Here is video of my bifurcated speech on Saturday at AUOB Glasgow. In talking to a large crowd you need perforce to yell, and you can’t really get over much more than headlines of ideas. So this isn’t the (hopefully) thoughtful and intellectual Craig Murray you get speaking at an indoor meeting.
It was a brilliant event. Only a small portion of the marchers stay for the speakers, and 80% of the march had not even reached Glasgow Green yet at the time I was speaking. So between those two factors I don’t suppose I was speaking to above 5,000 people. But it is worth saying that I experienced no negative feedback whatsoever, either in audience reaction or from talking to people afterwards, from taking a much more radical line on various issues surrounding Scottish Independence. It is worth saying that the Yes Movement is organic. There is no “official” view, and my take is no more nor less valid than anybody else’s. But it is evidently not unpopular.
As last year, the Yes Bikers arrived midway through my speech, which is thus in two parts. That is my excuse for loss of fluency towards the end. I am sure I had a peroration in my head somewhere, but struggled to find it!
Many thanks to Brian Fujisan for the video. You can also see it on Independence Live but their production has become too perfect! The sound is superb but you don’t get any crowd noise. If you take out the interaction I sound like a lunatic. OK, more of a lunatic.
It is worth noting, as a demonstration of people power, that Glasgow City Council had attempted to mess this march up by insisting it move its start time from 1.30pm to 11.00am, and the organisers simply told them to get lost, with complete success. The same thing happened when last year the authorities told them they could not rally in Holyrood Park, and AUOB replied “stop us”. Like Extinction Rebellion, this is a sign of a popular mood of protest that refuses to be denied.
There are many arguments about the size of the march. My own estimate would be about 90,000. It was arriving eight abreast for three hours. In terms of percentage of Scottish population, this is the equivalent of a million people marching through London. Yet there was an almost complete lack of television coverage. The next day Andrew Marr hosted Ruth Davidson broadcasting unchallenged that there is no popular demand for Independence.
Finally, I had picked up online some accusations about the AUOB organisation and their accounting for the money donated to the marches. I asked the organisers about this, and they readily and at their own instigation gave me complete access to their accounts and records for inspection.
Looking through their records, I can see no grounds for suspicion. Perhaps people do not fully realise the costs involved in putting on such a huge event – for example stage and sound system hire alone costs £5,000. Provision of substantial numbers of portable toilets (which have to be professionally emptied) is expensive. Permits, advertising and publicity, it all adds up. As a director of two music festivals which include precisely the same lines of expenditure, I can say with confidence that AUOB’s figures look absolutely right to me.
Income is of course harder to audit when it is people chucking coins in buckets. The online crowdfunder took £9,993 and can be verified. The collecting buckets at events are unverifiable – but the £3,108 collected in Dundee and the £6,325 collected in Edinburgh feel right. The income from stallholders at the events appears properly accounted for – that appeared to be the source of some of the complaints. I must say it seems to me perfectly reasonable that those organisations with stalls at the rallies are asked to chip in.
Any organisation which collects cash from the public will always be open to somebody dipping their hand in the bucket, but I see nothing that gives me reason to believe that this has happened. It is perfectly possible that some incident really did occur that led to an accusation flying, but we must also be very aware that the agents of the British state would like nothing better than to throw doubt and dissension into the most successful public manifestation of the Independence movement, by magnifying any incident out of all proportion.
After looking through their accounts and vouchers I am now fully confident that nothing is systematically wrong with AUOB and the money that Yessers had trusted them with.
These turnouts give the lie every time to the unionist claim that there’s no support for independence.
It would be foolish to say that there is “no” support for independence but it would be equally foolish in my opinion to say that there is “majority” support for it.
Some unionists claim the former but, equally, some independentists claim the latter.
Both are wrong.
Your opinion B*stock, as usual, is worthless because you have no basis on which to make your assertions. What a surprise. And you are so certain of what you want to be the case that you just make it up.
Well, I do, actually. The outcome of the Scottish independence referendum and numerous public opinion polls since then.
Didn’t I read somewhere that more people in Scotland voted for Brexit/ to leave the EU than voted for the SNP? I suspect that Scotland is as conflicted over independence as the U.K. is over Brexit. And the independence movement is based mostly in the big conurbations of Glasgow and Edinburgh. I didn’t encounter much enthusiasm for it when last up the west coast.
“Independent, but a member of the EU”.
Errrrrr…it’s logic Jim, but not as we know it.
Logic clearly shows Scotland will have more power and more respect as an individual member of the EU than it does just now as an ignored part of the so-called united kingdom.
Not sure what logic you’re applying there. Why would 5m Scots exercise more power and respect in a union of 500m people than in one of 60m?
Fairness and adherence to constitutional rules. That’s why. If an independent Scotland in the EU ever wanted to have a referendum about leaving the EU then Brussels wouldn’t say “now is not the time”.
An independent Scotland in the EU is an oxymoron.
By all means champion and campaign for Scotland to be a member of the EU but to claim it will be ‘independent’ is disingenuous at best.
Too often champions of the EU are blind to the realities of the EU project and its inevitable trajectory. The whole goal is greater integration. The price of that is a loss of sovereignty and for those countries now wishing to join will also probably require becoming members of the Euro-zone. If that happens any pretence of independence wont hold up for long.
An independent Scotland doesn’t have to be an EU member. Or alternatively an EFTA member. The whole point is the people of Scotland will decide what international unions and organisations we are a member of. Instead of the current impositions.
Are you short of memory? The French and Dutch both voted no to a European constitution and this was ignored. In the Netherlands referendums were even abolished fully, with assistance of a party that was founded on referendums (D’66). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum
Remember the Irish referendum? Good, it will never happen as it was indefinitely postponed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_European_Constitution_referendum
You can join the EU but shed any illusions before.
An Independent Scotland will have its own State Broadcaster not another country’s desperately working to keep Scots
ill-informed and ignorant politically.
Clydebuilt
Indeed, STV carries ITV content, there are virtually no Scottish programmes, they’ve been anglicised.
The Westminster government will never devolve broadcasting to Scotland.
kapelmeister
Of course the EU wouldn’t say “now is not the time”. That is because there’s something called Article 50 in the Treaty which provides for Member States to leave the EU. But it does not specify anything about internal processes in that Member State, nor anything about the timing of those internal processes.
Here’s a prime example as to why.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29987193
Good speech Craig, great carnival atmosphere the marchers were still arriving in Kelvin Way as the front of the march reached Charing Cross
It’s the “punching above their weight” argument that’s ridiculed when applied to the UK.
The Germans and the French would crush them like a bug.
It is certain that – except in the few areas where unanimity still applies – the smaller Member States have very little say or influence in EU matters. The argument that an independent Scotland would somehow be treated better because it’s soooo small and has “suffered” soooo much when under the thumb of the wicked English is a foolish illusion.
Older link Charles but relevant.
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-big-influence-of-small-countries-in-the-united-nations-secretariat
Errrm. Totally different organisation.
RoS
You must focus. We are talking about the EU and not the UN. Perhaps the presence of the letter “U” in both acronyms confused you?
They wouldn’t set our taxes, collect our taxes, or spend our taxes like Westminster.
The last three Prime Ministers have been Scottish
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron.
And all rubbish.
Scotland should pay reparations to England for dumping their trash. However, May should be included among “last X Prime Ministers”, isn’t she the ultimate one? And she tries her best to create restore damage parity — English born PMs vs Scottish born/descendant PMs.
For which I haven’t heard a word of apology from north of the border.
“For which I haven’t heard a word of apology from north of the border.”
If these “Scottish” PMs, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, these spawn of Thatcher, were bad.
Then who was the last good PM?
Has to be Wilson or Macmillan, certainly not Heath, Douglas-Home or Sunny Jim.
You could go back a bit more I suppose.
Churchill’s always a safe bet.
Or earlier still.
When was the last good PM, and why?
“The last three Prime Ministers have been Scottish
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron.”
—————————-
Only one-Gordon Brown- owned that claim. He was the son of the manse, an alumnus and former Rector of Edinburgh University and could hardly do other.
The other two were public schoolboys. Although one, Blair, attended Fettes in Edinburgh, he described himself, “as an English MP“.
Being a public school boy and Scottish aren’t mutually exclusive. Blair was born in Edinburgh, one parent Scottish one Irish. Cameron was born in London, one parent Scottish one Welsh.
AFAIAA, Scotland will have to apply to join the EU after becoming independent of the UK, as if it were Northern Montenegro. It is certainly not the case that a new country, devolving from a EU member state, is itself a member state – quite the contrary. And note that new EU member states are required to join the Euro, with all that implies about central banks.
I hope that a newly-independent Scotland will strive to remain independent of the EU, too.
Very interesting and completely correct – except for the FACTS !
Which FACTS are you having a problem with? My post was quite short; I made three statements of fact, of which one described my own state of awareness, and one described my hopes.
An independent Scotland will start its life outside the EU. I wish it were not so, but that’s how it works. Ask the leaders of Catalunya.
The EU is a coalition of states. States are never keen on secession. Therefore the EU is not keen on secession. Neither Catalunya nor Scotland should pin their hopes to the EU; the EU will always back member states against secessionists. See the way the EU negotiators have backed Ireland against the UK. See the way they have backed the Spanish government against the Catalans.
“Self-determination” is just nice words; the EU is OK with “devolution”, when that means something a bit like local government. When devolution starts to mean independence, the EU gets all authoritarian and statist.
Independence doesn’t mean isolationism. Whereas if Scotland stays in the UK we will be an increasingly disempowered and disenfranchised nation, milked for its resources by an internationally isolated British state.
What definitions are you using of disenfranchisement and its increase? And what kind of isolation might the British state experience other than international isolation?
Are you sure you’re on top of how large a proportion of reason you used, rather than devotion, to get your thoughts about nationalism to where they are? Or is that the sort of question that you’d expect a foreigner, ethnic traitor, or indoctrinated self-hater to ask?
The UK government using Brexit as an excuse to unconstitutionally strip powers from Holyrood. The same UK government trying to foster the belief that it has the right to prevent Scotland having an another independence referendum. Westminster making the Scottish nation leave the EU against our democratically expressed wish by withholding power of veto.
I reckon all that amounts to disenfranchisement. And it will get a whole lot worse if Scotland remains in the UK.
Of course, I jest.
Everyone not busily preoccupied rearranging their sock drawer or polishing the budgie knows that the reason an “independent” Scotland must become a member of the EU is “the economy, stupid”.
Nationalism is, by definition, reactionary: “countries” don’t exist. The only possible justification for engaging in a nationalist movement is to release a group of people from exploitation (economic and/or physical), the post-WW2 anti-colonial struggles (sometimes under the banner of Communism) providing the classic example. Once this aim is achieved, the immediate problem becomes economic survival in a Capitalist world order – hence the subsequent failure of most of the promising anti-colonial movements.
In the case of Scotland, Union was initially necessary because of the country’s bankruptcy. More recently, it would again have been bankrupted in 2008 by the activities of RBS and HBOS. Today, partly as a result of being incorporated within the larger economy of the UK, it has an unbalanced economy heavily reliant on a handful of sectors, one of which – oil – is not only extremely price-volatile but also the increasing subject of the “keep it in the ground” movement.
What could possibly go wrong?
I am not astounded at your ignorance of Scotland as it seems to be a general attitude from south of the border.
The union was not because the country was bankrupt but the high-heid yins and that the signing of the Acts were followed by massive rioting of the people who were against their country being sold. I do hope you do some research.
As for the banks, they were UK owned and only headquartered in Edinburgh. Much like most things ‘British’ sooked into the city of London never to be seen again.
Until very recently our government had no borrowing powers, even now limited, so if banks fail the uk, much reliant on their ‘activities’, bail them out as I’m sure you know.
Perhaps you don’t realise how diverse is the Scottish economy Mr Parsons, indeed we have space industry which produced the most satelites.
Food, drink, farming, fishing, agriculture, games industry, renewables- large and expanding despite UK government! And of course oil and gas… What other small/medium size country has so much going for it.
Oh, and not forgetting that valuable resource much needed in the future, water.
How on earth has Malta, Gibralter, Norway etc etc managed?
Morag
On a point of information, what do you mean by the “games industry”? Is this a reference to gambling, football or what?
The country was not bankrupt, it was only the high and mighty who lost money in the Darian scheme, and they were bailed out by the English Government. Also, Scotland had to take on some of the English debt, hence the bribery and corruption. Read the Treaty of Union of the Scottish and English Governments. It is mostly about increasing and raising taxes in Scotland for the benefit of England. 312 years later Scotland is still in the same boat.
Adrian
“More recently, it would again have been bankrupted in 2008 by the activities of RBS and HBOS.”
This is incorrect. Scotland would only have been liable for the business carried out in Scotland, which was a tiny fraction of the monies involved. For example, the US gave the UK Govt billions to cover the bad business carried out by UK banks within the US – the UK certainly didn’t cover the non-UK element.
Adrian Parsons
It’s called “doublethink”.
Much better than the Union we are in just now. They collect over 80% of Scotlands taxes and give us reading sweeties back.
It’s so good to know that everything the lobby group did was financially above board, shipshape, as clean as a whistle, as pure as the driven snow on Ben Nevis, and audited by an independent auditor who was given full “access” to its accounts and who is backed by a professional insurer who last rolled up his trouser leg decades ago, and whose interest in ancient Egypt and Pythagorean geometry is his own business. And of course the huge corruption in Scotland from one end of the country to the other – which everybody knows about – will come to an end, come the glorious day of independence when those who have tied their wagons to nationalism will walk 10 foot high, break any leaders who have been interned by compradores and occupiers out of prison and, at long last, deal with those who have snivelled to foreigners for so long, denying the nation’s right to be itself, to rise like a rampant lion and roar for the foreseeable future, albeit using scrip backed by US dollars or by paper issued by a Russian oligarch, but – and this is important, because nationalism is internationalism – in alliance with similarly minded Protestant nations in EFTA and even Catholic ones on the continent so long as they aren’t in league with the London media. Meanwhile who cares about passport issues or the NHS or Scots living outside of Scotland who aren’t Sean Connery? Moaning minnies!
Your cynicism is as misplaced as it is unattractive. It is a small voluntary organisation with only a very few dozen transactions each year. And your imputation it is something to do with freemasons is ludicrous.
World class ranting.
So what?
It’s about independence and the right to make our own decisions.
That doesn’t mean Scotland becomes different from other countries, there will always be problems.
But at least we’ll be able to sort them out ourselves.
Independence is normal.
In my local branch of Tesco’s in Scotland there are saltires everywhere, and there are signs saying things like “Scottish milk from Scottish cows”. Meanwhile there’s a young black woman who works on one of the checkouts, and her queues are always shorter than everyone else’s. Often she doesn’t have any customers at all in her queue even when there are four or five in each of the other queues. What other reason can there be for this than that a large proportion of customers are white racist scum (and the term “scum” is richly deserved) who are revolted by the idea of a black person touching their food? Why should this young woman vote for more nationalist symbols everywhere? How about addressing real problems in the country?
You appear to have gone mad. I have never witnessed the kind of racism you describe in Scotland, and have many black and Asian friends who live here who find the lack of racism delightful. That is not to say none exists, but the idea it infects the whole population who would shun a black checkout worker is ludicrous.
If you want to swap anecdotes, my friend Felix tells the story of standing lost on Glasgow Central when arriving to study here. He was approached by a motley crowd of Glasgow youths who looked alarming. They took his suitcases and documents and led him on to a bus. He was scared he was being kidnapped and his things stolen. They got off the bus, carried his cases into his Hall of Residence, shook his hand and said “good luck big man” and they left.
_“You appear to have gone mad.”
Have you only just noticed? When he isn’t disturbed by runes and triquetras, he’s obsessing about other people’s reproduction choices or what tackle might be concealed in their underwear.
Murray
I have no idea whether N_’s anecdote is true or not, but what is clear is that any (converse) claims that Scots are less racist and more tolerant than others in the United Kingdom are at best wishful thinking and at worst bunkum.
Similarly, political life in an independent Scotland would at best be no different to political life in rUK, not would there be less corruption and so on.
The best that the Scots will be able to say is “but it’s OUR political life, it’s OUR corruption”.
So, B*stock, you know nothing about Scotland. More astonishing surprises. You are bitter and sour today.
They don’t want Scotland to leave the UK, but they cannot, for some reason, just come out and say, “please don’t leave, we want and love you and can work this out together”.
No. They just bitch and bitch, and abuse you, making you want to leave even more.
Power is non-negotiable. You either have it or you don’t have it.
The first sign it’s gone is when peeps just walk away.
Anyway, the UK of GB and Ireland, has been pulling apart for over one hundred years now, and Scottish Independence is the latest in this.
All needs to be seen in light of that longer history.
The whys the wherefores and so on..
Ian
Not bitter and sour, just realistic.
My son was threatened with physical violence in the ‘Horse and Barge’ pub in Clydebank, merely for ordering a drink with what the regulars believed to be an English accent and therefore identifying himself as of the same origin.
When the publican: his father in law arrived at the bar and pointed out that my son was in fact Welsh and his maternal grandmother was from Bearsden but he’d lived much of his adult life in England, it became a case of ‘Hail fellow well met’.
Racist? Not much eh?
Or perhaps they didn’t approve of him drinking cider as opposed to Tennent’s lager?
His visits to Scotland are now limited to those of necessity, he can’t always guarantee his ex Clyde welder father in law will be on hand to chaperone.
So what?
I’m Scottish and have a Highland accent and had the same treatment in Glasgow.
It was from the sort of folk who support NI sectarianism and English rule. Apparently because I was wearing something green they thought I was a Celtic supporter.
They didn’t like my answer that I thought fitba was for pansies, and real men played shinty.
But it’s got bugger all to do with whether Scotland should decide it’s own future,
Independence is normal, not being ruled by your next door neighbour.
N
That really is a disgraceful comment and frankly, I don’t believe a word of it.
We have yet again got sockpuppeting using multiple personalities on the same thread.
Well, delete them, then, instead of letting them clog up your board as you seem wont to do.
All political parties are infested to some degree with Political science graduates. Never had a proper job in their life and desperate to keep it that way. Their aims in life are to secure a decent, secure salary, and to wield power, which by logical extension means excluding others.
I was not aware of any specific allegation against AUOB, but I picked up on Scotgoespop this morning a general and anonymous attack against those with the temerity to monetise their contribution to the Indy movement. Taken with the attack from Robertson, McDonald and Smith yesterday, this looks like a coordinated assault.
My instinct tells me Alex Salmond was fully aware and appreciative in 2014 of the diverse, enthusiastic and free wheeling contribution from the greater Indy movement. That appreciation is stunningly absent under the controlfreakery of the Sturgeon household.
We need more not less contributions across the Indy spectrum. Please can we have some representations from a female perspective. Craig, Wings, the dug, Munguin, Scotgoespop, …. it’s all a bit gender monochromatic.
Yes thanks to Brian.
Q Who are the Yes Bikers?
Answering my own question. ‘Yes’ for Independence with their saltire flags.
The Yes Bikers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=245&v=4P-mV4OAE8k
Routing and tooting.
Craig,
You mention in your speech that that you wish an independent Scotland to have: no Trident, no NATO, no monarchy, and land ownership reform.
Is there a any political party that supports your vision?
Has anyone authored a credible policy study to identify how these may be implemented against the considerable resources that would be brought to bear by those institutions vested in the status quo?
No – I didn’t think so!
And there you have the reason why independence is nothing more than a fringe movement of desperate and irrelevant devotees – big on rhetoric but absent a plan for success or the intellectual heavy-weights to deliver.
Seconded (fortunately or unfortunately). I’ve asked many times various questions about various things in a future independent Scotland and have never any answer on here: the replies varu between insults, whataboutery and rude suggestions that I go and consult the SNP manifesto and position papers (for which no link is ever given, of course).
The Scottish independence movement has waxed and waned over the last 100 years. At present, it waxes but in a few years the reverse may be the case. Which is presumably why the SNP and people like Murray are so keen on either another referendum right now or a UDI-type move.
100 000 marchers on the streets of Glasgow city centre. A majority of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood since 2011. “Fringe” and “irrelevant”?
Hardly.
Politics is decided by persuading the undecided and those against your cause to join your ranks. Like it or not, a majority voted against independence, and no amount of marches, regardless of the number in attendance – if those present were former Yes voters, has any relevance until a coherent manifesto and implementation plan, to address the short-comings raised last time round, is produced and becomes persuasive to the former No voters.
By continually beating the indy drum as the only solution to the country’s maladies and misfortune, without definition of the policies and economic structure that would follow, is indeed the preserve of an irrelevant fringe.
Mark – you describe the current state of affairs within the UK perfectly…
“big on rhetoric but absent a plan for success or the intellectual heavy-weights to deliver.”
Does it not make sense to leave and determine your own future, rather than be locked in to the mess that the current UK is? Even if the UK wasn’t in a mess, why allow a large neighbour to dominate your affairs?
Your use of the term “fringe movement” suggests either that you are well out of touch with events in Scotland or you are burying your head in the sand in a tantrum.
JOML – your argument for independence is premised on dissatisfaction with the UK government – opposed to the actual merits of becoming independent. Philosophically I am strongly in favour of independence, but only if were to deliver something better that that which presently exists. A bunch of self-serving, grand-standing and inept politicians based in Edinburgh, for me, is no different than the same in Westminster. As for the – independent but still in the EU – argument; that is just contradictory.
So no – my head is not buried in the sand. I see around me all to clearly the decay and dilapidation of the country I grew up in, the absence of employment opportunities, a sick and unhealthy population, the despondency of old age, the ever increasing government expenditure that will come back to haunt future generations with a vengeance, and the subordination of foreign policy and defense spending to that which serves primarily US and EU interest . These, however, are not just Scotland’s problems, but are replicated throughout the UK as a consequence of successive government mismanagement over the decades. And to solve these problems – something a little more substantive than an “indy now” slogan is going to be required.
Maybe not but there many other countries who do.
I have no knowledge on land issues, but no Trident, no NATO, no monarchy — isn’t it the reason that Ireland went down the drain? What, they did not?!
Scottish Tory politician Paul Masterton tweets a video clip of Saturday’s peaceful and friendly indy march and says “actually guys, these are my streets too”. And accuses independence supporters of trying to “own the ground I walk on”.
Funny I don’t recall Paul objecting to the union Jack waving thugs who took over George Square the evening after the 2014 referendum.
AUOB should organise an aquatic demo for independence. Then Colonel Ruth can accuse us of trying to own the water she walks on.
Impressive turnout given the general disengagement in politics as witnessed in the local elections in England.
As for independence, the best hope and indeed likely scenario is Labour being the largest party, officially supporting another referendum in return for a confidence and supply arrangement with the SNP at Westminster. Perversely, a popular Labour govt propped up by the SNP may be an impediment to winning said referendum however. The North east had a devolution referendum in 2004, on what was to be an admittedly largely powerless assembly and they rejected it, presumably, in the belief Labour would hold power for a long time.
Scotland is no longer a Labour bastion or anywhere near it. Hadn’t you noticed?
Yes, I do know that.
But the level of relief when the Tories are booted out may sate Scottish political appetite for change(independence), depending upon how radical any Labour/SNP govt is and depending on Brexit/EU status.
It’s like the argument about why N.Sturgeon is trying to bring about a UK wide 2nd EU referendum(confirmatory vote) when were that to happen – and were we to vote to remain – it’d make making the case for independence much harder. Especially as so much emphasis by the SNP recently in pushing the case for another referendum rests upon a fundamental ‘change of circumstance’ brought about by Brexit. How many times have you heard SNP spokespeople claim a referendum is needed to prevent Scotland ‘being dragged out of the EU against its wishes’?
What if Brexit were cancelled , where would that leave hopes for independence?
Mrs. May is about to do the dirty on the U.K. and cobble a deal with Satan, to keep her job.
The resulting Brexit, will not be a real Brexit.
How will Nicola deal with the ensuing mess, will it suit her or no?
The same disaffection with Westminster is shared by English voters, but they don’t have a national flag to rally around, so are the Scots really rallying for independence or just against the policies like austerity promoted by Westminster.
This matters because Westminster austerity is actually EU austerity to save the Euro and this means leaving the British Union in favour of the EU is jumping out of the pot into the fire, whereas remaining in the British Union and leaving the EU ends austerity, because leaving the EU ends the need to keep within the rules for joining the Euro and in so doing provides the money tree.
They have a national flag, the St Georges cross, they are well able to be independant.
The problem is England looks on Westminster as their Parliament, it would be like England declaring independence from London, which is a part of England. If Westminster was in Scotland, then yes England could rallying around the St George’s Cross, against Westminster. In England the equivalent of SNP, at least as far as what motivates voters is/was UKIP.
I’m a bit disenchanted with the whole independence ‘thing’. Let me make clear from the outset, that I’m a committed supporter of Scottish independence and would like nothing better than to see it happen in my lifetime. I was even a paid up member of the SNP before it stopped being political and became a cult.
Having said all that, I can’t take these independence marches seriously at all. What I do see is that in the run up to the 2014 referendum, there was a huge carnival feeling across the parts of Scotland that I was aware of and people from all walks of life felt like they were actually making a real change, what they did mattered. Everything felt good and a sense of purpose was in the air.
As we all found out afterwards, the majority of Scotland chose to remain as part of the UK. That was the first time in my life that I felt embarrassed to be Scottish, it was a shameful day and obviously, I wasn’t the only person feeling that way, because…………
These marches which seem to take place every couple of months now aren’t organised for the purpose of independence. Their one single objective is for people to recreate the feeling of carnival, the feeling of hope, the feeling of actually doing something. This is what they do, people are trying to recreate feelings from past events, that’s all. It can’t even be seriously described as an independence movement, because it hasn’t actually done any moving. It’s just blah blah blah, a couple of musicians and speakers, then it’s off to the pub to slap each other on the backs and tell each other what a great day it’s been and there’s the rub. The marches are a great day out, nothing more, nothing less and will achieve nothing. As is constantly mentioned here, they don’t even get on the TV!!
Scotland has a cult who has taken up the independence mantle and have monetised the entire thing and who mention independence only for the matter of keeping fees and funds flowing into their organisation, nothing else and the cult members go along unquestioningly with whatever Nicola Sturgeon tells them and anyone who dares to criticise it is subject to a barrage of abuse, which is what they SNP guy was talking about yesterday.
Remember this too, the cult have spent the best part of the past two years fighting to overturn the result of a UK referendum rather than fighting to overturn the result of a Scottish referendum and have now become aligned with the Lib Dems as one of the two major remain parties in the UK!! Ridiculous as it is, this is no joke. What’s going to happen will be Corbyn will promise them an article 30 and whatever they need in order to gain the SNP support to get him into Number 10 and these idiots are going to fall for it and then bleat once they realise they’ve been duped.
So essentially in my eyes, Scotland has an assumed political independence party which is doing everything but actually fighting for independence and we have an independence movement which isn’t doing any moving!
So, where’s this independence coming from then? Benevolent Tories?
The SNP originated as a genuine independence party, but had little support. It became an ‘independence in Europe’ party, as a tactic, to gain support, but the new members took it seriously particularly as it helped them into office, but it wasn’t really independence.
Hence I don’t think it an accident that Alex Salmond lost his seat in the SNP heartland, an anti-EU fishing area, following the SNPs fulsome embrace of EU made apparent by their opposition to Brexit.
There were more than a few former No voters on the march. All campaigning is about getting the public to notice and consider an argument they might otherwise not give attention to. Demonstrations of public support and of fervour in putting the argument forward play a valuable role in that.
How do you reconcile the SNP’s passionate support for another UK wide EU referendum, at Westminster. When if they succeed in their campaign, and we vote to remain, it undermines their main argument for another independence referendum. They seem to be pursuing wholly contradictory objectives.
Because they think England is making a big mistake leaving the EU.
Which ironically shows, something I welcome, how they have gone native at Westminster.
It is not in Scotland’s interest to share the British Isles with an impoverished, right wing xenophobic England. Thats why Sturgeon is fighting to keep GB in the EU.
Except as far as securing independence is concerned self interest requires a failing rather than successful Westminster, as most vote for the status quo, whereas a failing Westminster would improve the prospect of a Leave vote.
– “…they don’t even get on the TV!!”
Pink boat in Oxford Circus seemed to do the trick.
– “in the run up to the 2014 referendum, there was a huge carnival feeling across the parts of Scotland that I was aware of and people from all walks of life felt like they were actually making a real change, what they did mattered. Everything felt good and a sense of purpose was in the air.”
This is so true, but to relate it to the above, the centralised media barely mentioned it; all they did was endlessly repeat spats between politicians until enough people were bored stupid and tried to forget about it. You have to break the law, but in a nice, funny way that all but the most po-faced will approve of. People don’t like politics; they prefer disobedience, and who can blame them?
Even the Scottish Resistance got in the papers with their ‘England Out Of Scotland’ banner and they only have 974 likes on the FB page!
So, where are the big hitters for Independence? The Sean Connerys, the Frankie Boyles and all this? There’s absolutely nothing that’s getting the message out there in the papers or on TV so independence is regarded as a parochial matter, ‘that thing that Scots do’.
It’s not for me to tell people to stop marching, having days out or whatever they want to do but I DO feel that it’s up to me to point out what I perceive to be faults and problems with achieving independence. For example, what was the latest wheeze from the cult leader? It was ‘It’s time to get your jackets on and fight the economic case for independence!’
A completely meaningless platitude that will be laughed at as soon as any cult member attempts to make the case on the doorstep.but of course, the independence people lapped it up without question.
As I said above, for a movement, the independence ‘movement’ doesn’t do a lot of moving so it’s probably time for a rethink or change of strategy otherwise it will just become an accepted Scottish tradition a bit like Loch Ness which attracts visitors hoping to see the monster but without any real chance of doing so and the independence movement will attract people hoping for independence but without any real chance of achieving it.
“Even the Scottish Resistance got in the papers with their ‘England Out Of Scotland’ banner and they only have 974 likes on the FB page!”
Of course they got into the press, they’re the ideal group to put across as anti-English and therefore ideal for smearing the larger independence movement.
The unionist press love that sort of thing the likes of Sean Clerkin are a godsend for them.
Re “they don’t even get on the TV!!”
It needs something that will capture the imagination of the masses. Possibly the equivalent of the erection in every town square of something like the extinction gong: https://www.extinctiongong.com
It chimes every 19 minutes at present as a species becomes extinct, no doubt that will increase in regularity as global warming increases.
One of the claimed problems with the Brexit vote is that the “people did not know what they were voting for”
Luckily this problem does not exist in Scotland – what with Scotland having an unambiguous plan with regard to its future currency plans which will be developed and implemented as soon as practicable.
Given the clarity of the opacity it is not possible to learn anything from Scottish proposals, so best to look elsewhere. Take Ecuador for example which abolished its currency, the Sucre, in 2000 and adopted the US$. An immediate consequence was that between 10% and 15% of the population fled the country. An ongoing consequence is that upward of 50,000 Ecuadorians visit Colombia on a weekly basis for the purposes of shopping.
If Scotland becomes an independent country but uses the currency of a foreign power (the UK) then for what reason would Scotland expect a different outcome from that experienced by Ecuador. A number of people in favor of Scottish independence make the argument that Scotland “needs more people” Odd then that one of the primary policies seems guaranteed to create a wave of emigration.
Naturally the new currency to be introduced as “soon as practicable” needs some translation. If Scotland is to be a member of the EU then its new currency will be the Euro and it will be introduced as and when Scotland is instructed to introduce it. Some may find it a strange form of independence that simply requires the carrying out of orders received from the ECB.
If Scotland is not to be in the EU then it will be free to introduce its own currency “as soon as practicable” Such an outcome would be contrary to most exhortations to independence which appear to involve EU membership.
“If Scotland is to be a member of the EU then its new currency will be the Euro and it will be introduced as and when Scotland is instructed to introduce it.”
If I had a pound for everytime I’ve read this utter tripe I’d be a rich man that’s for sure. There’s at least nine EU members who don’t use the Euro. Sweden’s been in the EU since around 1995 and has no plans to adopt the Euro.
I do wish some folk would do at least a wee bit of research before blowing off steam.
Those countries will all have to join the euro at some point, it’s required by EU law. Only two countries secured a legally-binding opt-out from the eurozone in the Maastricht Treaty, the UK and Denmark.
As Ros says, Sweden, 24 years in the EU and still no Euro plans.
In 2017 the EU commission revealed plans to put pressure on the remaining EU countries to adopt the euro no later than 2025. It is false confidence to believe a newly independent, isolated Scotland would be in a position to dictate exceptional membership terms for itself and escape the euro dragnet.
“The EU has accepted that Sweden is staying outside the eurozone on its own decision. Olli Rehn, the EU commissioner for economic affairs has said that this is up to Swedish people to decide.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro
I’m sure if the EU finds it okay for Sweden to stay out of the EU, as decided by the Swedish people, then surely that could be cited as a future precedent for others.
Also its not certain whether Scotland would be a full member of the EU or vote to join EFTA after independence, a vote on that would be needed.
The former would require Scotland to have its own stable currency for several years just to meet the ERMII criteria.
I personally have no problem adopting the Euro in future.
MMT proponent is speaking in Scotland next week. See what he says about the adoption of the Euro here:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/
Sorry. This week.
Thanks for the link Bill, the currency issue of a independent Scotland is one that sparks debate.
For now I’d say most folk in Scotland are still comfortable using the pound ergo to achieve independence and not to frighten the horses so to speak, a short period of Sterlingisation will probably be the route to win soft noes over.
To directly declare a separate Scottish currency as the way forward in the run up to a independence vote might scare some folk away from voting yes. We must remember that winning the vote is the number one goal, then we can build on that.
Of course no matter what route we take they’ll always be detractors pointing out the cons but not the pros in the unionist media.
u can only now become a member state of the European Union if you agree to join the Eurozone when they tell u.
“There’s at least nine EU members who don’t use the Euro”
They all have their own currency. Scotland does not.
Whatever currency independent Scotland uses will be Scotland’s own currency. That includes sterling.
But sterling is not Scotland’s own. Bank of England and all that.
Which means if Scotland were to join the Euro, it would take even longer, which I stated in my comment
It’s being reported that Manny Singh, the chief organiser of the AUOB March in Glasgow has been charged by police for not starting the march at the correct time. Lack of punctuality would now appear to be an offence in Brexitland. Especially if your political views don’t chime with the Britnat establishment.
Yeah the city council wanted a 11.30am kick-off and not a 13.30pm kick-off. Manny defied the council to leave at the later time, however as far as I know, no incidents were reported by the police, a feat in itself with around 100K marching.
Manny said he’ll defend his actions citing.
“I will be defending this charge to the fullest, and will cite the freedom of assembly section of the European Convention of Human Rights.”
Hi Ros. Back with a different username to have a real good time slagging unionist politicos!
I reckon Manny could crowdfund his defence costs in record time.
As far as I know, it was two SNP and one Green councillors from Glasgow city council, who held Manny to account, blowing out of the water that both parties councillors are biased towards those who favour independence.
I’d imagine Manny will receive a fine paid by fund raising. The maximum prison sentence is three months.
What it shows is that the political establishment, nominally pro-Independence or not, is hostile to the people.
Can we have them named?
So that they can be appropriately supported in the next election… 🙂
It seems to me that an so called independent Scotland will still still operate in the world of capital therefor it will have to abide by their rules ,you will not be free from the city of London money markets or Frankfurt, or New York.Did the Irish republic cast off the shackles of the British ruling class after independence?they suffered the same collapse as the British banking system.The irony being they were bailed out partly by that system
Independence isn’t about casting of free markets or withdrawing, its about allowing Scotland to move in the direction its people wants it to, using all the levers of government currently not available to it.
RoS
Stop the World Scotland wants to get on.
Ireland was given a guarantee of funds from the EU if needed, they never needed any and canceled in under 6 years. They also jailed a couple of bankers.
Those most in favor of the EU seem somewhat confused as to what the EU actually is.
With the exception of the UK and Denmark all members of the EU are required to adopt the euro as their sole currency.. It is true that at the moment a number of EU countries do not use the Euro, but they are committed in principal to do so.
Those countries that are members of the EU and who do not use the Euro (with the exception of the UK and Denmark) are obligated to participate in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM2). This is to ensue that they follow monetary policies consistent with the requirements of the European Growth and Stability Pact. Thus their currencies are from independent and for all practical purposes are exactly analogous to the Euro.
It is far from clear whether the EU would admit any new member states (which is what Scotland would be) if they did not agree to use the euro from the date of entry.
Many of the geo-political problems evident in the world today emanate from the global power of the US$. Because substantially all commodities are priced in US$ then the buyers and sellers of those commodities are required to acquire US$”s in order to transact. This gives the US great leverage in the affairs of other countries.
All countries that have voluntarily decided to the currency of a foreign power for all transactions are by definition not independent. Such an action tends to lead to a number of problems – such as those seen in Ecuador. You can also look at Zimbabwe. Its decision to use a combination of the South African Rand and the US$ was not necessarily voluntary as it had to do something having completely destroyed its own currency.
However the broad effects were similar to those seen in Ecuador – mass emigration and a need to purchase as many day to day goods as possible from a foreign country – in this example South Africa as opposed to Colombia. According to the IMF Zimbabwe is today the 26th poorest country in the world and yet it has the highest gasoline prices of any country in the world.
Whichever way you cut then based on the experiences of other countries the future for an independent Scotland is either (i) mass poverty and an emigration crisis or (ii) Becoming a vassal state of the EU – which is a convoluted way of not being independent.
“It is far from clear whether the EU would admit any new member states (which is what Scotland would be) if they did not agree to use the euro from the date of entry.”
Here we go again, Since 1999, all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the Euro once they meet certain criteria. However, there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt it.
So in reality any new member state joining the EU doesn’t need to join the Euro. As for Scotland, extra criteria would be needed such as a stable currency for several years, even just to enter the ERMII.
Some countries, such as Poland, are “theoretically” in the process of joining the Euro but there is no fixed date about if and when this will be achieved.
we can each be free but only hermits can be, sadly, independent. being free gives us the power to join and combine to enhance our lives collectively to further and improve all our lives. choosing your partners, friends, religion, nation should be recognised as human rights.
Yes choosing your partners, friends etc would indicate a degree of freedom.
However if Scotland wishes to join the EU then it will have a ready made coterie of friends and partners. Some of those friends and partners will be in Spain. From this blog we learn that Spain is infested with fascists. It seems reasonable to suppose that Fascists are not well known for their tolerance and understanding of other peoples perspectives.
I wonder, for example, whether Spanish fascists consider Gibraltar to be an English possession or a British possession. If it is the latter then they are not likely to be well disposed to admit to the EU the colonizing nation of Scotland. Still I am sure you could explain your position. Even the act of doing so would mean that you are not free to choose your friends and partners – unless of course you wish to actively befriend fascists.
“I wonder, for example, whether Spanish fascists consider Gibraltar to be an English possession or a British possession.”
Actually I’d say neither, deep down they see it as Spanish.
“If it is the latter then they are not likely to be well disposed to admit to the EU the colonizing nation of Scotland. ”
More wild assumptions.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland/spain-would-not-oppose-future-independent-scotland-rejoining-eu-minister-idUKKCN1NP25P
Read colonized instead of colonizing.
Those are not mutually exclusive. Looking back at my own family history, the one can lead quite directly to the other.
Would people here agree that the Scottish Independence movement is a pro-EU? Is the EU interested ultimately in any sort of nationalism?
You could argue that the movement is a powerful tool to keep the UK within the EU (along with NI).
There is little doubt that the British Establishment doesn’t want Brexit: we’d be out already.
I know some can bluster on about Scottish Independence about just being free to make (y)our choices – independence doesn’t mean isolationism etc – but that phrase I’ve heard Farage say many times.
Think about it….
my wallet is stuffed with the national currency, aka the euro, and lovely it is too.
They’ve charged the wrong AUOB chief. Theresa May of All Under the One Brexit should be on assorted charges for crimes and misdemenours. Including bad dancing in public.
Aw! Ruthie. Don’t cry because there are more of them than your lot. 🙂
https://twitter.com/ruthdavidsonmsp/status/992766167814213633?lang=en
‘@RuthDavidsonMSP
Banjax city centre traffic on a bank holiday Saturday? We’d rather speak directly to hundreds of Scots at work conferences and on the doorsteps. #TeamTory’
You have got to love the first response:
‘ @0604Arb1320
5 May 2018
Replying to @RuthDavidsonMSP
I’ll see YOUR petty wee hundreds and raise you 100 THOUSAND any day of the week hen!
YOU can keep your Nazi saluting supporters … me … I’m with the 100 THOUSAND in Glasgow today ANY day of the week!
(plus photos from the march)
“@RuthDavidsonMSP
Banjax city centre traffic on a bank holiday Saturday? We’d rather speak directly to hundreds of Scots at work conferences and on the doorsteps. #TeamTory’”
Seems she prefers those managed, camera-angled scams, Craig was dissecting last thread.
Without active msm support, these Tories would disappear in an instant.
They fear facing the people.
UK passports carry on their first non-cover page, inscriptions in English, Welsh and (Scots) Gaelic.
In the Republic of Ireland, public officials of the central government are required to have a working knowledge of the Irish language. By working language is meant an ability to work in, and deal with other people, in the Irish language. This requirement has been around for a fair while. (There are similar requirements in certain other countries or parts of other countries: Canada, Sweden……).
What, I wonder, would be the position in a future independent Scotland? Has the SNP – or indeed any organisation promoting independence for Scotland – said anything on this subject?
To be noted that if the government of a future independent Scotland were to impose a similar requirement, quite a few Scottish civil servants – including, one suspects, quite few independentist Scottish civil servants – would find themselves, to their great surprise and perhaps even indignation, behind the school desk once again.
Good luck!
I see the British flag now replaces the EU flag on the British driving licence, whilst the new blue British passport (which has unionists salivating like Pavlov’s dog) are to be made in France an EU member.
As for an independent Scotland many new Gaelic schools have opened and from what I hear they’re full to capacity, safeguarding the language for future Scottish civil servants to put to good use.
You haven’t really answered the questions, have you.
I’m not sure what the problem was.
The ability to conduct business in a native language?
What’s your problem with that? We’re aren’t all monoglots.
“many new Gaelic schools have opened and from what I hear they’re full to capacity”
Great to know that some day someone will be able to read those road signs that we spent so many millions on…
Pretty sure it was Labour (Scottish branch office) that began the revival of Gaelic road signs, now they can’t condemn them quick enough.
As for the language and signs per se, if you’re Scottish? You should be promoting the language not deriding it. Many Highlanders spoke it and shed their blood for Scots. William III and James I/VI forced Highland clan chiefs to send their sons to the lowlands of Scotland to learn English.
Thankfully the language is going through a bit of a revival.
Well, I don’t want to pointlessly aggravate anyone. The language means nothing to me, though, and I think there’s more important things we could be throwing money at.
Of course, this is only one of the questions on which it is expected that the SNP will wish to inform the voting public before any future referendum on independence.
Other questions include:
* a unicameral or bi-cameral legislature?
* what kind of Head of State?
* a written constitution?
* the franchise
* EU membership?
* which currency?
* fiscal arrangements (eg, the balance between direct and indirect taxation; company taxation; inheritance tax; wealth tax….)
* foreign relations and in particular membership of NATO.
Did the UK require a written constitutional proposal regarding all these questions when it permitted the previous independence vote?
Of course George Washington had written down all the answers that George III required whilst crossing the Delaware, otherwise the United States would still be a British colony.
Gandhi also made sure Mountbatten had every last detail of the upcoming independent India before it could self govern. Charles is of course being mischevious as usual.
Of course not, but surely the SNP and independentists would not wish to repeat those terrible mistakes? Obfuscation is unlikely to be a vote winner, at least among the more intelligent sections of the Scottish electorate.
Charles I refer you to my 21.16pm comment, even now three years and dozens of Tory ministers sacked of left over the Brexit debacle, no one knows what’s going on.
I’m pretty sure Scotland will be okay without answering too many question prior to independence, if the British governments completely inept handling of Brexit is anything to go by.
Charles,
In a earlier post you were complaining about “whitabootery”.
You’re clearly not immune to it yourself.
Trow
It’s not a question of the UK or Charles Bostock requiring anything. But the Scottish electorate might require answers to some of those questions. Why deny them that?
History shows that finding an adequate arrangement after gaining independence is a most difficult process. The Americans only got seriously started a decade after they defeated the British and they are still fighting over it, as are the French after getting rid of the Bourbons. Almost no aspect of arrangements is a sure thing. It all depends on how the people react to first proposals.
To show how difficult it is, think about what the Americans finally adopted, the British Constitution of :around 1690 as best they could without an hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. In other words, they were back at square one.
Lets not get ahead of ourselves Charles, Scotland should not be put on the stage for the whole world to ask what if, or but, questions. They’ll be a two year (busy) transition period to decide what’s what after we leave the union.
I fear you will not get a majority for leaving the Union unless answers are provided (to the voters, not to me). the For the questions will certainly be asked! Surely the SNP will not expect the electorate to buy a pig in a poke – even a salt(ired) pig?
Charles.
Yet Britain (With the exceptions of Scotland, and NI) voted to leave the EU without the British government providing the slightest bit of factual information to the public beforehand.
Please don’t feed him.
I find that all of Charles’ questions are perfectly legitimate, and would hope that this blog might be a place for the rational debate of these important matters. Instead there tend to be two types of response: the first being that the UK is a sinking ship, so what matter the colour of the lifebelts, we’ll sort everything out later; the other being that it all seems too complicated so let’s wait and see, even if the decks are slippery, it could be even worse. Inertia and uncertainty will always favour the unionist position (no doubt Charles’ real motive) especially on the currency question (which Scotland already went through in 1707). The opposite of union is… division.
I thought it was one of Craig’s best Speeches
The Police still say 150.000.
an ex Police chief –
” How many people marched in Glasgow yesterday? I’m certain it was in the region of 150,000.
I was a police officer for 22 years and policed more marches in Glasgow than I care to remember. I was also a police commander at the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh in 2005 when the widely accepted estimate was 200,000. I’ve policed Celtic Park, Ibrox and Hampden when they have been full to capacity….”
And there was a Quite Poetic description from the Grouse Beater –
” On the journey I talked to as many people as I could walking beside me, sharing banter, boosting camaraderie with merriment, a jokey observation or a pithy remark. Couples held hands, pipers piped, elderly shouted allegiance to an ideal. A chatter of women breathed meaning into their elevated hen’s party. Faces were gently kissed and caressed by Scotland’s flag carried before them. Infants in prams and push chairs looked up at the Saltire blue sky and wondered what the entire racket was about. I looked at their small inquisitive faces and wondered what image would live in their memory of the day and what would be theirs tomorrow… ”
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/the-long-walk/?
These AUOB marches are a Joy to be a part of. A merry carnival Time…Such peaceful determination.
. But I felt sad on the way to the Central Train Station.. You see some homeless one’s near Glasgow central..We passed a Young homeless guy, I was the only one to notice he was Crying..As Six Scot’s Girls were Huddled down with him.
Next March for us is Oban.. Booked our Atlantic Cottage for that one.. Great excuse..We have a Spare room, If yer Going and need a bed for the Night Craig.
And Before Craig Spoke ..Clan An Drumma were on Stage – great pipes n Tribal Drums –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng9OJ8KjGA+
Sharp Ears.. Yes Bikers –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_YP3B6b30I
BrianFujisan
Have you got a link / source for the ex police chief’s estimate of the turnout.
It looks like the quote came from this Facebook page ….
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Yes2-140974483286245/posts/
…. and the ex police chief seems to be Dougie Campbell, SNP Councillor for Dee and Glenkens
Ken Clark is credited with a good spell as Chancellor, replacing Norman Lamont, except it was due to the boom following Britain’s exit from the ERM, which he opposed. The ERM created a recession and shadowing EU Euro policy created austerity.
RoS promotes a tactical sofly sofly approach to independence, which is a worthy constitutional route, but embracing ‘independence aka devolution in Europe’ rather than Brexit is a strategic mistake, because independence from Britain would be easier (still difficult) to achieve than independence from EU.
Dave, you’re showing your class.
When those comic books tell you Clark was a good chancellor, they don’t mean for you — they mean for rich people.
As for the ERM causing a recession, no it didn’t. Britain failing to accept its weakness and pegging itself to the Deutsche Mark caused a recession in Britain for Britain.
Being part of the UK for Scotland requires that we give up about 85% of our sovereign powers. That includes power over foreign policy, defence spending, transport, law to a large extent (despite Scots law), taxation, VAT, industrial policy, macro economic policy, social policy,
and many other things.
Being an EU member state, if you were to put a figure on it, probably results in a surrender of about 15% of a country’s sovereign powers. Most of that 15% would concern trade and regulations on standards and safety. You could argue that we also give up power over fishing and farming but it’s not as if we are prevented from fishing and farm; we are simply asked to agree to a unified management structure.
Hatuey
“Being part of the UK for Scotland requires that we give up about 85% of our sovereign powers. That includes power over foreign policy, defence spending, transport, law to a large extent (despite Scots law), taxation, VAT, industrial policy, macro economic policy, social policy,
and many other things.”
Which is precisely why the Scottish electorate might wish to know in some detail what SNP / independentist policy will be in those fields before voting for an independent Scotland.
You’re assuming, then, that an independent Scotland would be governed by the SNP. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind telling you but will you make the same demands of the other parties?
What will be the Tory party policy, Labour policy, Lib Dem policy, on all those issues, after independence?
Answers on a postcard.
You are correct – the UK pegging itself to the Deutsche Mark caused a recession in Britain for Britain. The UK had an escape route, took it and recovered (allegedly).
Things have moved on and the Deutsche Mark has been re-branded as the Euro and Euro members have no escape route. The Greeks made a half hearted attempt but were forestalled by Germany having dismantled the fire escape system.
European elites wonder why the Italian economy is smaller today than it was 19 years ago. The Italians know the answer – but no-one wants to listen.
The French too, know the answer and are trying an altogether different form of communication.
The Spanish and the Irish are spinning like tops, desperate that no-one ever understand how they have seemingly lifted the iron heel of monetary oppression that was stamping on their faces. The British (or at least the English) understand that they have been used as a dumping ground for many of the people no longer required by the great Euro experiment.
The question remains as to exactly what Scots have in mind with regard to their own independence. Is the idea that once Scotland turns itself into some form of Cold Cuba that unwanted Scots are simply exported to England? Can it really be the case that if the English show any reticence about admitting Scots who have effectively been starved out of Scotland then that will qualify the English as being naked racists.
By the way being an EU member state, if you were to put a figure on it, probably results in a surrender of about 100% of a country’s sovereign powers. Want an example – take a look at the UK, the 5th largest economy in the world, permanent member of the UN Security Council, Head of the Commonwealth, possessor of nuclear weapons, and one of the oldest democracies in the world and which voted democratically to leave the EU – Yet it cannot do so. Now aint that strange
That’s a fantastic post — I’ve never seen so many cliches and misunderstandings squeezed into such a small space in my life.
I simply can’t be bothered explaining where you are wrong and why, but know this; Scotland isn’t Cuba, it has more than sugar, and it isn’t Greece, it has more than olives and feta cheese.
As for Italy and the others, none of those countries have the potential of Scotland if you take even a fleeting look at the resources and potential wealth to per capita ratio.
Greece was the World’s first Democracy but once they entered the Eurozone they lost it.
Greece has shipping and Mercantilism, and Tourism, in addition it has massive reserves of Methane.
It’s interesting that the SNP don’t seem to support these demonstrations or take part in them. It’s almost as if the grassroots of the independence movement doesn’t exist for the SNP (unless there’s an election in the pipeline).
Of course, corollary to that, from a grassroot’s perspective, I know that many of us feel like the independence movement lacks real leadership too.
These problems go hand in hand.
You can’t have real representative leadership if you keep the grassroots away from the table.
The point and problem is more obvious if you look at the Brexit campaign. Brexit has no structured leadership. And, according to the media, Brexit is more or less a Tory party issue, only affecting Tories, leaving Tory voters and MPs divided and disappointed.
We never hear about the many millions of working class people who voted for Brexit. However, of the 17.4 million who voted for brexit, we can safely assume at least 12 million were ordinary working class people. Where are they?
If you keep your grassroots at arms length, they can’t be properly represented; and if the grassroots aren’t properly represented, you are always going to lack leadership.
I should say that democratic theory does give extensive consideration to political movements that keep the masses at arms length. That stuff is usually discussed in a chapter about despotism, authoritarianism, and fascism. Technically, then, you can have leadership without grassroots involvement — it’s just not much fun or very effective.
Things could be so different.
The problem is many politicians are now careerists on good money and so they fear the grassroots in case new members deselect them. I.e. they want arms length supporters rather than members.
Honestly, Dave, I put it down to a sort of laziness. They don’t want the hassle of actually having to listen to people. it’s a lot of work. Also, when you think about it, anyone that gets into politics already assumes he or she knows best. That’s a prerequisite.
“It’s interesting that the SNP don’t seem to support these demonstrations or take part in them. ”
Actually the Deputy Leader of the SNP Keith Brown attended the AUOB on Saturday.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AUOBSCOT/status/1120073462385717248
However, I agree that the SNP don’t appear as enthusiastic as the grassroots movement when it comes to indy marches.
I can only think that they don’t want to alienate potential soft noes from voting yes to independence, well at least I hope that’s what it is.
On your last point, it’s not “noes” they want to alienate. It’s you and me.
The role of ordinary members in most political parties is more or less the same as the role played by those who join fan groups for Boy Bands, etc. It’s the usual, “buy the t-shirt, given us money, and stfu…”
The SNP aren’t any different from others in that respect. Maybe that’s a defence, if you want one.
Of course the SNP aren’t a utopian party, no party is, you cannot expect any party to be all things to all people. Its irrelevant whether or not you like them for everything they espouse.
We just need them to fulfil the mandate and orchestrate the indyref next year.
RoS
Can you perhaps shed light on why the demo was attended by the deputy leader but not by the leader?
Agree RoS
Well said..
“We just need them to fulfil the mandate and orchestrate the indyref next year.”
On that we agree.
When you’ve got a mass movement of people supporting a particular course of action, and a party in power which proclaims itself the political leadership of that course of action, then you’ve got problems.
The SNP came to power on the back of that movement, but now that movement is itself a threat to the Party.
Parties like to do top-down rather than bottom-up stuff, working with mainstream media.
You see the same thing in all independence movements, revolutions and so on.
Usually the Party kills off popular alternative leaders in the mass movement, imprisons them and so on.
Hi Craig, when in your honest opinion will the next Scottish independence referendum be held?
I have long come to the conclusion that the current SNP leadership is deliberately hell bent on preventing one for not one generation but many more.
Alex Salmond has been neutered by Ms Sturgeon.
So has Stuart Campbell of Wings over Scotland following his defeat against Dugdale, followed by the SNP attack on cybernats, which is nothing less than an attack on the blogger.
Although he has himself to blame for allowing a free ride to nasty bullies on his blog.
What a bizarre bunch of lies.
1) The SNP just publicly committed to a referendum in the next 2 years.
2) Salmond, far from being neutered, has his own TV show.
3) Stuart Campbell wasn’t defeated by anyone.
4) the independence movement, if you look into it, is probably one of the most peaceful and law abiding mass protest groups in the history of the universe. Actually, they are so peaceful and law abiding that their demo’s are usually quite boring.
Well Said Hatuey…EXCEPT Point 4
the marches aint at all boring.. So much goes on in there.
They’re more like parades.
Thank you for your comments and actions on the accounts situation. Accusations such as this are easily made and difficult to overcome. They are EXACTLY the kind of thing the press LOVES to print. They don’t need proof it’s true, only that ‘questions are being asked’ to blacken the name of the entire movement. NB I’m not an part of this but am grateful from the point of view that I dearly want my country to be independent in my lifetime.
I note that the press and TV have about faced on their coverage technique from the Tory Conference to the Indy March. Tory Conference – massive coverage of tiny crowd made to look massive. Indy March – tiny coverage of massive crowd made to look like small numbers. They also (printed press) managed to position their photograph such that a few bigots with union flags were made to look like they were ‘lining the route’ when in fact they were only just in double figures but clumped together. A perfect example of press manipulating images to ensure that a particular point of view prevails.
On the point of Ruth Davidson, her point that ‘there is no demand for indy’ cross references nicely with a post in ‘Wings’ about a petition on independence and how it doesn’t meet the expectations for a normal petition ie no end date and no intention to present it. The stated aim of the organisation in question is to use it as ‘a campaign tool’ something which a politician, like Ruth Davidson for example, might quote as saying ‘there’s no demand for indy’ and unless questioned it would appear to be correct. She either looks the other way on how factual her information is or is knowingly lying about the facts. She’d be VERY foolish to simply accept anything she was told, so I think it’s the latter – she thinks that by using information gathered ‘as a petition’ she has ‘plausible deniability’ on this. It looks less plausible daily…
Kempe
May 6, 2019 at 23:26
“Being a public school boy and Scottish aren’t mutually exclusive.”
—————-
Perfectly true. There are matters of cultural formation and affinity to consider.
Was it Ben-Gurion who who defined a Jew as “someone who thinks himself a Jew?” Applying the the sme test to a Scot then even an Uber Uber Unionist and Old Etonian like the late Tam Dalyell could be accepted as a Scot. He THOUGHT of himself as a a Scot. Likewise Old Fettesian, Alistair Darling.
Can the same be said of that other Old Fettesian, Blair (“… As an English MP…”) Or that other Okd Etonian, Cameron?
Oops – I may have got the wrong Edinburgh School for Darling. I suspect he was an old Lorettonian. But the substance of my point remains.
Nobody cares if they regard themselves as Scots or even humans.
But Kempe above, at least, cares that public schoolboys are, not necessarily, precluded from also being Scots.
I agree with him. My eyebrow was raised only at the statement that the last three prime ministers, Cameron, Brown and Blair were Scots.
Applying Ben-Gurion’s criterion of Jewishness to “Scottishness” I argue that only Brown meets the test.
This may be right or wrong but it IS an attempt at objectivity. What you or anybody else subjectively cares about is utterly irrelevant.
I am not sure why you could not be a top model for retired blokes’ clothing, Mr Murray? That market demographic probably enjoys the odd pint, glass of red and snifter of Highland Park, not to mention some fine food with melted butter on it occasionally.
Blokes going bald on top with a small spare tyre on the midriff are hardly going to model themselves on an Ironman veteran winner, are they?
It is why I cannot understand why luscious women who are not 5 ft 10, long legs and miniscule breasts do not get to model clothes for normal women?
Nothing novel about 80% of blokes getting randy for women with curvacious breasts and a well proportioned derriere, is there?
Thankfully, someone titled that first YouTube video with the full name of the organisation behind this Indy gathering.
Up to that point I had been mightily impressed that the Amalgamated Union of Boilermakers was capable of drumming up such a crowd.