before he’s even out of nappies.

  • Charles Bostock

    I believe two Scottish law lords sit on the Supreme Court.

    Out of, I believe, 11 members.

    Population of the UK : over 60 million.

    Population of Scotland : around 5 million.

    • David Stevenson

      The existence of the UK Supreme Court contravenes the spirit [certainly] and the letter [probably] of the Acts and Treaty of Union of 1707 [Does this matter ? It interests me that the Treaty of Union of 1707 can be ignored while the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 (by which Britain got Gibraltar) seems sacrosanct.

    • Iain Stewart

      Welcome back, Charles, your biting comments have been missed.
      In this particular case I presume that you are referring to the legendary generosity of the Scots.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      And by its unwritten constitution which its Supreme Court can write up as it sees fit!

      • Paul Greenwood

        UK does Not have an Unwritten Constitution. It has an UNCodified Constitution. UK Constitution consists of Acts of Parliament, Convention and pre-parliamentary documents like Magna Carta

          • Paul Greenwood

            Go look at how many countries in the EU with glorious written constitutions lack Habeas Corpus

          • Trowbridge H. Ford

            A wild remark. We should be talking about the fundamental arrangements of governance – what Britain doesn’t have at all with everything all over the place where one can cherry-pick, as you have, whatever one wants.

    • Sheepshagger

      Scotland has never been subjugated. Scots are an ungovernable people – despite appearances to the contrary.

      • Molloy


        “SS” — Any particular reason for your rather curious and crude site name?

        In my opinion, your comment is racist.

        Were you not aware that this is a crime in Scotland as in the rest of the so-called UK?

        How’s the weather looking in Cheltenham?


        *************** ??????? ??????? ?????????????? ???????


  • Ewen A. Morrison

    Dear, Craig, thanks for your very pertinent article! Perhaps some of your readers, if not most, are ordinary day-to-day people? Nevertheless, while some paragraphs require extra careful thought, your closing one actually sums up perfectly: ‘What the Supreme Court has done today is to provide crystal clarity that Scotland has but two choices; complete subservience to Tory England or Independence’.

  • Mark

    I don’t think there is any dispute of Scotland’s colonial status, but I just don’t see how being part of the EU, as apposed to being part of the UK, translates to being “Independant”.
    To illustrate the point I’ve listed below some government functions and their ultimate autority. The first column represents a non-UK Scotland within the EU, the second colum is the status-quo, and the third colum is a trully independant Scotland. The only difference I can see beween being part of EU, opposed to being part of the UK, is that under the EU Scotland would have full authority over national taxation.

    Gov. Function in EU in UK Independent
    ============= ======== ======== =========
    Taxation….. Scotland.. Westmstr.. Scotland
    Spending…. ECB veto. Westmstr.. Scotland
    Immigration EU…. Westmstr.. Scotland
    Defence…. EU…. Westmstr.. Scotland
    Top Legal… ECJ.. Westmstr.. Scotland
    Foreign Rel. EU…. Westmstr.. Scotland
    Maritime EEZ EU… Westmstr.. Scotland

    Am I wrong?

    • Lara

      “Am I wrong?”

      Yes. You are wrong. Because you overlook the crucial difference. ***IF*** Scotland decides to join the EU, it will be a decision made in Scotland to share that sovereignty, and within what the populace find acceptable. No such status does or can exist in the UK.

      Thanks for asking.


    • pom

      “status quo
      the existing state of affairs”

      Westminster is not the “ultimate authority” for those things right now. We are still in the EU, remember.
      Unless you’re a soothsayer that can foretell which deal we’ll get, if any, your second column is speculation. But what you have done is highlight Westminster’s power grab in the event of a no-deal brexit.

  • Bruce MacDougall

    One thing this decision does is clarify that the “Treaty of Union” which guaranteed that Scottish Law would always in perpetuity be sacrosanct in Scotland, above all other laws, has been well and truly broken. As for the hatred and contempt shown by Westminster for Scotland, that is another factor which must lead to independence. England should think very carefully about whether it wants a friendly or antagonistic neighbour on its northern border. Saor Alba

  • Molloy



    Reply to O’Neill’s . . .1648hrs Supreme Court “lap dugs” or hirelings?

    Until, they, the SNP, recant the feudal oath to the English so-called “sovereign”. Let’s discuss that shall us?!

    Exactly the same reason why the SC judges, unlawful, should have recused themselves.
    They are in the SC to represent the ‘colonisers’ and war criminals.

    SC are not interested in the Scottish oppressed who daily are exposed to WMD’s i.e. 24/7 target risk; radiation from stored weapons/materials.
    How long has the admirable peace camp been at Faslane now?

    In fact, refusal by the aggressor/coloniser/ war crim regime to charge $traw, Bliar and Campbell – technically – renders SC defunct and null and void. Hello?!!!
    Why not ask Fatty Cox QC about that little regime snag, if you can afford it?

    Similar to the ‘legal system’ and kangaroo courts in Nazi Germany being not equipped to prosecute Nazi war criminals.
    Simply, court = instrument of an unlawful regime.

    Elephant in room and all that.

    Why not set up a special war crimes court in, say, Dundee or Aberdeen? SC have no jurisdiction here, as explained.

    Judges in their own (effectively-bribed/status-worthy) cause.
    Disgraceful. Serving 2 masters:

    1 Brit elite establishment (in fact, SC no money no listen, so kangaroo for that reason too).


    2 In this case, all Scottish people? (A court acting on behalf of one person/regime, well, that’s feudal.)

    Similar to the war criminals deciding India-Pakistan—the oppressor decides. Hey ho.

    SC might enlighten their true paymasters as to whose ‘lap dugs’ they really are?


    ¡No pasarán!

  • Graham Ennis

    I am not surprised at this. It was expected. The average Scot will probably not even know this judgement was given, or its legal impact as we approach the BREXIT crisis. But trhe consequences,. of this arrogant ruling by the pompous English Court system, is wrong on so many counts, moral and legal, that frankly, it should not in any way be obeyed by any Scot. The ruling breaches the “Claim of right”, recently passed in the London Parliament. that preserves Scottish rights under the Treaty of Union. Its also breaches international law, and EU law, which mandates “Subsidarity”, that regional parliaments are entitled to do all the things that this ruling forbids. It could of course go to the European Court, but that is going to take at least a year. We do not have a year. This ruling allows uncontrolled seizure of power and suppression of Scottish democracy and parliament. It is morally repulsive. It would allow the reapl of the Scotland act, and the shutting down of the Scottish Government. The Irish have already been here.
    To be blunt. It sets the scene for a a situation like that of the Catalans, or the irish in 1919, when the irish provisional Government was suppresed, and the Government jailed.This is madness.
    I have to say, that if that happens, I think it morally right for all and any Scot to resist. Even if it means political violence and force, at any attempt to shut down the Scottish government. This is a terrible prospect, but it must be faced. The only thing that a rotten and corrupt British establishment understands, is the threat of military violence. As we discovered in ireland. Force is to politics, as gold is to banknotes. Whatever happens now, Scots must travel down a dark road, and resist any attempt to crush them and rule them from london. This has to be made clear to london. The SNP Government is going to be very hesitant, and will probably not resist it being subjugated, so this has to be dealt with by the popular will. The terible example of Catalunya comes to mind. The SNP has to find some backbone, and make it very clear, that they will resist any attempts to enforce this ruling in scotland. They will only do this if a sufficiency of Scots makes it clear that they will act, if the SNP Government does not. What a terrible mess.. Comments please.

    • nevermind

      Great idea Graham. Are you planning to call UDI? Like the English are calling for Independence from Brussels?
      Would you advocate to speak/ negotiate with the EU, as the popular mandate cries for?

      • Graham Ennis

        Hi, I think that the SNP Government will not have the backbone to resist if it comes to UK Rule. as to a confrontation. This is a mistake, as it can only lead to scots simply taking things into heir own hands, as it did in Ireland, and then there would be, as in Ireland, in 1968. violent resistance to UK rule. Essential the SNP gets a grip. or this will happen.

        • Molloy

          Errmm. . . (NM) “. . . negotiate with the EU, as the popular mandate cries for?“

          What ‘popular’ mandate?

          Does he/she mean the vote rigging by the Usual Suspects?

          * * * *

    • Mark Richards

      Good post,mate,worrying times indeed. Sorry not in a position to further ,just a thank you. Finest Regards,Mark.

  • Graeme McCormick

    I fear that the SNP politicians are in danger of being called hypocrites for their support for a second Brexit referendum.

    These politicians swear that their legitimacy is derived from the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

    For the first time ever an English electorate has voted against the majority of its MPs. This means that the sovereignty of the English people has replaced the sovereignty of parliament unless parliament rejects the result of the referendum and re imposes parliamentary sovereignty.

    How can SNP MPs deny the English people their sovereignty when that is these MPs avowed position vis a vis Scotland.

    Scottish MPs must play no part in undoing the Referendum votes and instead campaign for Independence with the Scottish government enacting legislation to maximise their control of Scottish public funding through an Annual Ground Rent which has the opportunity to raise enough to introduce a worthwhile Univetsal Citizens Income. If the UK seek to legislate against it the loss of the basic income will be so important to the personal wellbeing of Scots that the force for Independence will be overwhelming.

  • Harry Molloy

    Once again we were bullied and lied to by our English masters. This cannot be allowed to continue.

  • Mark Richards

    Yes indeed,Independence cannot come quick enough. I worry after today though that if they can change the goalposts “willy nilly” then Indy ain’t possible! Not in the long drawn out fair & above board sense anyway!. Good article Craig,thank you.

  • Steviemac

    If I was leader of the SNP this is what would be going through my scheming political brain:

    The planned reversal of the Brexit referendum result will enter it’s final phase with the vote in the Commons to reject May’s deal at the end of January. The ‘People’s Vote’ will ‘reluctantly’ be agreed to by May, sold as letting the people have the final say, crucially absolving the Conservatives and the Commons of responsibility for reversing Brexit. The Question will be Her Deal or Remain (under no circumstances No Deal) and Brexit will be rescinded. The SNP will get to feel a warm glow of having infuenced Events.

    However it will fatally undermine the SNP goal of Independence.

    Fast forward a couple of years to the next Scottish Independence referendum and ‘Yes’ wins with a small but significant majority (Hurrah!).

    HM.GOV.UK (Senior Civil Service Division) using lessons learned from Brexit to adopt the current negotiating stance of the EU – a free market of 500m (UK/EU) against Scotland’s 5m, a divorce bill for shared UK liabilities,etc. Any notion that Scotland will be allowed to join the EU and break up the UK will quickly be disavowed by a Cabal of Whitehall and Brussels bureaucrats still bruised by the Brexit shambles There is no advantage for the EU in endorsing a fledgling independent Scorttish State .A concerted campaign from the MSM Project Fear: ‘Prevent Independence by Scottish Hubris’ (PISH- sorry!) ultimately leads to a call for a second vote…

    .If the SNP had any political nouse at all they would SUPPORT May’s Deal although this would lead to cries of deeply cynical opportunism. The SNP’s sole purpose is (or should be) Independence for Scotland – Westminster is an alien body. As Democrats the SNP should support England and Wales decision to leave the EU. After Brexit, Scotland and the SNP would have an inordinately strengthened mandate to leave the UK. The EU would endorse membership to undermine the newly independent UK on its borders and Scotland’s membership would be a shoe-in..

    • Ann Rayner

      I can see advantages in this. What I am currently imagining us a scenario where the Remain goes up, UK wide by enough to get a small majority. What happens when the UK government work out that Leave would have won, if you discount Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Brexiteers in England, and possibly Wales would be apoplectic!
      How would the government deal with is, having said previously that ‘we vote as one country’, yet their desire for Brexit (and no increase in financial scrutiny) is endangered by these pesky Celts.
      Also they would have to convince an English public, convinced we are subsidy junkies, that we cannot be told to get lost as we are a net contributor to the UK. It would be ironic if it happened, but not impossible.

  • Sharp Ears

    Glasgow and Edinburgh feature in this list of local authorities who have taken out LOBO loans.

    ‘LOBO stands for Lender Option Borrower Option. A LOBO loan is typically a very long-term loan – for example 40 to 70 years.
    The interest rate is initially fixed, but the lender has the “option” to propose or impose, on pre-determined future dates, such as every 5 years, a new fixed rate. The borrower has the ”option” to either accept the new rate or repay the entire loan.

    If the local authority chooses to repay the loan early (for example to access a cheaper rate loan elsewhere) it would need to pay a “break penalty” to exit the loan, which given the pricing of derivatives in the contracts can cost multiples of the original loan principal.
    The starting interest rate of a LOBO loan is usually quite low, designed to undercut PWLB loan rates, and is known as a “teaser rate”.

    Due to the complexity and “optionality” of the contracts, the overall interest rate of the loan is difficult to price over the long term, without sophisticated pricing tools that the majority of Local Authorities will not have direct access to.

    As ex Barclays Capital employee Rob Carver reflects: “You just need a Bermudan swaption pricer to know the relevant volatility surface, some kind of interest rate model calibrated to the appropriate processes and the full forward and spot curve.”- not the things the average Mr Perkins in a council finance department has to hand.

    Analysis of LOBO loan contracts shows that some Councils are facing 7-9 % interest rates, which is more than twice the current rate of lending at the PWLB.’

    eg This is Glasgow’s borrowing from the search facility on the website. Link above.
    City of Glasgow Long-term debt
    PWLB loans: £954,240,000
    Other public sector loans:£0
    Private sector (LOBO loans):£449,000,000
    Bonds and securities:£0
    Total long-term borrowing:£1,403,240,000

    Nobody knows or probably even cares.

  • Hugh Fraser

    Scotland is not “and never has been” a colony of England. It was an independent Sovereign kingdom until 1707, when it signed the Act of Union with the Kingdom of England (which was considered to include Wales) and formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
    If you check up on your facts you will discover the it was not the people of Scotland gave up their sovereignty, it was taken from them by the wealthy few who had the vote and the power over them.
    Seems as nothing has changed.
    With the exception of Gibraltar “colonies” are not part of the EU Union.

    • DRDW-Rockhaggis

      Scotland is an English colony in all but name. They same structures of legislature executive and judiciary that were used to colonise and create the british empire … exist in Scotland. Over 300 years they have been transformed into more palatable and ‘democratised ‘ institutions , but in essence the still exist and can be called upon and restructured, as we are seeing, to re-establish colonial control.
      Scotland is a colony … the first and last. Sadly it seems that it is to consumed into a greater England called Britain and there is little we can do about it ….

      • Molloy


        “RockHag” — Agreed. But puzzled as to why you suggest that nothing can be done by Scottish people?

        Why the defeatism, pray?!


        ******** ???????????????????????????????????


        • Molloy


          Also. . . . ‘DR’ to me it seems rather odd that you forget Ireland. Colonised long before the 18th C.

          Was this omission deliberate I wonder?


          Ireland ??


    • Molloy


      Thanks, SE.

      Well, I wonder if MB is in some way being coerced?

      (One of the nastier weapons of the UK$ slave traders/elite.)


      * * *

  • Alex

    Interesting that you feel that the Scottish Parliament should not be restricted in spending by the UK government when most of the money thay want to spend comes from England. Socialists do get upset when they run out of other people’s money don’t they?

    • Molloy


      Alex — Come come. Simply. Entirely. Scottish money. Scottish resources. From the outset.

      Please keep up.

      ¡No pasarán!


  • dutch

    Parliament’s “Declaratory Act” of 1766 asserted the right to legislate for its North American colonies “in all cases whatsoever”. That didn’t go down so well then. Of course Scotland is alot closer than Massachusetts.


    But then wouldn’t you create the same problem with the border Scotland/England, as we now have in Eire?

  • Thomas Barbour

    This is totally unacceptable the Scottish government need to convey this to all corners of Scotland and start independence rallies and look into dissolving this unfair union how is it one country can control three other countries this is not a union it’s a Dictatorship a London Dictatorship

  • Neil lepick

    In passing these laws has the house of lords not broken the treaty of the union. ?
    By taking the Scottish parliament to the English supreme court to judge on Scottish law has Westminster parliament not broken the treaty of the union?
    Also by passing judgement and finding against a law passed by the Scottish parliament, has the supreme court not broken the treaty of the union?
    By the above action of the English supreme court and Westminster government
    Surely the Scottish government has the lawful right to dissolve the treaty of the union ??

  • archibald george

    well there we go an english judge in an english court taking the english side fir the sake of his english home land so now we need to f*** you english man of corruption we are leaving to free of said corruption

  • Sharp Ears

    This is PAVA, a red pepper spray, already authorised for use by the police and now authorised for use in prisons by the spooky Rory Stewart, the Prisons Minister. He operates in the Ministry of Justice’ under David Gauke, the grandly titled Lord Chancellor.

    It’s effect is said to be more severe than CS gas on a recipient.

    • Sharp Ears

      ‘High levels of pepper-spray misuse found in prisons pilot scheme
      Prisons charity calls for halt to rollout after it finds officers routinely breached guidance
      15 Dec 2018

      Ministers have been urged to halt the planned rollout of pepper spray to prison officers after an analysis found it may have been used in breach of official guidance in almost two thirds of recorded incidents during a pilot scheme.

      When the decision to roll out Pava, a synthetic incapacitant pepper spray, was announced in early October, the prisons minister Rory Stewart said it would only be used in “exceptional circumstances” to protect staff from threats of serious violence.

      However, the Prison Reform Trust suggested guidance was routinely ignored by officers during the pilot, and that the rollout was “likely to do more harm than good and undermine the safety of prisoners and prison officers”.’


      Apart from the horror of the use of this disgusting stuff, almost every decision this government makes results in this sort of foul up. They cannot get anything right.

      Incidentally, PAVA is being used in the Paris protests currently.

      • Molloy


        Sadly, SE. Par for the course.

        ‘Fatal Shore’; Robert Hughes (the original Tasman prison). . . the chaplain was coerced, at gunpoint, to deputise for the hangman.

        Obviously Gauke needs to see the chaplain.




  • BrianFujisan

    Let it Be Kown.. The ‘ All Under One Banner ‘ will have ONLY – as per usual – Stewards wearing Yellow bibs… And we all are Face Rec Friendly with those good stewards..

    We walk with Children, the infirm… Pets.. if you see Yellow protests in Scotland, it wont be from the Indy movement

  • Skye Mull

    The whole of the U.K. is currently ‘subservient ‘ to the Tories. Some might view England as having an issue more than Scotland. Scotland has its own parliament as well as having MPs voting at Westminster on English matters. Some in England might view Scotland as already being in a superior position…… which the SNP would like to give up in favour of separate membership of the EU. Is that what we really want?

  • Wikikettle

    Despite what the SNP say now, I would only credit Scotland as Independent, if they managed to get rid of WMD, have their own currency,
    no free movement and a Scottish passport ? But then whats the status of all the Scots living in England and the rest of the world ? As a British passport holder, with no Scotts blood or links, would love to move up and settle in that New Scotland. Would I be allowed ? Discuss..

    • Dave

      The SNP was an independence party, but they gave that up to progress into office, no doubt explaining this was a successful long term strategy, but in practice, as the message changes to attract new members and votes, so do the reasons why people join and vote SNP and now SNP is viewed as a stronger voice for Scotland party, whether in UK or EU.

      I.e. The SNP promoted the EU as a tactic to weaken the links with Westminster and promoting a devolved parliament was to get Scots used to running their own affairs, but now the SNP want to replace Westminster with Brussels, which isn’t independence, hence the misguided tactics towards Brexit.

      Progressing to full independence, if that’s the aim, is easier from within UK than from within EU and so the SNP should be supporting Brexit and then once outside offering the Scots an independence referendum on Leaving UK followed by a non-independence referendum on joining EU.

1 2

Comments are closed.