The Scottish Government urgently needs a bold and radical approach to achieving Independence in spite of the firm London veto on a referendum. It is plain that there is no plan at present.
The Scottish Parliament has a pro-Independence majority and government. This is how to achieve Independence consistent with international law and practice.
1) Set a Date for Independence
The First Minister should write to the Prime Minister informing him that a referendum is preferred, but if there is no prior referendum then he will invite the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence on a specified date (I suggest 14 September 2029).
State that an Independent Scotland will then hold a confirmatory plebiscite in February 2030.
2) Canvass the International Community and Tee Up a UN General Assembly Vote
Independence is not primarily a matter of domestic law. It is existence as a state recognised by other international states. What actually makes you a state is not any domestic act, but recognition by other states, expressed formally through recognition by the UN General Assembly and obtaining a seat at the United Nations.
As part of a team from Liberation Scotland and Salvo, I have been lobbying diplomatic missions of the UN to this end for 18 months now. We have found enormous support for Scottish Independence and literally no outright hostility. What we have repeatedly met is astonishment that the Scottish government and/or the governing party the SNP, has made no effort to carry the case to the international community.
At the time of writing to the Prime Minister, the First Minister should write to the Foreign Ministers of all UN states and say the following:
- The Scottish Government will invite its majority in the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence on 14 September 2029.
- Scotland is a clear nation state which existed as a fully independent nation state for over 700 years, with all the formal features of a state including extensive diplomatic relations with other states. It has a clear and uncontested border with England.
- The Scottish Government now wishes to recover the Sovereignty of the nation through the abrogation of the Treaty of Union of 1707. A supposed voluntary union can by definition be dissolved. The self-determination of peoples is an inalienable Charter right.
- The Scottish Parliament is democratically elected. A referendum would have been preferred but the UK government refuses to agree to one, because it knows there has been a consistent pro-Independence majority for some time.
- Scotland is ready to play its full part as a member of the international community, joining the 15 European states that have gained or regained independence since 1990, and the 65 states that have gained independence from the United Kingdom.
- The Government of Scotland will establish clear control of its territory as of the date of Independence.
- Scotland will welcome the support of the international community in reclaiming its sovereignty, and requests assistance in obtaining a vote on recognition at the UN General Assembly in October 2030.
This should be followed up with extensive in-person lobbying of member states, at the UN and other international organisations, including but not limited to the Council of Europe, OSCE, BRICS, African Union and other regional organisations.
If the Courts block expenditure this activity can be carried on without public expense but with Scottish Government endorsement, or if that is blocked with SNP/Greens endorsement. Liberation and Salvo have already proved that other nations are prepared to engage with Scottish Independence representatives right up to senior Ambassadorial level. I have done it myself. Representatives from or credentialed by Scotland’s governing parties will be still better received.
3) Planning to Secure Scotland
There needs to be a strategy in place for carrying through the Independence declaration. The single most important criterion that states take into account in deciding whether to accord recognition of a state, is whether its government actually has de facto control of its territory.
This is where Catalonia failed. Its referendum was disrupted by brutality to which it had no answer. Scots must be prepared to stand for Scotland.
Advance preparation must be needed for the following, to be immediately implemented on declaring independence:
1) Oaths of allegiance.
On Independence all public servants must immediately be asked to sign oaths of allegiance to the government and community of Scotland, renouncing any previous allegiance. The alternative is immediate suspension during a two-week grace period to reconsider pending dismissal.
The allegiance to Scotland of public servants is essential, particularly those involved in law enforcement. Judiciary, police and security services are of the highest importance. All national civil servants, whether employed by the UK or Scottish governments, should also be required to take the oath.
2) Establishment of central bank accounts.
The Inland Revenue is already established separately in Scotland and should be instructed to pay all revenue, both personal and corporate, into Scotland’s accounts. Other revenue-collecting departments, principally customs and excise, should act similarly with all necessary arrangements planned in advance.
3) Institution of Key Ministries
Establish embryo Defence, Foreign and Home Affairs ministries with prepared key personnel.
4) Institutional Arrangements for Cross Border Public Bodies
Devolution has limited the number of cross-border regulatory and other bodies with authority in Scotland, but any UK ones should be told immediately they no longer have authority in Scotland and need urgently to identify their Scottish operations for full autonomy in cooperation with the Scottish government.
5) Physical Control of Public Buildings
This needs to be a popular movement to regain Independence. The people should be mobilised to take physical control of all UK government buildings in Scotland, and of key institutions like the law courts and the BBC, to guard against any attempt at physical retention by unionist holdouts.
6) Blockading of the armed forces
Scottish units should be asked to take the new Oath of Allegiance. In the immediate term to avoid any repeat of tanks in George Square, military establishments containing troops not loyal to Scotland should be subject to peaceful and friendly civilian blockade, not allowing armed forces to leave base with their weapons.
It is worth a side note that Independence support is strongest in what we historians call the fencible section of the population: where indeed it is overwhelming. The Scottish government has three years to prepare this activity: again legal challenges may mean some work has to be done outside Government structures. There is no shortage of ability or willingness in the SNP itself and the Independence movement, if the Scottish Government will seek to collaborate rather than to exclude.
Effect of This Approach
There is currently no pressure whatsoever on Andy Burnham to agree to a referendum, and every sign that the Scottish Government are content to pick up their pay checks for another five years, having pulled up their armchairs comfortably to the referendum roadblock.
By announcing a date for a declaration of Independence if there is no referendum, immediate pressure would be put on Burnham to avert a constitutional crisis and a situation with potential to turn violent.
Burnham would be in a politically very weak position – all he is being asked for to avert this serious crisis is a democratic vote. There is no compelling reason to refuse the democratic vote other than naked retention of power over Scotland, but nothing is being done to highlight the issue and make it important.
Lobbying which will bring a focus on Scotland’s national status and the denial of the right to self-determination will also be very uncomfortable for the UK internationally. The UK is very unpopular, not least over Gaza. Breaking up the UK as a means for opening up UN reform and the membership of the security council P5 is very desirable to much of the world. Scotland also benefits from a widespread international understanding and sympathy that it has done remarkably little to exploit.
The British government position is internationally indefensible – not least because it is the opposite of the position the British government has adopted in relation to the rest of the world.
These quotes are from the British government’s intervention before the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo hearings:
“In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor State’s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.”
And the still stronger formulation:
“Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State.”
Every Scottish nationalist should have these British government quotes hardwired into their brain. The British government argues one position abroad and a different position at home.
Being Serious About Independence
It is a logical impossibility to believe both that Scotland is a nation with the right of self-determination, and that Independence requires permission from London. The Scottish government’s attempt to hold both these incompatible positions has resulted in its current impotence.
The only way to make progress is to make plain to Andy Burnham that a straight veto of democracy and the rights of the Scottish nation will not be accepted. Ultimately Scotland will take its Independence – preferably with London’s cooperation, but if necessary without it.
Let me put it this way. If, in the end game, you are not prepared to stand unarmed in front of a British army tank to achieve Independence, you are not actually a supporter of Scottish Independence at all.
————————————————————————————-
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse my work, including in translation.
My work has no funding at all except for your subscriptions. If you already, subscribe I would be grateful if you could check if your subscription is still active. Over 80% of my subscriptions lapse when debit or credit cards expire: the systems do not warn you.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up additional new methods of subscription payment including Patreon account and a Substack account ; if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish, subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come to this blog and read the articles for free.
I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
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
Looks like Craig still doesn’t get it. Independence has no point or purpose in situations where the interests and preferences of the population are routinely ignored in favour of diktats imposed by the global elite.
that’s true in Scotland now, Independence can’t make it worse. Some states are worse than others and the UK is right up there in enabling the worldwide elite financial domination. And smaller states are easier to reform.
“Scottish Independence is bad because it won’t end global capitalism” is a moronic argument.
Spot-on, Craig
Aged 18, I voted SNP in both 1974 general elections at a time when the party routinely came fourth out of four. There was no bigger supporter of independence than me. Sadly, the dream of an oil rich sovereign nation is now dead and buried. You may disagree but it’s true.
That ” dream of an oil rich sovereign nation ” was a dream of the 70s, Alan. We have new ‘ dreams ‘.
More accurately, new ideas about ways in which Scotland could be as wealthy a nation as, eg Norway and new understanding of Scotland’s predicament and the demerits of our current * condition *: the significance of our geographical location in geopolitical terms is also more recognised – both as handicap, in the sense that – in shorthand.. ” NATO ” are also well aware of this fact; but also a potentially massive asset.
One thing is for sure ….Scotland will continue to decline – in governance, culture, wealth and most other significant ways unless we restore our Independence.
Exactly.
Why should being “oil rich” be the dream? You’ve seen how Mr. Murray explained what Trump’s done to Venezuela…
Why not dream of being sovereign rich in wind, tidal and solar energy with appropriate battery storage to accompany it?
We’ve got too many people dreaming of “appropriate battery storage.” I much prefer good old-fashioned oil.
The eltes impose control via political subversion (elite capture), direct military occupation (the US oliogarchy hold over 800 military bases throughout the world) and indirect occupation (Nato being a prime example whereby any state within gives up control of their foreign policy and any army formed is controlled by the USA). Independence at a stroke could remove two of those leavers by leaving NATO. It is far easier to deal with corrupt politicians in a tiny country like Scotland where at most they are a 3 hour bus ride away, and the “joint” bases we host would immediately be voided as they arangements were with the UK government. That leaves direct military occupation and that is somethig far easier ti fight as it is a visible target.
There are few serious flaws in your thesis/proposals, Craig
1) it’s brilliantly coherent
2) it’s entirely achievable
3) it is informed with the requisite qualities of intelligence, experience & passion
4) there are really no alternatives
For these reasons it doesn’t stand a chance of being adopted by the Scottish Neutered Party – short of an internal revolution in that entity; and the chances of that happening are as likely as Swinney ever uttering a believable sentence.
The task then really is quite ‘ simple ‘. There MUST be a coming together of every GENUINELY Pro-Independence group/blog/podcaster and individual to focus exclusively on putting in motion the proposals you iterate above. Easier said than done, obv; but if it’s not done we can forget about Independence; not just for a few years, * possibly * forever. I just can’t see how it’s not going to get more difficult as time goes on rather than easier. Demographic shift alone could seriously impact on the ‘ Constitutional Question ‘
You are already doing your bit – practically with your involvement with Salvo & Liberation , and in general with your undimmed advocacy for the restoration of our status as an Independent Nation.
Aye, I’m aware of all the caveats around the word ” Independent “. Nonetheless our current status as effectively a satellite of Greater England is so egregiously subordinate, so lacking in meaningful autonomy that for we Scots & Residents of Scotland the word Independent has immense significance in a way that can never be the case for English people . They are already Independent – they just rebranded England as ‘ Britain ‘ .The word ” Independent ” resonates in our psyche and will continue to do so until it has been realised
“1) it’s brilliantly coherent”
So was Marx’s theory to his devotees, As the Glasnost cartoon went: “Workers of the World, forgive me.” 🤣
“2) it’s entirely achievable”
Not true. (a) The Scottish government are quite content to do their job and retire with honours (the sort that Craig rejected), so they won’t lift a finger. (b) If others do lift a finger, they’ll be speedily removed and treated to hard steel bed therapy in Saughton jail. But I’m sure HMG will advise the silly chaps not to rebel, and give them fair warning.
“3) it is informed with the requisite qualities of intelligence, experience & passion”
Granted, Craig should be credited with having these desirable qualities in abundance. Fair’s fair.
“4) there are really no alternatives ”
Not so. Scots can remain good Brits – which, in 2014, the majority of voters North of the border chose to do (in case anyone’s forgotten). Any claimed sea change in this is pure speculation.
52% of Scots voted ‘Yes’ in 2014.
The true figure is 44.7%, and detailed results are here.
The figure of 52% did occur country-wide in 2016, when that percentage of UK voters voted for Brexit. I didn’t, but I respect it as a democratic result.
He said the majority of Scots, not the majority of the electorate. The exit polls showed that the majority of Scotish born voters voted yes, the close to 20℅ of the Electorate that are English voted no. Seems an easy fix to me an any future vote.
@ Dean:
As far as I am aware there were no Exit polls carried out.
If you can provide a link or some evidence to back your claim then that would be helpful.
A referendum which, if it had been legislated as legally binding, would have been declared illegal by the courts…where the population was misled by fraudulent principal campaigning organisations…cannot in any rational sense be declared “democratic”.
The franchise for the 2014 referendum was ludicrously inept and utterly inappropriate for an exclusively Scottish constitutional matter.
Given the unceded sovereignty of the Scottish half of the Union and the guarantee of the continued authority of Scotland’s constitution as agreed by both of the former parliaments in 1707 -a constitution which avers that the Scottish people are the formal owners of the national sovereignty of their nation, then any formal plebiscite of the native Scots is automatically a formal decision of the highest authority in Scotland.
As such, no decision made by the majority of those sovereign native Scots can legitimately be outranked or overruled by any larger majority of non-native, thus non-sovereign voters, nor by any foreign sovereignty/authority. This must be true since there is no process within the UK for any newcomer to Scotland to acquire Scottish citizenship. No Scottish citizenship means no right to participate in constitutional plebiscites regarding Scotland.
No franchise that does not recognise the primacy of Scotland’s native electorate can be considered a legitimate one for a Scottish independence referendum.
I have been accused in the past of being racist for this viewpoint, but that is a clear category error. Sovereignty is based on formal ownership of authority under legal title, and it is not remotely racist for the legal owners of something to defend that ownership. As I have said on many occasions, democracy cannot legitimise the theft of something merely by the thieves outvoting its owner.
@ Xaracen
YES! 🙂
1) so was/is Neoliberal/conservative Politics; so was/is Consumer Capitalism; so was/is every other concept of political theory. All fine, until they’re not. WTF has Marx’s theory got to do with Scotland’s situation anyway
2) I would have thought, had you read any of my, or Craig’s comments over the last while that you would have noticed that we are lucidly aware of the inadequacy of the Scottish Government; your other speculations are just the usual fearmongering ” Oh you can’t do that, the Big Bad WM Guys will come and get you ” – cool, come and get us, you know ‘ where we live ‘. Imagine if India, large parts of Africa and the Caribbean, IRELAND!! had been deterred by prophets of doom like you: then again, you probably think those places should have remained under the benign stewardship of Empire, right?
3) Glad you agree
4) I meant there are no alternate ways for Scotland to achieve it’s Liberation. The Brit State has effectively closed them down whilst retaining the self-appointed role of quasi-colonial Overlord.
Can’t believe, though I shouldn’t be surprised, that you’re reverting to the ‘ once in a lifetime ‘ nonsense. On what tablet of Cliffs of Dover chalk-formed stone does it proclaim….” though shalt have but one destiny-determining event in thine miserable lives, ye Jockalek ingrates ” ? That’s right, none. This notion of having to wait for some arbitrarily-determined ( by the Brit State, natch ) time period before we can hold another Referendum is the * purest * example of English Top/Down ” we’ll say ….” conceited presumption. To which we say……” Fuck off Angles, we’re done being dictated to by a bunch of Post-Imperial headcases that, having brought the UK to the edge of bankruptcy via successive City of London arse-kissing Govs, now want to attempt to disguise their colossal failures by inciting war with a nuclear-armed country “. And people like you just can’t seem to understand our motivations for wanting out and away from the England-as-Britain lunatic asylum. LOL
Dean
July 30, 2026 at 05:39
What exit polls?
I’ve been asking since IndyRef1 *why* there wasn’t an exit poll for such an existential vote?
The answer may be that TPTB didn’t want one.
For obvious reasons…
” there are A few serious flaws…..”. Yo sarcasm 🙂
Well good luck but of the 543/650 English constituencies, I can’t imagine more than 50 of them not voting against such a motion.
Boris Johnson isn’t faous for wisdom but once a generation seems right.
If every 7 years is good enough for NI, then it’s good enough for Scotland.
But it’s not.
The arrangement is that:
“Under the 1998 act, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can decide to hold a border poll at any time, provided that there has not been another border poll in the last seven years. The act also imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to hold a border poll if it appears likely that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for Irish unification.”
(see https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10101/)
So no mandatory poll every 7 years … it merely means that a poll CANNOT be held within 7 years of a prior one.
The ultimate decision as to whether a vote is held lies with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That is, it is held at the discretion of the NI Secretary.
Ah! see, Michael, how you automatically put WM/England as the superior power in deciding Scotland’s future. The crux and radical part of Craig’s proposals is taking control of the process in Scotland – UDI. We can speculate colourfully about what the Brit State would do in reaction to such a development, but some kind of confrontation with the latter is simply unavoidable; as we’ve said often, the Brits will never willingly concede to the break-up of the * Union *. They will have to be compelled to do so; hence Craig’s ” appeal ” to the International Community.
“Well good luck but of the 543/650 English constituencies, I can’t imagine more than 50 of them not voting against such a motion.”
Why?
I think that most ordinary English people (i.e. not politicians) don’t really care one way or the other, and would largely take the attitude that if a majority of Scots want Scotland to be independent, then Scotland should be independent.
Bur Craig is right: the English constituencies shouldn’t have any say in the matter.
” think that most ordinary English people (i.e. not politicians) don’t really care one way or the other, and would largely take the attitude that if a majority of Scots want Scotland to be independent, then Scotland should be independent.”.
Totally agree, T. The problem is not – and has never been – the mass of English people, but their ‘ Establishment ‘, the same entity that has also oppressed the English people for centuries. We – the people of England & Scotland ( and Wales % N.Ireland ) have a common enemy in that ‘ Establishment ‘. A great paradox is that the liberation of Scotland could precipitate a similar * revolution * in rUK. We could profitably work together to achieve this end 🙂
“I think that most ordinary English people (i.e. not politicians) don’t really care one way or the other, and would largely take the attitude that if a majority of Scots want Scotland to be independent, then Scotland should be independent.”
I think there’s a lot of truth in that. Personally I wouldn’t want the UK to break up (and I imagine her enemies would), but if a moral majority (say 55% or more) of Scotland’s voters really wanted independence, or for that matter if a moral majority of N. Ireland wanted to join the Republic, I would say ‘Good luck’. With some regret regarding Scotland, I must admit – but I wouldn’t stop them.
That’s why, to be honest, if some “Tiananmen” happened in Edinburgh, jokes aside, if this were serious and happening all over Scotland, I would want a peaceful and swift resolution, and harmony maintained with Scotland afterwards, be she part of the UK or not.
That’s what I really think. But for now, I wouldn’t undo the Union.
What an absurd viewpoint.
A majority is 55% now? When did that happen?
Do you think that ‘England’ somwehow ‘owns’ Scotland?
I said moral majority. What’s more, such a majority, of over 55% of voters in Scotland, chose to remain in the UK in 2014.
I would say that the whole of the UK owns the whole of the UK. And we are a parliamentary democracy, and the seat of that parliament is in Westminster. Since it has MPs for Scottish constituencies, there was no real need for a Scottish parliament. But since Westminster politicians became convinced of the case for limited devolution, fine. It also harmonises with Scotland having its own legal and educational traditions.
There is a Guardian article explaining why David Cameron allowed the independence referendum in 2016. Burnham, however may well take a different view, so that there will not be another such referendum.
M.J. July 30, 2026 at 21:01
corr. ‘independence referendum in 2016’ -> ‘independence referendum in 2014’
“Well good luck but of the 543/650 English constituencies, I can’t imagine more than 50 of them not voting against such a motion.”
That says more about your lack of imagination and abundance of prejudice than any real probabilities of how things would actually turn out. What makes you think the average English (or Welsh, or Northern Irish, whom you, as a true Unionist, have completely ignored) voter gives a stuff whether Scotland is independent or not?
The opening paragraph in this article refers to “The Scottish Government” and “The Scottish Parliament”.
One of them has an unelected Head of State in charge of it, and the other has a bunch of crooks in charge of it. I don’t see any route to independence until a force for independence comes to the fore.
To see how strange this article is, try changing ‘Scottish’ with ‘UK’ in the first paragraph.
“One of them has an unelected Head of State in charge of it, and the other has a bunch of crooks in charge of it. ”
=========
For one with the handle Free Speech Purist you are a tad careless with your claims.
The person (theoretically) in ultimate charge of the Scottish Government may, indeed be Charles Mountbatten-Windsor. But that is not who you mean. Swinney is not a head of state.
You are on stronger ground with your second claim. The SNP is, arguably part crime-syndicate. But a fair chunk of the remainder is a rather shambolic political party, many of whose members are not actual crooks.
Would Scotland retain the pound, or set up an alternative currency: if it fails to do so it would still be subject to Westminster control?
Join the European Union, and have the Euro?
We just changed to the Euro here, it essentially means “being fucked by shopkeepers”. We had the Covid “just in time collapse” price bump, the Russia invading Ukraine price bump, the US invading Iran price bump and now the “you converted to the Euro but are to dumb to count” price bump. There is also the issue that you cannot print your own currency anymore so are fully reliant on the European Commosion to bail you out of any issues and since they seem to be employed by Washington, that means IMF servitude.
Join the EU and immediately forego independence then?
Eh, no, pretty sure Dean meant the opposite, his first sentence says as much. True, the clowns of the SNP STILL fetishise an iScotland joining the EU – and this despite the almost unbelievably awful state of that institution under the rule of the clueless, ideologically deranged muppets of the Vonda Lie-in/Gaga Kallas Idiotocracy.
A growing number of Scots/Residents of Scotland are coming to realise the degenerate, autocratic nature of the E.U want nothing to with it. EFTA is a far more promising prospect; though even then, I would be very circumspect about joining ANY set-up unless completely satisfied it was not just another compliant Globalist org
Never please!
Oh Christ, not all that baloney again! It’s axiomatic that an iScotland would have it’s own currency.
Agreed, Robert. No country can be independent without its own currency and central bank. The debate over currency only exists because the vast majority do not understand this.
Yes. A Scotland or any country without its own currency can be independent in name only. Have your own currency, let it float against any others. Determine your own interest rates. A fixed and very low, approximately zero, interest rate schedule is almost always the best and would surely be the best for Scotland. “Expand” your economy to get to real full employment – anything else is insanity. Then you have the beginnings of a self-reliant, prosperous and independent country which will soon be called the Scottish miracle.
Read, in sequence, FDR’s one page message to the 1933 London Conference, then Keynes’ essay on National Self-Sufficiency and finally the relevant two chapters on international economics in Abba Lerner’s Economics of Employment. You will then know – and I mean KNOW like people know Euclid’s Geometry – international economics far better than 99% of economists, many who are in the grip of deranged and incoherent delusions decorated in pseudomathematics.
Cheers for those heads-up, C. Will check them out
The main points are OK – up to “3) Planning to Secure Scotland” where 1 should wait until after the confirmatory referendum to have a democratic mandate; 5 and 6 are not going to happen – the public are NOT going to do such a thing, including me.
5 and 6 might happen after the confirmatory referendum all the same, if there is any blowback from the rUK Government.
An extra point. When people were saying “Cameron must go”, I said “beware what comes next”. We got May. When people were saying “May must go” … BoJo must go … Sunak … Starmer …” (did I miss anyone?) Oy yes, Truss !!!!!!
Well, we have Burnham, and it is possible he could reverse the slide of democracy, back to Cameron. and maybe even further back. This is not an argument for the Union, it is an argument that he may become more co-operative towards our Independence.
No chance. Burnham is a muscular unionist. He understands that rUK couldn’t survive Scottish independence without major damage. It would be a greatly diminished entity, could lose its place on the security council, and would certainly be much weakened economically. That is why Craig’s plan is necessary. Nothing to lose because independence is not going to happen by diplomatic agreement between Westminster and Holyrood.
” No chance. Burnham is a muscular unionist. He understands that rUK couldn’t survive Scottish independence without major damage.”. Absolutely; he has already dismissed Swinney’s – kid-on – ‘ request ‘ for a S30 out-of-hand, and will continue to do so; just like every PM since Cameron and any future PM will
John ‘GSTK’ Swinney would have had a panic attack if Burnham had agreed to his request.
I think you are a good example of those who pretend to want Independence but actually prefer a nice comfortable status quo
Good grief. Do you seriously think your neebors will man the barricades, mix up molotov cocktails with their precious petrol, vodka, whisky or gin – and throw themselves under tanks?
Do your neebors cross the street when they see you coming?
The entire public do not need to, even 1℅ of them (the ones who still have balls) gathered in one place is an army.
How long can the SNP keep promising the neverendum before the party just simply doesn’t matter any more?
Swinney lied to win the 2026 Holyrood election, we know why and it wasn’t to do with delivery a date for Independence.
The SNP will keep promising Independence its election winner like Immigration is for Reform. After each and every election the SNP could reply on one thing the UKG would say no and the SNP would accept it as gospel this is whats know in the Indy movement as (The Gold Standard) it keeps the gullible faithful and their money continuing to flow to a party who just stole half million its members and hid it for 12yrs and even when Murrel was charge the same party would bring its self to chuck him out of the party.
I have more faith in god turning up at my door and given me this weeks lottery numbers or The National actually being a Indy paper now that would be surprising than I have in Swinney setting a date, he has finished destroying Scotland, its people its industry and god knows what else him and his London buddies have got planed.
I don’t know if anyone bought Bernard Matthews turkey drumsticks you used to get eight in a pack the reading the comments on The Rag there’s definitely more than 8 and all there doing is feeding into the misinformation and the lies.
The Union is in safe hand.
Where does the item “Deal with the shitstorm (“terrorist” outrages, energy supply failures, “mysterious” fires, “unexplained” deaths, rampant “sexual misbehaviour” amongst prominent independence supporters, debanking, etc. etc.) unleashed by the UK security services” come in this list?
After point 2. Your argument seems to be “don’t leave your abusive partner because they might hit you” though.
LOL, AYE! to be prefaced with the trick question…..” are you still beating your wife? “. Excellent series of points made above, Dean.
Where are you BTW, somewhere in the Eurozone I presume?
That was an argument for preparedness, not cowardice. I’m sorry it went over your heads. Mind you, I did try to delete it as I saw it wasn’t that clear, but the delete button seems not to have worked. I’l check more carefully next time. If you notice I rewrote the comment below.
One of the main problems with the Independence “Movement”, is that unlike 2014, some people are only too quick to twist genuine comments and suggestions to try to discredit those who dare to raise our heads with any other response but “baaaaaaa can I have your baby?”.
Luckily it’s just the same couple of dozen people spread over the forums. Unluckily most moderates have disappeared long since leaving the baaaaheids in control of the asylum.
Maybe with an actual Indy campaign we’ll get the Return of the Jedi!
Having witnessed a recent wildfire myself, I can tell you there is nothing “mysterious” about them; the ground/climatic conditions are such that whether they are intentionally* started or not, their ability to rapidly propagate without any further deliberate help is overwhelming.
*some undoubtedly are; there are pyromaniacs, psychopaths, careless people (BBQers, cigarette smokers, litterers chucking bottles and cans out in nature), agents acting on behalf of hostile foreign states…but the point is they could have committed exactly the same acts 20 years ago and it would have had hardly any effect. Climate change means that we are now sitting in a tinderbox. How much rain did you have in June? You prize prune.
Oh. And Exxon Mobil knew many decades ago that this is the kind of consequence we would see
Tsk, tsk, …
Wettest winter for 149 years, apparently.
You’re just conflating weather with climate. Another prize prune ?
You must be in the Southern Hemisphere if you think that June is Winter and you really are a prize prune if you believe that climate change doesn’t mean extremes. Seriously, do yourself a favour and open your freaking eyes, have a look at how dessicated the soil is. The far right is using deliberate human caused ignition as an explanation to persuade the easily lobotomised not to look out their own windows at the weather, conveniently ignoring that the change in climate means those ignitions are then propelled far further every year.
Why on Earth would you wish to be an Exxon Mobil shill?
SB: If you want to argue the case you make all the time (i.e. as a climate change denialist), there is a place for you to do it:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/climate-change-denialists-who-get-all-shy/
Now I’m betting you’ll get all shy (again), and belligerently give all sorts of silly reasons why you won’t.
The only denialist who summoned the courage of his convictions is Robert Hughes. He found a respectful audience where he could air his views, contrary to his expectations. Nobody called him stupid or were disrespectful. So you don’t have that as an excuse and neither does Bayard.
Surely you’re not going to run away again, only to make the same bold denialism later, again, are you?
Boy, you denialists are really shy!
There were a lot of wildfires here in 1976, Tentsmuir, Carrbridge, Torphins to name a few.
Stop confusing them with your inconvenient facts, else it’s around the back of the bike shed with Glen pants on fire for you.
All together now, “we’re all going to die, the planets on fire, aaargh !!!” 🙂
It’s oil I can do guv, honest!
I was forgetting what a polymath you are, SB.
Besides being so versed on current affairs, you’re a climate expert, a physics buff (a specialist on particle physics, no less), absolutely solid on AI, and so on and so forth.
Indeed, such a notable expert that you’re able to call people here like myself a liar – a serious charge.
I ask that you take that back. If you cannot provide proof that I have lied somewhere, and I am confident you will not, you have just lowered whatever reputation you have considerably.
Now look what you’ve done, S.B, you’ve rattled the cage of the Denierfinder-General again. We’ll all end up getting burnt at the stake (using renewable energy of course).
Were there fires worldwide at that time, yesindyref2?
If not, your observation is pretty irrelevant as far as comments on climate change is concerned.
The hell you say, boy.
You added another data point to my hypothesis, through observation, that those denying climate change are idiots. Pretty uncivil about it too – and terribly shy, when it comes to actually arguing their case to any depth beyond a simplistic denial.
You’re not very good at data collection – I’m not a climate change denier.
Don’t give up the day job!
“Were there fires worldwide at that time, yesindyref2?”
Well there were in in 1473, throughout Europe, during an unusually hot summer, much hotter and drier than this one ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1473_heat_and_drought_in_Europe ), but I suppose that was before the Industrial Revolution and so doesn’t count.
“Having witnessed a recent wildfire myself, I can tell you there is nothing “mysterious” about them”
I wasn’t thinking of wildfires, more of arson (to buildings).
“”Wettest winter for 149 years, apparently.””
“You must be in the Southern Hemisphere if you think that June is Winter”
Have you not noticed that every June has a December, a January and a February that comes before it and that those months are commonly known as “winter”?
Apparently, we’re in a period called summer when things heat up, occurs every year about this time. Reminds me of when I lived in south Wales, every school summer holiday without fail the hills were alive with the sound of fire engines. The little buggers were straight out of school and straight onto setting fires on the hills. AGW: Arsonist Gangs in Wales !
“This is where Catalonia failed. Its referendum was disrupted by brutality to which it had no answer. Scots must be prepared to stand for Scotland.”
The last two times the British Establishment was forced to do something it really didn’t want to do or not do something it really wanted to do, Irish independence and the Socialist government after WWII, was when they were faced by armed or potentially armed opponents. There is little point in Scots standing for Scotland unless they are armed, so there needs to be an item “Collect an arsenal”. Otherwise Scotland, too, will have little defence against the shitstorm (“peaceful demonstrations” which turn into violent riots, “terrorist” outrages, energy supply failures, “mysterious” fires, “unexplained” deaths, rampant “sexual misbehaviour” amongst prominent independence supporters, debanking, etc. etc.) unleashed by the UK security services” as soon as they get a sniff of an attempt at UDI.
“the Socialist government after WWII”
Any socialism in the Liarbour Partei was strictly of the national variety.
” the Scottish Government are content to pick up their pay checks for another five years, having pulled up their armchairs comfortably to the referendum roadblock.”
So why would the First Minister be inclined to announce a date for a declaration of independence at all? Would he not rather, on the contrary, sit in his own armchair, anticipating enjoyable coffee mornings as a Peer (using coffee makers properly paid for, of course)?
Yes, of course he would. But his voters are deserting him and his own activists deeply disillusioned.
Will Scottish army regiments defect like much of the Ukrainian army did after the US-Ukronazi coup d’etat?
Hopefully, those guys are rapey arseholes. A civic (civil) defense force trained to actually defend the country as opposed to a bunch of misfit sociopaths murdering their way around the globe can only be a good thing.
“This is where Catalonia failed. Its referendum was disrupted by brutality to which it had no answer. Scots must be prepared to stand for Scotland.”
I have looked at some information from AI for that period, it wasn’t just the stiff response from the state that gets mentioned; massive numbers of pro union forces took to the streets as well.
Catalonian campaigners for independence were not the only opinion. In Scotland there will be at least three factions, pro indyref, anti indyref, and don’t care about the indyref.
Spain has a National Police who were involved in the brutal attacks.
The UK, doesn’t.
We don’t have any thing like a national police? so the reports of miners being attacked by police were fake?
Phew, that’s a relief
“national police” = “state police”. The UK, as a state, doesn’t have “national police” that can march in to devolved Scotland where the police are devolved, and start beating up citizens trying to vote.
Hope that helps.
I am relieved to hear that Police Scotland is on the payroll of the Scottish citizen and swears an oath of allegiance to the law. A law that recognises the Union.
I’ve also concluded your………
You mean this declaration (not oath):
“I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, [F2candour,] integrity, diligence and impartiality, [F3that I will follow the Code of Ethics for Policing in Scotland] and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law.”?
Congratulations, you got 3 out of 3 wrong.
Sorry, 2 out of 3 wrong. Nothing wrong with your opening post.
““national police” = “state police”. The UK, as a state, doesn’t have “national police” that can march in to devolved Scotland where the police are devolved, and start beating up citizens trying to vote.”
You remind me of this little poem:
“You cannot hope to bribe nor twist,
Thank God, the British journalist,
But seeing what the man will do,
Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.”
The UK doesn’t have a national police force because it doesn’t need one.
Maybe. I heard an interesting saying in The Undeclared War. Something like “They don’t follow the Rule of Law, they Rule by Law”.
There are of course the anti-terrorism laws which give the Met extra powers …
To expand on my earlier comment.
The idea of “oath of allegiance” after UDI but before confirmation, needs to investigate the EXACT wording of any “oaths” previously made. For instance this:
Constable’s declaration
(1)An appointment of an individual as a constable has effect only where the individual has made a declaration in the following terms before a sheriff [F1, summary sheriff] or justice of the peace—
“I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, [F2candour,] integrity, diligence and impartiality, [F3that I will follow the Code of Ethics for Policing in Scotland] and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law.”.
(2)The Scottish Ministers may by order modify the declaration.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/8/part/1/chapter/2/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true
There appears to be an endemic ignorance that policing in Scotland is actually devolved to the Scottish Parliament. “Tanks”, can also NOT be ordered to deploy by the UK Government on Scottish soil. The police would be completely able legally to “police” any “army barracks”, at least outside them.
This article is good, but very much a work in progress.
THE AUTHOR SHOULD HAVE THE WIT AND COMMITMENT TO INDEPENDENCE TO ACCEPT AND WELCOME INPUT WITHOUT INSULT.
Sorry for shouting.
I was all for / voted for Independence in 2014.
Post Brexit, it’s never going to happen.
And another timely reminder why London will never let go:
it’s not the oil but the water England needs.
And thank God we didn’t get Independence in 2014.
What would Queen Sturgeon – and Murrell – be doing to Scotland today?!
If Scotland had voted YES, Salmond would not have resigned.
And the SNP might well have been booted out in the first Independent Scotland election. The SNP probably wouldn’t have had a surge in membership from 25,500 to over 125,000 in a few months, and all political parties would be truly Scottish, not UK branch offices. There would have been no Sturgeon roadshow. And I wouldn’t have joined the SNP for 3 wasted years of achieving nothing, nothing at all (well, in the SNP anyway!).
The people should be mobilised to take physical control of all UK government buildings in Scotland, and of key institutions like the law courts and the BBC, to guard against any attempt at physical retention by unionist holdouts.
Shades of Trump’s oafish louts storming the Capitol. An irresistible temptation for every thug and vandal Scottish or not. People died at the Capitol, $2.7 million worth of damage and I don’t know how much stuff got nicked. There are over 40 courts in Scotland, many more police stations and town halls etc. Will there be enough people to go round?
The civil servants, troops and so on have already sworn an oath to the sovereign. Will they be expected to just ignore that or how else could be it be annulled?
“The civil servants, troops and so on have already sworn an oath to the sovereign. Will they be expected to just ignore that or how else could be it be annulled?”
Probably in exactly the same way as it was in an other colony achieving independence, except those who stayed in the “Commonwealth”.
From the blogpost, Pears:
‘On Independence all public servants must immediately be asked to sign oaths of allegiance to the government and community of Scotland, *renouncing any previous allegiance*.’ [my emphasis]
Not sure whether these oaths would apply to council-employed refuse collectors etc. If so, swathes of Scotland might soon resemble Birmingham – with added unionist terrorism.
Craig,
You say:
“By announcing a date for a declaration of Independence if there is no referendum, immediate pressure would be put on Burnham to avert a constitutional crisis and a situation with potential to turn violent.
Burnham would be in a politically very weak position – all he is being asked for to avert this serious crisis is a democratic vote.”
This implies that you would first request permission from Burnham/Westminster to hold a referendum. But if the Scottish people are sovereign, and as self-determination is a human right under the UN Charter, why would you provide any kind of role for Burnham/Westminster? Does this not compromise the very sovereignty of the Scottish people?
You yourself say – and I agree – that
“It is a logical impossibility to believe both that Scotland is a nation with the right of self-determination, and that Independence requires permission from London”
so is asking for the OK from Burnham/Westminster actually undermining that Scottish popular sovereignty?
Hi Stephen. Craig will answer you himself, hopefully; my interpretation of this point is Craig applying the ‘ protocol ‘ of making the intentions in his proposals known to the Brit Gov and giving it the opportunity to react/cooperate constructively, all the while assuming ( almost certainly accurately ) that the latter will reject this offer of mature, sensible dialogue; in which event, we will proceed with steps to declare UDI
Undoubtedly, as things stand, this scenario seems a distant/ unlikely-to-occur hypothetical; but so has the ambition of every other Liberation Movement in History: and the supposed ‘ impossibility ‘ of such aspiration been relentlessly reinforced by whatever power was doing the oppressing, or simply denying the wishes of the seceding nation/group.
Such things are ALWAYS declared ‘ impossible ‘; until such declarations are proved wrong
Hello Robert,
At most the UK government might be informed of the intention to hold our own process of self-determination.
Whether or not they respond in a positive fashion should not matter – if the intention is to enact Scottish self-determination i.e. to choose the form of government best suited to Scotland’s needs then that is what will happen regardless.
The optics, however, do matter: implying in any way that ‘permission’ is required then that might legitimise formal UK involvement in our process in the eyes of the public at large.
The other danger is that it might appear like an opening gambit, which the Brits may interpret as an invitation to get involved and we’d get sucked into the treacle of negotiating terms and rules around Scotland’s self-determination process, one in which they would set conditions that would make it impossible to restore Scotland’s full self-government and independent statehood.
The British must have no say in the matter.
” The British must have no say in the matter.”. Agreed. That is an inherent sine qua non of UDI.
You are correct, UDI means not up for discussion.
But the declaration comes at the end of the process … the British must have no formal role from start to finish.
“The British must have no say in the matter.”
Well who does, then, the Israelis? (“The British” are the Scots, the Welsh and the English, in case you had forgotten)
Burnham’s Labour government could simply say that they will address the matter by initiating the process towards a codified UK/British imperial constitution which will make membership optional and create a formal leaving process. This, of course, can be pursued in parallel by the Independence movements. There would likely be great value in having a Southern neighbour bound by a modern constitution without all those shadowy royal prerogatives and emergency powers, whose other members and actual colonies might avail themselves of the same formalities.
This is a good question Stephen. I’ll offer an answer myself.
If Westminster is approached in the polite SNP fashion for a section 30 then London can say they considered it but that “no” is their answer. How that is dressed up is up to the Scottish govt, but they can claim to be “disappointed” or they they can bide their time for “material changes” to happen before asking again.
However if Westminster is approached in the way Craig mentions, the dynamic changes completely. An observer can call it a request if they like, but in reality it is a demand dressed up with necessary politeness and formality. London knows that if they give a no, Scotland will take independence anyway by liaising with the international community. On that basis Westminster might prefer to give begrudging permission and then throw significant resource into campaigning for a No referendum result; this would bless Westminster with the appearance of democratic process, but it would give Scotland the chance to make use of the increased propensity for a Yes referendum result.
So to your question about whether it is undemocratic for the Scots to approach Burnham, I’d say no from a moral perspective. It would be interesting if there were some arcane legal reason why the Scots should not do so, but I’d doubt it – they did it once already and it does not seem to have dimmed the cause.
Jon,
You either believe that the Scottish are sovereign in their own land or you don’t.
If you do then you wouldn’t consider offering a role to Westminster/Burnham (or any other foreign power).
Do you seriously believe that getting Westminster’s ‘buy-in’ will not entail them attaching strings to the process, strings that will set hurdles so high and obstructions so dense that they will prove insurmountable for full self-government to be restored?
Remember, you are proposing to deal with perfidious Albion.
So the plan must preclude formal British involvement in, interference with, and influence over it. In short, the process must be ‘Made in Scotland’.
The international community may be on our side, but they are not going to do return our independent statehood.
That’s up to us.
‘Every Scottish nationalist should have these British government quotes hardwired into their brain. The British government argues one position abroad and a different position at home.’
Britain has set the bar for cynical hypocrisy and bogus posturing for centuries without repercussion. In 1918 they brazenly ignored the democratic will of the Irish while loudly posturing as the world’s foremost defenders of democracy. A century later they’re still at it, posturing as a righteous moral policeman while supporting most of the world’s repressive regimes and shamelessly participating in the mass murder of the world’s most vulnerable people in Gaza. There is no embarrassing these demons and certainly no sense at all in Scots pleading to them for their independence/ self-rule. Other means have always been necessary.
Re: ‘military establishments containing troops not loyal to Scotland should be subject to peaceful and friendly civilian blockade’
May I ask how it’s possible to cordially blockade a military base?
Form a cordon right round the base and superglue the hands together. Volunteers can feed, water and, errrrr, service the cordon 24/7. Bit of a shame about the choppers all the same. Watch out for Tom, Dick and Harry!
Possibly it is a mistake to assume the UK government are necessarily calling all the shots. Would the United States allow the United Kingdom to be broken up and possibly Scotland become part of the EU and withdraw from their British-centred war machine? I don’t see it. Paradoxically, too, closer to home, what hopes would there be of fair vote for Scottish independence, given the sickness of UK democracy? The elites have recently ousted a democratically elected UK leader and parachuted in a Prime Minister from outside Parliament, without even asking Labour members; and before that smeared and gerrymandered away Corbyn’s chances in 2019; imposed their version of Brexit; and closed down the country because of a flu-like virus… OK, maybe that is all in itself a reason for Scottish independence, except that Scottish politicians have been heavily involved in some of it. Plus there are the usual practical issues of the Scottish and English and Welsh economies being so intertwined. Time will tell, of course, but I must admit my conviction a present is both that the UK nations won’t return to the EU and also that Scottish independence will not happen in our lifetimes. Apologies if I seem in a defeatist mood in this glorious summer!
All your points are valid, Tom, I alluded to one earlier re * NATO *. I’m totally convinced both the US & England-As-Britain would do everything in their power to prevent Scotland leaving the * Union * – ” breaking-up the UK “.
This is why only UDI has any chance of success. It is also why the SNP has been so clearly infiltrated, undermined and enfeebled. Never has a Political Party been so rapidly and thoroughly rendered useless, it’s principles and raison d’etre abandoned and replaced with utter shit than the SNP has. 12 years to poison and neuter a party that had existed for 100+ years! That must be some kind of record. It took approx 80 to do the same to Labour.
Maybe Your Party will set a new record in rapidity of decline, but it’s hard to know if it has ever really started, never mind ended
This thread is already populated by posts pointing to the use of the Local Government franchise in 2014, and the bold claim that a majority of autochthonous Scots voted Yes.
That assertion is apparently based on Prof. Ailsa Henderson’s work, and this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Something is up with her numbers.
Professor Henderson of the University of Edinburgh posits three main contentions regarding the 2014 Independence referendum:
* 52.7% in indigenous Scots voted Yes (she uses a figure of 51% in later PowerPoint presentations).
* 72.1% of residents born elsewhere in the UK voted No.
* 57.1% of residents born outside the UK voted No.
Crunching the numbers:
Results of the referendum.
Registered voters 4,283,392
Turnout 84.59%
Votes No 2,001,926
Votes Yes 1,617,989
Margin of defeat 383,937
Firstly we have to work out the population figures for 2014. To do this we have the 2011 census and the 2016 mid-census estimate.
We’re interested in four groupings here; total population, indigenous Scots population, population from rUK and population born outside UK.
2011 census gives:
Total population 5.246m
Indigenous Scots 4.4m
Residents rUK 0.513m
Resident born outside UK 0.369m
(there’s 36k discrepancy here but this is not material to the final result)
2016 mid-census estimate gives:
Net immigration from rUK ave. between 2011 & 2014, 7k pa.
Net immigration from outside UK ave. between 2011 & 2014, 4.5k pa.
Therefore population rUK in 2014 = (3 x 0.007) + 0.513 = 0.534m
Therefore population born outside UK in 2014 = (3 x 0.0045) + 0.369 = 0.382m
To calculate total population in 2014, the mid-census estimate gives population for 2015 as 5.37m.
Therefore rate of population increase per annum = (5.37 – 5.246) / 4 = 0.031m
So, total population 2014 = (3 x 0.031) + 5.246 = 5.339m
For interest, this gives the population of indigenous Scots at 4.423m ie basically unchanged from 2011.
Now we need the rate of voter registration in 2014 = 4.283 / 5.339 = 80%
Now we can calculate the net votes against independence from our two demographics.
Prof Henderson states:
Net No votes (as a percentage) among rUK residents at 44.2%
Net No votes (as a percentage) among residents born outside the UK at 14.2%
Therefore we can calculate actual votes against independence.
Residents from rUK = 0.8 x 534,000 x 0.846 x 0.442 = 159,744 votes.
Residents from outside UK = 0.8 x 382,000 x 0.846 x 0.142 = 36,712 votes.
Therefore total, net votes against independence from non-indigenous Scots = 196,456 votes.
So, 196.5k net votes No with a Yes margin of defeat of 384k. Clearly something isn’t correct with Prof. Henderson’s hypothesis.
We could play about with differing rates of voter registration and voter turnout among the three, demographic groups, but this gets us nowhere near the headline claim that “the majority of indigenous Scots voted Yes”
We would have lost the referendum in 2014 if the franchise had been limited to autochthonous Scots, but the margin of defeat would have been substantially less and crucially a precedent would have been set in terms of electoral franchise for future referenda.
We should have used a permanent residency franchise in 2014, which would have been in line with most other European states. My sister has been resident in the Republic of Ireland for over twenty years and gets to vote only in Local elections.
Why does the University of Edinburgh allow its name to be associated with such shoddy work? Alongside the University of Glasgow and the University of St Andrews (both spook infested) it is a bastion of the British state in Scotland.
Henderson has subsequently been granted sinecures with the Boundary Commission for Scotland (Westminster controlled).
That survey of hers is completely knackered. From the very first graphic, there would have had to be 8 times as many women voted as men to get the figure of the actual referendum. And yet it still gets quoted. Job done for misinformation.
I’ve never been too hung-up on that * factoid * one way or another, Viv. The more relevant aspect is whether or not there was any degree of Deep State fuckery in determining the outcome; I’m fairly convinced there was, but, of course, there is no way of proving that. It’s equally possible the outcome was legit; just there were too many * anomalies * for my liking and – as has been stated often enough – we know with absolute certainty that ‘ vested interests ‘ – national and international – had large amounts of skin in the game.
Is it REALLY credible to think that those vested interests would have been prepared to leave such an epochal choice – one that would have irrevocably changed * Britain’s * power dynamic internally and geopolitically – to the Hoi Polloi? Nah, it’s not
Aye Robert.
One lesson that we should all have taken from that 2014 British Electoral Commission authorised opinion poll was that we should never again let anyone other than ourselves be in any way involved with the voting process. Especially the Brits.
The ‘oversight’ of the EC was non-existant.
The Conservatives cheated in 2 elections and 2 referendums.
Michael Crick caught them at it for Channel 4 news, but Teresa May just called an election and the whole affair was ignored. Fresh start for the cheating Tories, at least they lost their majority!
The postal voting processes were put in place in such a way as to leave them wide open to the possibility of mass scale vote stuffing, with no oversight whatsoever. By design.
Be need to use only processes that are transparent and closely monitored.
” The more relevant aspect is whether or not there was any degree of Deep State fuckery in determining the outcome; I’m fairly convinced there was, but, of course, there is no way of proving that. ”
Well, given that it is a well-established principle in politics to never ask a question of the public to which you don’t already know the answer, it seems likely that the independence referendum was only held because the Powers-that-be already knew what the result would be. The shock of the Brexit referendum is that they got it wrong, possibly because, after two referendums has returned the Right Answer, they had become overconfident and careless. After that, I very much doubt I will see another referendum in my lifetime.
You are correct, there is something very dodgy in that report.
Profs Henderson and Mitchell actually published 2 reports:
1. The March 2015 Transatlantic Seminar Series publication which includes the much quoted ‘52.7% of Scots’ voted YES
2. The Key Findings publication of December 2018 which indicates that the split was 50%/50% for Scottish born.
So there is a contradiction there right away.
In addition the volumes are not included in either of these reports, although we do know from the Profs that there were 3 ‘waves’ of interviews carried out to establish voting behaviour. (However, the 1st wave was pre-18th September 2014, so why would these have been used to calculate how folks actually voted?)
Finally, using your figures for population as at 2014 you can calculate a rough cut estimate of the actual vote by including the claimed demographic YES percentages from the reports:
Scottish born: 83% (of population) x %52.7% (YES, 1st report) = 43.7% weighted contribution to total YES vote
rUK born: 10% (of population) x 27.9% (YES, 1st report) = 2.8% weighted contribution tot total YES vote
elsewhere born: 7% (of population) x 42.9% (YES, 1st report) = 3.00% weighted contribution tot total YES vote
This implies a total YES vote of 43.7% + 2.8% + 3.0% = 49.5%
which, in statistical accuracy terms, is miles off the reality (from the actual YES vote of 44.7%).
Thankyou Vivian.
For the casual reader an explanation as to why interpreting those University of Edinburgh numbers does not match up with the declared result numbers for the vote is remarkably simple.
Ordinarily when sampling is done, like you see for regular opinion polls, a representative sample is drawn from the larger available pool of survey takers, who represent the population.
Something similar to the following boilerplate qualification therefore always applies:
“projecting results from the poll sample onto the population as a whole relies on the selected sample being representative of the larger population as a whole.”
In the case of these numbers, the cohort was pre-existing. It was NOT selected to be representative of the views of the population at that time. And views had been changing fast up to that time as more and more people were making up their minds as the 2 year+ run-up process towards the referendum concluded.
The cohort that was sampled was pre-existing.
It is all a long time ago now, but from memory that ‘GB’ cohort was simply being used for consistency to follow on the monitoring of THEM from IIRC 3 previous rounds of surveys.
This important fact was written into the text of the full report at the time. But of course no-one pointed out at the time that it meant that the survey ‘results’ could not be validly expected to be projected onto the population as it existed at the time of the 2014 referendem.
As ever the Daily Redcoat reports without nuance.
There were 3 ‘waves’ of the survey:
“Wave1:Pre-referendumwave(22/08/2014-20/09/2014). 4,849 respondents took part in Wave1.
Wave2: Post-referendum wave I (26/09/2014-09/10/2014). Wave2 was carried out as a ’top-up module’ attached to the third wave of the British Election Study Internet Panel (BESIP). Not all respondents in Scotland were provided with the full set of questions for both studies. As such, the sample is divided into three groups.
Wave3: Post-Referendum Wave II (28/09/2015-15/10/2015). 2,610 respondents took part in wave3.”
https://doc.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/8402/mrdoc/pdf/8402_srs_2014_codebook.pdf
Thanks. There was a much longer report than that, but that harddrive died long ago. 🙁
The original ‘report’ is, I think, a presentation as part of Transatlantic Seminar Series where the infamous “52.7%” claim is made:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20200131155404/https:/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/scottishreferendumstudy/files/2015/03/Scottish-Referendum-Study-27-March-2015.pdf)
But as I said in my original response to Viv above that was seemingly superseded a few years later:
(https://scottishelections.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/SRS_Referendum_Poster.pdf)
It’s all very historic now and not relevant but I really do wish people would stop quoting it as it has too many holes in the data for it to be credible.
Maybe this one stored on Wayback (it may have been me what stored it):
https://web.archive.org/web/20201106174838/https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/scottishreferendumstudy/files/2015/03/Scottish-Referendum-Study-27-March-2015.pdf
It couldn’t have been more divisive by birthplace, sex or religion if they had deliberately falsified the data or its analysis.
Look at Demographics I on page 5
Sorry, I see Stephen already posted the link.
Vivian O’Blivion
Next you’ll be scrutinising the GERS figures and saying they are true along with – adding in that Scotland is too wee and too poor – it bad enough seeing and reading the British states propaganda that Scotland can’t do this or that – without you doing the dirty work for them.
I’ve suspected your “indy” stance for a while now.
The media factor though. major influence was it no!!
Why do you suppose the Scottish Government, whom you call to take up that action, would actually take this course of action it, as you say, there is “every sign that the Scottish Government are content to pick up their pay checks for another five years, having pulled up their armchairs comfortably to the referendum roadblock.” They’ll do nothing!
It’s not the Scottish Government that urgently needs a bold and radical approach, but it’s us who need a new a bold and radical Scottish Government. That’s a course of action for a new, different Scottish Government to follow!
Of course I don’t expect John Swinney will do any of this. But until the SNP voters and activists understand the yawning gap between what needs to be done and what the SNP leadership is prepared to do, we can make no progress.
“It has a clear and uncontested border with England.”
…how long do you expect that to last? (What with the twats whether from England, or for England)
This should also be brought before the Scottish Youth Parliament
“The Inland Revenue is already established separately in Scotland and should be instructed to pay all revenue, both personal and corporate, into Scotland’s accounts.”
The Inland Revenue has not existed for over 20 years (neither has Customs and Excise).
HMRC is not separately established in Scotland, but remains a single UK-wide non-ministerial department, while devolved Scottish taxes are instead handled by Revenue Scotland. Devolved Scottish taxes include income tax but exclude corporation tax, VAT, and national insurance contributions.
I hope the rest of your proposals are not as full of mistakes as this one is.
Your silence on the currency Scotland would use and the mechanisms for its creation also speaks volumes.
I would suggest Scotland use a separate Scottish Pound, like it did before 1707.
As a non-resident although with family in Scotland (therefore an interested outsider) I think that having a clearer picture of what the constitution of a newly created Scotland would like would help those who are not fully committed at present. I recollect Mr Murray has previously referenced that Mr Salmond expressed some regret, given his later case, that there was insufficient attention to the constitutional safeguards vis a vis the separation powers (and the power of the executive) which were then weaponised against him. Having a constitution or clearly defined Bill Of Rights or least the key points about citizen’s rights etc may help persuade those not explictly on board ? Saying trust me we’ll figure out all the arrangments after independence; I.E “trust the process” may not be the strongest of arguments to bring people on board or to promote cohesion after independence has been recognised if these arrangements are left wholly undetermined. Imagining the constitutional arrangements, discussing and reviewing these, is an excercise all the citizens/residents of Scotland can become involved with prior to 2029/2030 and will familiarise and deepen the notion that independence is going to take place and will not be an unfamiliar landscape to navigate when it happens.
This. Learn from Iceland.
There is no newly created Scotland, the Scottish crown is still active and alive it always has been its just been suppressed by England, we’re not breaking away from a union there never was a union for those that signed the the documents of union didn’t posses the sovereignty to do so, there was also no union of the crowns in 1603, no British crown was created all that James VIth (Ist in England) did was to become king of England as well as Scotland, the Scottish crown remained active as it is to this day.
Scotland has a constitution, is been suppressed and replaced with England’s it didn’t matter how many documents A.V Dicey forged to make it appear as though Scotland was in a union with England – it wasn’t, and never has been.
It would be foolish to allow the likes of Burnham and Swinney to organise an indyref – to stave – off calls for one, for the outcome would be a no brainer – no would win hands down and yes would lose, due to the fix being in. we need to organize and implement one ourselves down the road after we’ve declared UDI – as Craig said a confirmatory one at a later date.
Hi Republic of Scotland.
Yes. An independent Scotland separate from its neighbours has existed for a longer period of time than its current union with RoUK.
The Scottish constitution prior to 1707 did not enfranchise the majority of the population as far as I am aware ? Serfdom was also in practice. Depending on the outcome of Mr Murray’s Scottish Judicial Review on the proscription of Palestine Action it could well be the case that this would continue after achieving independence ? I come at this from the position that it is healthy for citizens to be engaged in and influence they way their society is organised. I think having citizens deliberate on how the exercise of their collective power is organised (and subsequently protected) will enhance their country’s politics and make them more vigilant in protecting their freedoms and rights. Having effective separation of powers to restrain the Executive [under Crown perogative ?] and scrutinise its legislation and an independent police service and judiciary to impartially enforce and prosecute the law should also be expected. I note from Mr Murray’s previous blogs that he raised serious questions about this in respect of Mr Salmond’s prosecution. That this happened under the current Scottish constitution, is surely relevant ?
Regards.
” I come at this from the position that it is healthy for citizens to be engaged in and influence they way their society is organised. I think having citizens deliberate on how the exercise of their collective power is organised (and subsequently protected) will enhance their country’s politics and make them more vigilant in protecting their freedoms and rights. ”
If an independent Scotland is to have that, then they would have to do away with the farce calling itself “democracy” that the UK has endured these last few hundred years and replace it with something that is actually democratic. Otherwise, in the words of a member of the IRA in the film “The Wind That Shakes The Barley”, “All that will change is the accents of our masters” and Scotland will be run by Scottish oligarchs, not English ones.
There seem to many different views of what an independent Scotland should be like, some want to retain the Monarch as head of state, some don’t, then does Scotland need a head of state (like Ireland) at all or should the role be combined with that of the chief executive officer (like the US)? In or out of the EU, or NATO? There are even those who want Scotland to be a land fit for conspiracy theorists who would ban vaccines and replace cancer treatment with horse de-worming treatment.
Being coy about what an independent Scotland would be like has been a clever ploy by pro-independence parties to get these disparate groups onside but these questions are going have to be resolved sometime.
“There are even those who want Scotland to be a land fit for conspiracy theorists who would ban vaccines and replace cancer treatment with horse de-worming treatment.”
It’s not a good look to mention conspiracy theorists and trot out what amounts to a conspiracy theory in the same sentence.
I don’t think Pears is doing that at all.
His questions are all entirely legitimate and any eligible voters with an IQ in three figures need to think about them.
Quite possibly, but the bit I quoted wasn’t a question, it was a statement and any statement that starts with the words “There are even those…” is a conspiracy theory. If you are trying to make a serious point, it is a good idea to refrain from obvious nonsensical hyperbole.
Those who want informed consent for vaccines and all treatments, and who are aware that many pharmaceuticals are used in veterinary as well as human conditions, are not “conspiracy theorists”.
Bravo, Craig! I hope that’s being sent to every news outlet on the planet.
First up Burnham will never ever grant an indyref, secondly Holyrood is child of Westminster, a colonial admin that’s why foreign parties (England’s) can sit in it – they are there to make sure the status quo doesn’t change, as for the Greens and the SNP, they are not interested in ridding Scotland of it Westminster ball and chain, there’s been an indy majority at Holyrood for at least the last decade but no avail.
So what required is a peoples government ( a temporary body) made up from the public outside of Holyrood – Swinney and Holyrood are a dead end when it comes to restoring our sovereignty – I certainly don’t believe that Westminster had no input or played no part in the SNP getting back into office, via postal voting or for the first time ever ballot boxes lying all night to be counted the next day. The SNP called in England’s GCHQ to oversee its leadership contest in which Humza Yousaf “won” it
A peoples government that bypasses Holyrood also bypasses Westminster – can be set up with the help of Salvo and Liberation, who along with yourself and a few dedicated other have make a good case for our liberty at the UN. Westminster will never willingly let us leave so we must take our freedom, and for me that can’t happen going down the usual channels, as Holyrood is beholden to Westminster, ergo it must be excluded from the equation, set up the Peoples Government declare indy and follow the rest of your plan, of course Westminster won’t standby and let us leave, for England has far too much to lose, so defending our declaration MUST be the priority, we know Westminster doesn’t respect International Law, so what’s to stop it marching an army into Scotland and crush us, that’s the reality of it – no matter what the UN says – Christ England is involved in aiding and abetting in genocide what’s to stop it crushing us when we declare indy, that why we need to arm ourselves and to do that we need allies willing to give us the arms.
Of course we are not breaking away as part of a nation, no we are restoring our sovereignty – Scotland IS an older nation than England, but that will mean nothing if we can’t defend ourselves – do you really think pleas to English troops to go home will cut it, and if not do you really think that the UN will take any meaningful action against Westminster/Whitehall if they don’t go home, surely even you are not the naive Craig.
The US doesn’t want us to restore our sovereignty either – among the reason is the GIS Gap which currently named the GIUK Gap, and many nations such as France, Denmark Sweden the US and England are stealing Scottish assets such as oil/gas and the placing of windfarms that give Scotland a poultry return.
Another possible – should say probable scenario is that a civil war is provoked by outside forces and England hews off a section of Scotland possibly Orkney and Shetland, Westminster has form on this tactic – there’s also over one-million English folk living in Scotland, the majority of which their loyalty will lie South of the Border – no prepare for the worst and hope for the best, if we can’t defend ourselves we are open to being crushed.
I’m asking the question again: why was there no exit poll organised for the most existential vote in the history of Scotland?
Probably because the powers that be knew the result in advance, so didn’t need one.
This is superb. Thank you for compiling something that becomes increasingly deluded, unhinged and undeliverable, it was highly entertaining
Yours
A ‘Unionist Holdout’
My own sympathies are Unionist, but I have too much respect for Ambassador Craig Murray to describe his writing in such terms. I use the term “writing” deliberately, as befits a well-known journalist, not “compiling”, as with amateurs posting on blogs.
” a Unionist Holdout ” lacking the bottle to use his own name; preferring instead to sneer anonymously. ” Mouse ” indeed.
Don’t knock anonymity!
But the opening line of Burns’ “To a Mouse” reads:
“ Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie”
I have no problem with anonymity generally, my ( probably not that ) cynical friend: only when people hide behind it in order to make snide remarks. Good, relevant Burns reference 🙂
“How daur ye ca’ me “Howlet-face”?
Ye blear-e’ed, withered spectre !
Ye only spied the keekin-glass,
An’ there ye saw your picture.”
What about anyone who has ever sworn to keep (or has been bound by) UK Official Secrets, including retired civil servants and military personnel? I expect their true testimony will be far more effective in a rejection of the British Empire than standing in front of a tank. Will this be specified in the Oaths section?
Will a new treason law be applied that doesn’t define it as defying loyalty to the British monarch and heirs?