The new bid for Scottish Independence is started. It does not matter how each of us got here, who had which idea first, what might be a better plan, who stabbed who in the back. It is gone. Let it be.
Robert the Bruce murdered John Comyn before the high altar of a church during peace talks in an agreed truce. That is, to coin a phrase, the gold standard of bad political behaviour. But he remains our most revered political leader, because he won Independence. Scots did not refuse to fight at Bannockburn because Bruce was a nasty man. There is of course a real argument that the Bruce being a violent psychopath was essential to Scottish victory.
There is an argument from realpolitik here. We will only gain Independence through using mechanisms of political power, short of popular revolution which is not in play at present. The only person who can currently move those levers of political power for Independence is Nicola Sturgeon. The only practical short term option available to those of us whose hearts are set on Independence, is to get behind the plan Sturgeon has now set in motion.
Naming a date for a consultative referendum – 19 October 2023 – gets the campaign clearly underway. All referenda in the UK are consultative (including the Brexit one which you will recall had to be implemented by the Westminster parliament before it took effect) so the nomenclature is unimportant.
I suspect the Supreme Court will strike down the referendum. That really does not matter. Two things do matter.
The first is that Sturgeon has endorsed “Plan B”, which is that if a referendum is denied, the Westminster election will be fought as a plebiscite, on the grounds that every vote for the SNP is a vote for Independence. The concomitant of that, must of course be that Independence will be declared if that election is won. Anything else would be a betrayal of the Scots people.
The second and far more important point is that, now there is a date, campaigning can start in earnest. I am already looking to make plans to speak around the country again. Once people actually hear the case for Independence, they move towards supporting. Famously the last Independence campaign started with polls showing 28 to 32% in support of Independence, and finished on polling day on 45%.
I confidently expect a similar effect. We must also replicate the extent to which social media and old fashioned town meetings and street campaigning shaped that 2014 surge.
95% of the mainstream media, both state and corporate, will be resolutely, implacably biased and hostile to Independence. Our strength is with the people, not with the media bosses and the BBC. That is where the SNP need the wider Yes movement, who are the heart and soul of the street and social media effort.
If we all come together we can generate unstoppable popular momentum towards Independence, which can sweep away opposition and will itself negate both the dangers of the Supreme Court and Westminster foiling a referendum, or of certain MPs using the fallout merely to get their feet back under the table. Of course I see the potential pitfalls in the Sturgeon plan, but popular enthusiasm is the way to storm over them.
So I urge all Independence supporters, including those distrustful and bruised by factional infighting, to drop any grudges and get with the programme. Now is the time to work wholeheartedly for Independence, alongside others who believe in it, irrespective of other issues. We have a battle to win; criticism from armchair generals is not going to be helpful here.
Bluntly, if anyone has a right to feel hard done by it is me, and if I can put it aside, so can you.
Scotland can be a normal size Nordic style country, blessed with strong abundant resources and a talented, educated population. For my English friends, the loss of Scotland will hopefully give the seismic political shock that England needs to end the dominance of the Tories and bring a better choice than the anti-worker’s rights Keir Starmer. Scotland will also point the future for Welsh Independence and Irish reunification.
But Independent Scotland will not be a paradise. In every country on earth there are charlatans in politics. In every country on earth there are sociopaths attracted to wielding the power of the state. In every country on earth there are people in high positions secretly in the pay of another state.
Scotland will not be immune from those things, and perhaps since 2014 we have become less caught in the Utopian dream that seemed then almost within reach.
There will even be some Tories still in an Independent Scotland. The difference to now will be that the Tories will have no power over us.
Friends, rally round. It is time to unite.
————————————————-
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
I don’t share your pessimism over the Supreme Court striking the legislation down, but it is a matter of opinion and either of us could be right.
That said, I’m glad to see your recent posts and I heartily concur with you in general – in that we should unite behind the plan. The fact that that the Unionists are in such disarray over the move to refer the matter to the Supreme Court now, instead of waiting for it to be challenged later, as well their disarray in general, is a delight to see.
They are not prepared. And I’m sure that if I am right and you are wrong over the Supreme Court ruling, you’ll be as delighted as I will be, especially at the idea of stunned Unionists who thought the matter was cut and dried.
It isn’t and maybe we’ll be preparing for a referendum next year or an election being used in its place. In either event, it’s good to be on the same side of this thing.
My gut feeling is that this time, we will actually do it and Scotland will become independent. Beware the enemy within though. There is one particular website which I believe has done more to split the indy movement than anyone else and the people on there aren’t exactly getting behind this initiative.
If you can get behind it, if Alex Salmond can get behind it, then so can an influential website and every other independence supporter. For my small part, I joined the SNP last night solely on yesterday’s announcement, which is something I never imagined myself doing, but every little helps.
Magnanimity is the order of the day and let’s get independence done!
Welcome aboard.
I concur with your thoughts regarding a certain other blog.
It’s patently obvious now that site is infested with yoon infiltrators.
Onwards and upwards!
“We have a battle to win; criticism from armchair generals is not going to be helpful here.”
Then let the generals agree to fight the same opponents, even if it is from different trenches…_
“The first is that Sturgeon has endorsed “Plan B”, which is that if a referendum is denied, the Westminster election will be fought as a plebiscite, on the grounds that every vote for the SNP is a vote for Independence. The concomitant of that, must of course be that Independence will be declared if that election is won. Anything else would be a betrayal of the Scots people.”
From all the posts Craig has written with regards to Sturgeon and Scottish independence, I have been conditioned to think that Sturgeon is against independence, despite her (pretending to) saying the opposite. So my expectation is that when and if the plebiscite comes out in favour of independence, Sturgeon will not declare independence, she will betray the Scots people instead.
What guarantee is there this won’t happen?
Once the first plebiscite election is fought, every election after that can be a plebiscite – there’s no going back to seeing whether a referendum is illegal or not. After that there are only two outcomes, either the UK becomes a materially better place to be and we stay or we leave.
There is no guarantee, but it would be highly likely in such a scenario that at subsequent elections, the SNP vote would collapse, because anyone serious about wanting independence would have irrefutable proof that she is a fraud. Alba and the Greens might do rather nicely on the back of that.
I support this.
Well said. The bid may be being led by self-serving sociopaths of dubious commitment but If you can suppress your misgivings and distrust then everyone should be able to. The prize after all is escaping permanent Tory/ Tory Lite rule and establishing a people-centred representative democracy as well as an independent state. A key preliminary component of the campaign has to be Sturgeon and her cabal stepping up and telling people that the ‘neutral’ BBC is anything but. Its misrepresentation, suppression, smearing and outright lying will be breathtaking and through the teeth of it BBC spokespeople will be smoothly assuring us they are being scrupulously balanced and impartial. If large numbers of Scots still buy that then independence campaigners will be facing a sheer cliff face in trying to win them over.
A simple question. What will be the value and relevance of the Act of Union after the people of Scotland place their vote l, hoping that all that follows is not just an SNP back patting event?
Independence, whence achieved, will end the UK, and Scotland, Wales, NI should prepare to create sustainable societies that cherish and look after the ecology that keeps them alive.
I wish you good luck with the campaign.
I hope you’re right and look forward to that outcome, though still worried about whether it will happen under the current SNP.
When will the talk start about how Scotland in EU but out of UK works?
My guess is no one wants to discuss that till after the referendum.
It’s called ‘EFTA’
Yes, EFTA and maybe the EEA is the way to go. I think that a much better set of options for an independent Scotland than full membership of the EU. https://www.albaparty.org/being_connected
In any case, the discussion will arise as this is the considered stance of Alba. It is mentioned in the “Wee Alba Book” you can download a copy here: https://www.albaparty.org/wee-alba-book
All well and good Craig but surely your view depends entirely on believing that Sturgeon is acting in good faith?
Deep down, do you really believe that?
Ask yourself why this is happening now and why it did not happen five years ago. The Scottish Government is falling apart everywhere you look. No, I am afraid this is the Joker in Sturgeon’s dodgy deck. She is a busted flush in terms of being First Minister and she knows it. This is just a slightly bigger carrot than before, presented only because her predicament requires the unquestioning protection of her base as her government stumbles from failure to disaster to crisis to cover-up and back again.
There will be no Referendum. And, in the event that the next GE is after any Supreme Court ruling (which in itself is no sure thing), there is ample time for ‘events’ to justify a further change of tack. She has already performed such a volte-face in the aftermath of Brexit (with absolutely no justification) and is perfectly capable of doing so again. And, remember, the SNP manifesto for any GE is entirely in her gift.
Maybe I’m wrong but the evidence to date is that Sturgeon only ever does what is best for her career. There is no reason to suppose that this is any different.
Everything I see about this narcissist tells me that she will throw anything and anybody under the bus to protect, extend or save her career of chronic failure. That includes our hopes, our aspirations and our birthright.
Re your initial question, if you read the post I don’t spend on that at all. I depend on using the effect of starting to build a popular momentum that nobody can stop if they wanted to.
“Friends, rally round. It is time to unite.“
Well said.
A whole lot of sense Craig. Thank you.
Let’s suppose the Supreme Court rules against a referendum. Scottish independence then depends on the Scots voting for Sturgeon in a General Election. Which seems an unpalatable prospect.
– “The first is that Sturgeon has endorsed “Plan B”, which is that if a referendum is denied, the Westminster election will be fought as a plebiscite”
Merely the Westminster election, so not unpalatable at all: (1) an SNP victory would signify Independence, thereby rendering Westminster including its SNP contingent irrelevant, and (2) the Westminster system is entirely dysfunctional anyway.
@Clark,
The Westminster election only decides who sits in the House of Commons. It is not a plebiscite, even if it is self identified as such, a clever piece of spin mind you.
If every seat in Scotland falls to the SNP, the SNP still won’t be in a position to form a government. That is just wishful thinking…_
Digger
You dug up that last sentence and it explains why Scotland is a colony and England, as it has done for centuries around the world, is the abusive coloniser. Well done you.
@Cubby,
Making a nonsense of history by describing Scotland as still a subjected colony is just daft.
The various acts of union and subjugation were carried out before the general franchise existed. The status quo is a pastiche of history, not a creation of the modern world.
The present day relationship betwixt the countries that make up the UK are governed by the ballot box; not Claymores, Cannon and Muskets.
Not all voters are fools and headbangers, put forward sound and sensible arguments to win their vote. Your vacuous nonsense will just get you laughed off the doorstep…_
“The present day relationship betwixt the countries that make up the UK are governed by the ballot box“
Hence, if there is no referendum whereby that relationship can be tested by the ballot box, the 2024 General Election would be fought on a single issue by the SNP – Independence.
You have neatly proven Clark’s point.
Not sure what happened there, the bit that went with the quote is missing, it’s this:
That neatly proves the purpose of a plebiscite election as a de facto referendum, when an actual referendum is denied by an undemocratic UK Government.
—
[ Mod: Apologies. The quote indentation tag wasn’t closed properly. Now fixed. ]
Thanks Mod, at least it gave me a chance to make another point 🙂
Fully concur.
(anti) Social media is buzzin’ wi professional malcontents (nae change there). Some folk just like tae gurn ‘n’ greet. We’re nothing if not thrawn.
Time tae exorcise that pathological cynicism. Get the Yes badges, car stickers and posters oot.
As an Englishman, I support Scottish independence because I believe that a people should govern themselves, not be governed by others.
A side benefit – I hope! – is that after independence the Scots will stop blaming everything except the weather on their southern neighbours.
Agreed. The sooner they’re gone the better.
Couldn’t agree more, Goodwin. It’s long past time England stood on her own two feet, without an empire, and slavery and the theft of other people’s lands, and the City of London engaged in financial imperialism and plunder to artificially boost its wealth.
Scotland is self-sufficient in food, water, energy renewables, and of course whisky. We have a small, ingenious population with brilliant universities. All this was indeed pointed out by a Tory, unionist plonker MSP the other day.
England has bravely decided with Brexit that it wants to stand alone.
Good luck with that. I wish you well. But I hae ma doots.
“Scotland is self-sufficient in […] energy renewables […] ”
incorrect: there is no lithium, or cobalt or copper or rare earth metals, mined in Scotland all essential to build fossil fuel and so-called re-newables too.
Also microchips are essential to all sectors which aren’t made in Scotland either. Nor are medical supplies or fertilizer. As has been the case since 2013, the largest proportion of goods imported from Norway, Scotland’s largest import market, are ‘Mineral fuels, lubricants & related materials’, and were valued at £3.5 billion in 2018 – 14% of total Scottish imports. Gas, natural and manufactured imports from Norway were valued at £3.3 billion in 2018. Scotland imported most of its office and automatic data processing (ADP) machinery from China, and power generating machinery from USA. Other transport equipment imports came predominantly from countries out with Scotland’s top 5 import partners, namely Malaysia and Spain.
https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/transporting-scotlands-trade-2019-edition/3-scotlands-trade-13/
And an independent Scotland will need a central bank and its own currency or it won’t be independent. Hence why Russia has rejected the $ as global reserve currency and will now only accept Rubles for all its exports. An urgent wide reaching conversation about currency is crucial to a successful independence outcome, which I support as it will help to get rid of the English psychopathic politicly / media / ‘intelligence’ / NATO matrix too.
OK Natasha, I was being a bit glib. But what you say on the need for metal imports, fertilisers and minerals applies equally to rUK. The importation of finished goods from China at al is a consequence of the deliberate de-industrialisation initiated by Mrs Thatcher as part of the neoliberal drive for labour arbitrage, and their crazy (self-serving) theories of comparative advantage. On fertilisers etc, there is an urgent need here and elsewhere to return to sustainable farming methods and control of our land through a proper land management programme.
Given that many of these problems are shared by England, then Scotland remains in a strong position relative to that country. But we need to rebuild a real economy, and we need to carve out our own trade agreements that suit Scotland, rather than the City State of London.
Large domestic and foreign-owned sporting estates are a blight on our rural landscape, economically and agriculturally underproductive. Only independence can bring this about this long overdue land reform – and the final abolition of feudalism. Local people need access to good housing in their own areas – second and third homes need to be looked at.
I therefore agree with much, if not all that you say above – but particularly so on the need for our own central bank and currency – We will also need to bring under Scottish ownership and control all of our national assets – as countries like Norway and Switzerland already do.
As that great Edinburgh-born revolutionary, James Connolly said:
“If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”
I fear that Nicola Sturgeon’s so-called Growth Commission was put in place to allow the financiers to retain control in the event of our gaining independence
Natasha – I don’t see why we can’t use the Rouble too. It seems to be backed by tangible assets, rather than the hot air of many other alternatives.
John O’Dowd writes:
“On fertilisers etc, there is an urgent need here and elsewhere to return to sustainable farming methods …”
In other words without fertilizers made from fossil fuels, a “return” to 1750s pre-fossil fuel population sizes i.e. a tenth currently residing on this isle…?
You need to catch up natasha. Massive advances in organic fertiliser tech and other sustainable methods are even now available, with future further developments.
For example, green ammonia using wind powered electrolysis and nitrogen from the atmosphere.
Also microbial fixation technologies.
The main thing holding all this back is the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry.
Finally, my concern is not for the population of ‘this island’ England has made its bed. My concern is for the much more sustainable one tenth of the population in the northern third of the Island and its islands
John O’Dowd, on the contrary: you need to remember LAND area to grow food on is a finite resource (everywhere in all countries, but especially in the UK) and there is a thermodynamic maximum energy in / out equation that determines nutrient and water flows and hence how many mouths you can feed. And we know before fossil fuels the UK could feed about 5 million, plus there were trees everywhere for fuel too.
You claim “green ammonia using wind powered electrolysis and nitrogen from the atmosphere” and “microbial fixation technologies” are “sustainable” !!!
Did you read my previous comments? How will you build and maintain any “wind powered” tech at all without fossil fuels?
With respect, failing to grasp the basic thermodynamics of energy systems renders such hand waving, to quote the father of climate science, the same as “believing in the tooth fairy”.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=James+Hansen+%22tooth+fairy%22.&t=ffab&ia=web
Also it’s delusional to suppose: “The main thing holding all this back is the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry” when its impossible to build wind, water, solar, or nuclear energy harvesting machines WITHOUT burning MORE fossil fuels. I’m sure Big Fossil does lobby, but so what? Nationalise them all I say. Meanwhile, we’re half way through (peak oil) and the second half is already far FAR harder to secure supplies of (e.g. in 1930’s c 1 barrel of oil needed to supply 99 barrels, now its about 1 barrel to 6 or so actually used by the economy).
Finally, CO2 and global warming does not know about human territorial borders, so if your “concern is for the much more sustainable one tenth of the population in the northern third of the Island and its islands” then arguing for such an inwards looking position is yet further delusional “tooth fairy” thinking, since last time I breathed in, it was drawn from the SAME atmosphere that all living things share on this pale blue dot.
You don’t need to use fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, Natasha. All the nutrients required to grow sufficient crops in Britain for British people (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, iron, manganese etc) can be obtained from waste crop material and the waste products that come out of Brits. As I’ve mentioned to you before, you don’t need to burn fossil fuels to produce renewables either – you can use biodiesel etc.
Natasha,
You don’t need rare earth metals to power tidal or hydro electric schemes.
And the fact that we import a proportion of North Sea Gas from Norway is because Thatcher was so determined to starve development and infrastructure in Scotland that she ordered 25-30 years worth of natural gas to be burned off at source rather than building new gas storage facilities in Scotland in fact dismantling all the old ones.
There is very little being done to recycle rare earth metals instead of invading countries where they exist as was done to Afghanistan, and there are countries who’s agricultural and woodland economies are at severe risk and more food shortages will result if mining companies move in. Phone companies and technology giants who make older phones and operating systems obsolete should be legislated against. There is no need to keep buying new smart phones every two years and there is no way it can be sustained. Same as plastic packaging should be outlawed and food distribution and storage relocalised. Of course the more local the energy and resources each countey can establish the less globalisation hunger for war, which is why all local energy projects for example have been hampered . It would also bring more soft power and income for renewing infrastructure directly to communities. When you note that a lot of the gas fields that are offshore from Scotland were taken by redrawing the maritime boundary and given to England to further block Scottish independence the what we import from Norway is of direct result of Westminster policies.
Lapsed Agnostic (July 1, 2022 at 11:37) misleadingly (but as far as it goes correctly) observes: “You don’t need to use fossil fuels to produce fertiliser…” and a newly independent Scotland (or anywhere else) can re-cycle it’s indigenous “waste crop [and human] material”…
Q: But how many mouths can be fed with ZERO fossil fuel powered fertilizer manufacture and transport (tractors, harvesters, trucks etc) inputs to food farms?
A: Same as back in the circa 1750’s before the fossil fuel age i.e. under 1 billion globally. In other words Lapsed Agnostic advocates we should blindly but ACTIVELY encourage over 6 billion alive today to starve to death since that is what the laws of physics dictate organic farming can sustain. Further, in the c1750s the UK had trees and coppice everywhere for fire wood, which we haven’t got now, so we’d be lucky to be able to support c5 million on ‘organic’ methods on this island.
Q: And how do we build “waste crop [and human] material” recycling buildings and their distribution pipe-works and trucks without fossil fuel inputs?
A: It’s thermodynamically IMPOSSIBLE.
Lapsed Agnostic continues to ignore the laws of thermodynamics, urging us to consider “biodiesel” which due to its ridiculously huge inefficient use of land will NEVER happen as it too is thermodynamically IMPOSSIBLE to scale up.
Scot continues ignoring scale-up limitations imposed by the laws of physics (July 2, 2022 at 15:24) “You don’t need rare earth metals to power tidal or hydro electric schemes”…
Eh? Of course you need rare earth metals to make electricity Scot! Did you fall asleep during physics lessons at school? Electricity is generated by moving a coil (copper) and a permanent MAGNET (usually an alloy of rare earth metals and iron etc.) close to each other. Instead of a permanent magnet you can use an electromagnet, but then you waste power in its coils rendering efficiency too low for anybody to bother building such machines. Plus they need more maintenance and even lower life spans before needing more fossil fuels to service and build it all again every couple of decades.
… and “There is very little being done to recycle rare earth metals…”
Because recycling metals used in wind turbines and solar panels (i.e. low energy density solar flow harvesting machines) uses way too much fossil fuels (process heat) energy, rendering it MUCH more efficient to mine and refine new metals than recycle. Same story for photovoltaic panels, but different metals.
https://www.goudsmit.co.uk/the-critical-role-of-magnets-in-wind-turbines/
https://energyskeptic.com/2021/metal-recycle-limited-by-many-factors/
https://energyskeptic.com/?s=solar+recycle
The laws of PHYSICS limits all these ideas. Suggestion: Do some reading before you ask us to believe in the “Tooth Fairy” e.g. the late Sir David MacKay, polymath, author of the influential book ‘Without Hot Air’ and head-hunted UK government climate change advisor, appealed to his readers “Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to be pro-Nuclear. I’m just pro-arithmetic. The one ethical position I wish to push is “we should have a plan that adds up”.
http://www.withouthotair.com/c0/preface.shtml
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay/
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables
https://dissidentvoice.org/2022/05/the-biomass-peril/
http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-storage-and-power-to-methane/
https://energyskeptic.com/2020/generating-electricity-with-biomass-at-utility-scale-in-california-limited-to-direct-combustion-in-small-50-mw-plants/
https://energyskeptic.com/?s=Biomass
https://energyskeptic.com/2018/power-density-of-biomass-wind-solar-requires-too-much-land-to-replace-fossil-fuels/
Regards,
Thanks for your reply Natasha. How many mouths can be fed using zero fossil fuels? Answer: potentially over 50 billion. To illustrate: in Scotland, you can feed someone for a year on a near-nutritionally optimised diet using less than 200 square metres of farmland, growing mostly oats (for carbs, complete protein & omega-6 fat), plus some flax (for omega-3 fat), carrots (for vitamin A) and greens (for vitamins C & K). The only things you need to get from supplements are salt, vitamin B12, calcium, choline and vitamin D in winter. Therefore, all of the 5.3 million people in Scotland could be sustained on around 1000 sq. km (about 1.5% of the land area of Scotland) – and remember Scotland has one of the shortest, coldest, dullest growing seasons in the world, allowing only one crop to be produced per year. Even on that basis, 50 billion people can easily be fed on 10 million square km of the world’s farmland, leaving plenty more available for growing biofuel crops.
It’s not thermodynamically impossible to recycle organic waste without using fossil fuels. All you have to do is to put it in a big pile and wait a few months to let bacteria & fungi do the work for you. You don’t need to use biofuels either, the work can easily be done by hand – as it still is in many parts of the world, and was in Europe & North America up to about 100 years ago – but machines running on biofuels make it even easier.
The laws of physics do not dictate that organic farming can only sustain 5 million people in Britain. The main reason that crop yields were so low in 18th century Britain, and the land could only support that number, is because most farmers had little clue what they were doing – and were literally pishing away valuable fertilizer. By the way, there was less woodland in 18th century Britain than there is now because most of the trees had been used either for building things or as firewood, which is what provided the impetus for the coal mining industry.
Around a third (120 million tons) of the annual US corn (maize) crop is currently used to produce bio-ethanol, which is mostly used as a biofuel in E10 gasoline blends – so biofuel production has already been scaled up enormously, and biodiesel is considerably more efficient to produce than bio-ethanol. So all in all, as you can see, I am NOT advocating that six billion people are to be actively starved to death.
Lapsed Agnostic (July 4, 2022 at 14:51) offers an un-referenced claim that “potentially over 50 billion […] mouths can be fed using zero fossil fuels” and “in Scotland, you can feed someone for a year on a near-nutritionally optimised diet using less than 200 square metres [0.05 acres] of farmland …”
However, a quick search result suggests the general consensus is that between 100 to 200 times more land i.e. 5-10 acres is needed for each person to be self-sufficient.
https://www.primalsurvivor.net/much-land-need-self-sufficient/
Further, all the lower estimates of how much land each person needs to survive appear to leave out multiple unaccounted for externalities. For example inputs such as energy (fire wood, animal feed etc.) and other raw materials, water, tools, machines, questions about how to support those who can’t work land or don’t have access to good quality land, seasonal food storage, building common infrastructure, leisure, art, health care, education, etc. etc… means agricultural workers will have to labour on thousands of times more land than just for one person, since we live in societies, not as solitary hermits on allotments.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=how+much+land+needed+to+feed+1+person%3F&ia=web
To somewhat account for these externalities, the Food and Agricultural Organization calculates nearly 70,000 square metres of land (17 acres) – i.e. 344 times more land than the 200 square metres Lapsed Agnostic suggests – is needed per person to be food self-sufficient in Western Europe or North America (without taking into account poor land quality).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.fao.org/3/i5222e/i5222e.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiHrPHVg_rwAhXwgv0HHYKACxwQFjABegQIBBAG&usg=AOvVaw32B3VcD4twPybSyNNkPLav
And a recent book – The New Complete Guide to Self-Sufficiency by John Seymour calculates 100 times the 200 square metres Lapsed Agnostic suggests for high-rainfall areas of like the UK. i.e. 5 acres (20,234 square metres) of land is needed for a person to be food sufficient.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Complete-Book-Self-Sufficiency-Realists/dp/0241352460
This means claims that each person in Scotland would need “less than 200 square metres of farmland …” is, in the words of climate scientist James Hansen, “almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy”.
https://www.masterresource.org/hansen-james/james-hansen-renewable-energy/
Thanks again for your reply, Natasha. You posed the question: ‘how many mouths can be fed without the use of fossil fuels?’ – which I answered, though of course the world’s population is predicted to peak at nowhere near 50 billion. I’ve lived long enough not to necessarily trust everything on the internet, which is why I sometimes do my own research. I used to grow a few oats organically on my old allotment in northern England. I got yields of around 1.3 kg per square metre, with no pesticides or fungicides etc, which meant that I could have grown the 180 kg per year I need to provide me with around 2000 kcals a day on 140 square metres of land (180 / 1.3), with the remaining 60 sq. metres being used to grow the flax and other vegetables.
There’s nothing particularly special about this. A few years ago, Tim Lamyman in Lincolnshire has achieved a UK record yield for winter wheat of 16.5 tonnes per hectare (i.e. 1.65 kg per sq. metre) on poor grade 2 chalky land with stone contents of around 30%. (Note: alkaline chalky land tends to lock up iron and manganese nutrients.) He uses mostly inorganic fertilizers, but would probably get even higher yields if he went fully organic, because incorporating organic matter into the soil reduces stresses on the plants by absorbing water in the winter and releasing it when required in the spring and summer, making them less susceptible to pests and disease.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=960rAjMRrKc
A couple weeks later, Rod Smith in Northumberland, again on poor grade 2/3 land, beat his record by the tiniest of margins (16.52 tonnes per hectare), but in some low-lying areas of the field (where the nutrients collect), the yield meter on his combine harvester was showing yields of around 23 tonnes per hectare.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/northumberland-came-top-world-wheat-map
The Complete Guide to Self-Sufficiency is not a new book: I first read it over 20 years ago. John Seymour was partly rearing livestock on his self-sufficient small-holding, which is why he needed all that land. We don’t need to eat livestock to be able to live – not doing that is the easiest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as they produce huge amounts of methane which is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. It’s taken several decades (he’s not the brightest), but George Monbiot seems finally to have seen the light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eaTIe_TBZA
Much of the land that becomes available from not raising livestock can be used to grow oil-seed rape for biodiesel. Going vegan is also an easy way to increase your predicted healthy lifespan by several years, as it generally results in people consuming lower amounts of protein – and in particular the amino acid methionine, which interacts with mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) in the body to increase cell aging. (Don’t eat that ‘Huel’ stuff though, as it’s full of methionine from pea protein). Diets low in methionine do tend to be at increased risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease though, so make sure to get sufficient choline from supplements.
Nick
It’s a deal as long as England behaves itself after independence and does not bomb Edinburgh Airport as threatened by some Better Together idiot in 2014.
If Scotland becomes independent without a sovereign currency, it will all be entirely pointless. Same goes for joining the Euro. Neoliberals in London or Brussels will be in charge. Remember what they did to Greece?
Sovereign govts are the ultimate financiers. Far more powerful than banks. They ought to be financing the big steps forward in society to ensure prosperity for all. But govts today, especially in UK, seem to have privatised this responsibility, and left municipal govt to try to fund society thru local taxes, LOL. (It’s a bit like asking a business to innovate without investment) But it works for the plutocrats. It lowers standards of living, ie. perceived costs. Then local govts take loans from Goldman Sachs to bridge the funding gap, who make bad bets speculating on food, shelter and essential commodities, but ultimately get bailed out using the supreme financing powers of a sovereign govt that institutions and politicians refuse to use for the benefit of the people! Bananas! See: Economist Michael Hudson explains inflation crisis and Fed’s secretive $4.5 trillion Wall St. bailout of 2019: https://youtu.be/m7eAbbVMr_4 (Nine times bigger than 2008 bailout. News blackout. Giving each man, woman and child in USA $14k would cost the same and be better for economy. This is Varoufakis’ ‘post-profit world’)
If Scotland becomes independent and chooses to be ruled by the EU ie Germany and France, it will be entirely pointless too.
That would be down to the Scots and the EU…but you seem to think the EU is some sort of dictatorial machine
“you seem to think the EU is some sort of dictatorial machine”
yes
As no-one else is ruled by the EU, why would it be a problem for Scotland?
…the Westminster election will be fought as a plebiscite, on the grounds that every vote for the SNP is a vote for Independence.
That’s what needs further clarification. From what Angus Robertson was saying last night, the distinct impression was given that winning big again in a GE would merely give them leverage to argue their case. He certainly wouldn’t explicitly commit to declaring independence.
Were Corbyn still leading Labour I think he’d be sympathetic to recognising the combination of a GE victory + consultative vote backing. But Starmer as an ardent unionist is in lockstep with the hardest of hardline Tory unionists.
There is also the potential pitfalls in holding a consultative vote; chiefly, the risk of unionist boycott, hitting turnout. Ideally the turnout would be >50% with a big margin of victory for ‘Yes.’ Also the cost, which unionists will no doubt highlight as opportunity costs and money wasted. The SNP need to show why holding a consultative vote is worth the effort. Their relative silence over the years in promoting the positives of independence have left them with a mountain to climb in terms of priming public opinion. Can they overcome their shyness on independence and get out there and sell it?
Yes, of course there should be another referendum.
It was made abundantly clear by the SNP that the referendum was to be once in a generation, or once in a lifetime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuQP4XeMngc
To quantify how many years that would comprise, I think the precedent of the interval between the 1979 and 1997 referenda, ie 18 years, might be a good indicator. Alternatively, the interval between the 1997 and the 2014 referenda, ie 17 years, could equally well be taken as a temporal yardstick for what was intended when they promised to abide by the will of the Scottish people for “a generation”.
I suspect bozo may say yes to the section 30 request. If he times it right he might see it as his “save the Union” moment.
If he’s about to ousted he may see it as a way to save his arse of course. Of course it’d be a huge gamble for him but do you think he really cares about anything other than himself?
Bozo sees himself as an incarnation of Pericles and of Churchill.
Yes, I concur that he’ll say and do anything which he thinks might save his skin. Risking the Union by embarking on an endless series of flips of the coin might be a step too far though.
The SNP are like a dishonourable football captain demanding another flip of the coin to determine which team gets the upwind end of the park. He’ll demand a second and a third flip right up until he gets the heads or tails that he wants. Then he’ll yell STOP STOP STOP! No more flips of the coin please. I’ve got the result I want.
Do you think that SNP would have accepted a demand for IndyRef2 if the result of the real IndyRef had gone their way?
The notion that the SNP will stop any further referendums once a Yes vote is secured is one of these prolific memes on Unionist social media whose details are never explained. Since we have you here, perhaps you could take the opportunity to explain how you see it working. If a party in a post-Yes Scotland is elected to power on a “reinstate the Union” platform, how would the SNP, in opposition, prevent that platform from being enacted?
To join, you need all countries to agree. To leave, you just need the country in question to decide. Therefore, it wouldn’t be possible to have a ‘reinstate the Union’ platform without a significant level of doubt attached.
So at which point in this process are the dishonourable football captains of the SNP shouting “STOP”?
Also, the principle that “to leave, you just need the country in question to decide” doesn’t seem to apply in the case of Scotland.
Good reply, if you ignore historical facts. We the people of Scotland won the 1979 referendum, so says Europe and the United Nations!
The ’79 referendum was a guddle. There was a hurdle of 40% of the vote being required. The populace were told that by abstaining they were voting no, so they might as well stay at home instead of voting no. That massively depressed the number of No votes actually cast and severely distorted the result.
IndyRef was a clean straightforward Yes or No thing, with the majority of votes cast resolving the question.
“Once in a lifetime” is a meaningless rhetorical flourish.
Would proving the will of the Scottish people be plebiscite, in Scottish elections, a first vote SNP, and instead of one and a half million independence votes thrown out, with the top up system second vote for ALBA. Little Tory or labour left in our parliament.
In general elections each and every one of us, supporting the ruling SNP Party, of which I was a member for years. But Westminster seems to be contaminating some well known faces.
But more importantly, have the UN oversee the referendum. The very last thing we need is people jailed as in 1979, court cases held in camera and still today in jail.
Or how the tories sacked all those returning officers and appointed CEOs, civil servants of councils, as returning officers, who delegate to underlings, who have never heard of the Representation of the People Act. And the associated corruption that brings a bad taste to the mouth, I too remember the last referendum and the one prior, which force England establishment through United Nations security assembly/council findings, gave us by default our neutered parliament.
We cannot rely of been given anything, of trusting those who are proven to benefit from three hundred years with their hands in our pockets, and our people marginalised and fodder for their wars for ill gotten gains.
Wee Nippy is such a snake!
Here’s what she told ITV News interviewer Tom Bradby:
Leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), Nicola Sturgeon, has told ITV’s The Agenda she believes Scotland will be an independent country “one day” but insisted that a vote for her party “is not about independence”.
Ms Sturgeon said: “If you vote for the SNP you are not voting for independence you are not even voting for another independence referendum. You are voting to make Scotland’s voice heard in that system that has so often in the past tended to side-line and ignore Scotland.
“I think Scotland will be independent one day, I think that is the direction of travel but it won’t be me that decides that.”
That was 2015, more than a generation ago, when the emphasis was on implementing Smith.
Good call, time for peace and reconciliation. Keep up the good work.
How does all this work if the Unionists boycott ? Which is the most likely outcome of not getting London approval. How does it work if only 30 odd percent turn out to vote and “win” by a 90 odd percent margin ? No one in the world will take the result seriously and then unilaterally declaring independence will almost certainly cause large civil unrest in Scotland.
I’m English and frankly don’t care either way, Scotland stays Scotland goes the reality is it will make no difference at all to my life. Its going to be a very hard sell to the rest of the world if the result is contestable. How does the SNP defeat that ?
I suspect that there would a be a concerted effort to persuade No voters not to vote at all, as happened in 1979.
This would effectively distort the result in favour of the separatists, as would no doubt be intended.
Support for separatism is actually very weak in Scotland. In the Referendum fewer than 38% of the electorate voted Yes. In the recent MSP election more votes were cast in favour of Unionist parties than for the separatist parties.
In the voting for the regional lists in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election – which is less distorted by FPTP tactical voting or by people voting for or against their local MSP – there were slightly more votes for Independence-supporting parties (SNP, Alba, Scottish Greens), Ebenezer – 50.12% vs 49.88%.
This result should have been slightly higher considering that some people would have mistakenly voted for the far-right Independent Green Voice party thinking that either they supported Independence or were the Scottish Greens. If you think that’s unlikely, remember that hundreds of thousands of Independence-supporting voters essentially threw away their regional list vote on the SNP, rather than voting for Alba or the Scottish Greens, because Nippy told them to.
Correction: forgot about the Indy-supporting Scottish Libertarian Party, Restore Scotland & Scotia Future – they’re good for another 0.24% in the 2021 regional list. So the overall total is now 50.36% for Independence (plus the votes of people who mistakenly voted for Independent Green Voice with its Holocaust-denying leader – maybe 0.2-0.3% – and quite possibly some votes for Indy-supporting Independent candidates).
I suspect that there would a be a concerted effort to persuade No voters not to vote at all, as happened in 1979. – that is called campaigning
I think Johnson’s response to all the pressures he is under, to which yesterday’s decision adds yet another, could be to call for an early general election. He can then reframe the issues as a national crisis, which he and he alone can resolve if he has the whole of the UK behind him. citing the precedents of his leadership on Brexit, the pandemic and his unwavering support for Ukraine against Russian aggression. His aim will be to submerge the independence issue so that it is no longer considered important, betting that people everywhere will not want to risk radical change in the current economic and security uncertainties. The ploy will not necessarily succeed but if it did not scupper the prospects of an early independence, it could certainly increase the risk of failure. With this scenario, Sturgeon’s move could be seen as a huge gamble or as a self-defeating strategy. We will see.
Hasn’t Wee Nippy already indicated that she intends to step down immediately after the next election or IndyRef?
Word on the street is that she’s lining up a nice juicy sinecure in Brussels or perhaps even New York or Warshington. I suspect that she’s more likely to take her French girlfriend with her than to hang on to Murrell.
Wow You Really have a Negative gripe with this Scottish Independence issue Mate!
Non stop Bombing the blog with Your Scotland too wee too poor too stoopid retoric,
Nuff said
What is it You Will lose by Scotland becoming a free fwd Thinking independent Nation?
It would inspire some confidence in SNP intentions if they were to anticipate victory by now doing the urgent preparatory work to establish an independent state.
I wish Scotland the best of luck. Please remember that the rest of the world is looking to you for how to do this peacefully, effectively, and democratically because Scotland isn’t the only land in bondage to others!
I would like Nicola Sturgeon to clarify what her plan is if a snap election is called before she’s been granted a section 30 order for October 2023, or if she’s had an answer, and it’s no. Will she make the snap election a plebiscite, or will she wait up to 5 years for the next GE ?
The 2023 referendum is contingent on the UKSC ruling it to be lawful, not on a Section 30 being granted. But I agree she should address what happens in the event of an early GE.
There is a huge difference between a general election and a referendum.
In a GE voters consider a wide range of topics. It is not for Wee Nippy, or any other politician, to tell the electorate what single topic to vote on in a GE.
For example, a voter might vote for Alba or SNP because they think that Bozo is an arse who needs a good kicking at the polls. Quite a lot of us think that way, y’know.
Who do you want to replace him at Westminster?
Well considered words as always. Right with you Craig.
“Once people actually hear the case for Independence, they move towards supporting. “
After reading CM’s call to campaign I also read a piece in the Irish Times from Matthew O’Toole an SDLP member of the (NI) Legislative Assembly entitled:
Britain cannot be trusted and this has deep implications for
Irish unity, Scottish independence.https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2022/06/28/britain-cannot-be-trusted-and-this-has-deep-implications-for-irish-unity/
“To what extent is the UK state which agreed to the Belfast Agreement in 1998, with all its attendant commitments and understandings, still in existence? And not just the Belfast Agreement. At around about the same time, devolution was secured for both Scotland and Wales and the core provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights were placed into domestic law via the Human Rights Act. Would the current British government agree to these things now? The unavoidable answer is no.
When considering new constitutional arrangements in Ireland, or in Scotland, the focus is usually on the desirability of change against an assumed UK status quo. What status quo? The UK constitution has changed at a bewildering speed, it is changing at bewildering speed. The changes have happened in spite of the concerns of those people in Northern Ireland and Scotland who will decide its future.”
Any reference to the “once in a generation” argument is immediately rubbished. It isn’t the same UK.
“Leave aside the Irish dimension. These are radical changes to the UK constitution, specifically the citizen’s ability to secure basic rights via courts………..such changes should be profoundly concerning to anyone resident in the UK.”
I won’t be voting in any Scottish independence referendum but it’s easy to see the reasons Scottish people would desire it. How did this happen to the UK, somewhere I enjoyed to live in for a large part of my life. It’s such a shame.
No shame whatever to see the sectarian statelet marked for extinction. Should never have existed in the first place.
Great move. Now Nicola doesn’t have to fight the next General Election based on her performance in government. Genius!
A self-amputated Scotland, which thankfully didn’t occur thanks to democracy, would have amputated itself not only from the UK but also from the EU.
Forget about the current half-arsed impudent demands of the EU on matters of British sovereignty within the UK. A hard border would have had to be set up along the county lines of Southern Scotland. County lines would have become international lines. An unworkable nightmare in every way, which would have lasted until Brexit.
Thank gawd for Brexit. Thank gawd for the defeat of the separatists who would have turned Scotland into a cold water Cuba with an unworkable land border.
Thank gawd we didn’t become a country without a currency and without a central bank, aka a bank of last resort.
Thank gawd SNP made it so crystal clear that the Referendum was to be once in a generation.
No need to worry about it becoming Cuba under everlasting English Conservative rule.
The only thing wrong with Cuba is the cruel, decades-long seige a spiteful Amerikkka has put on it. Highly unlikely the US would impose draconian sanctions on an independent Scotland.
That would depend on whether, as tragically the Nordic Countries have obviously done, it adopted a subservient posture before the “policeman of the world”.
Ebenezer
There are no such things as county lines of southern Scotland.
There was no once in a generation referendum promise. That is just Britnat lies.
Ignorance and a lie – not a great post but I am sure you can do better in future. But I very much doubt you are from Scotland.
I got really, really fed up with idiots saying that the SNP “promised” that it was a once in a generation referendum.
It was of course blatantly obvious that what they were saying was that it was unlikely that people would get another chance for a generation to seize independence, and not that the SNP were committing not to offer it again.
The counterargument was disingenuous nonsense from stupid people who think we are even more stupid than them.
I’m English, living in south-east England. I am very strongly of the view that independence is a matter for the Scots, and given the effect of the Westminster Government, I hope they take it.
UV, in politics, any chance remark is a “promise” if by terming it so, it gives you a stick to beat someone with.
There was no once in a generation referendum promise.
Are you sure?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuQP4XeMngc
Have you read pages 3 and 10 of the pdf of the White Paper upon which we all voted?
Have you read The Edinburgh Agreement?
I guarantee you will not find ” This is a once in a generation or lifetime referendum.”
Fact.
There are lots of places where you won’t find Wee Eck or Wee Nippy saying “This is a once in a generation or lifetime referendum.” Especially after they lost the referendum.
So what. The fact remains that she said it dozens of times. The fact remains that is was a promise put into print in the odious White Paper.
Denying reality is an SNP characteristic, but it does them no favours.
“This is a critical once in a generation election”.
— A B de P Johnson, December 2019.
Similar was uttered by Jeremy Corbyn in October 2019.
Can we anticipate howls from you when the next election is called on, or before, schedule?