Between ten and five years ago, specifically in the light of Brexit, it was not in the least unusual for Scottish Independence supporters to discuss a declaration of Independence as the way forward. Debate more often centred on who should make the declaration – the Scottish parliament or some form of national convention or assembly. Very few Independence supporters considered the idea outrageous.
On the day that the UK left the European Union, contrary to the referendum vote of every region in Scotland, Sturgeon called a set-piece speech and summoned the whole SNP party hierarchy to be there, as were all the Scottish and UK media. Nobody knew what she was going to say. The belief she may be about to declare Independence, or give an imminent date for it, was widely shared.
In the event, to everyone’s great puzzlement, she said nothing meaningful at all and made no effort to make the break with the EU a decisive moment in taking forward Scotland’s Independence.
In 2020 I stood for President of the SNP and my published manifesto included this passage:
As I was a British diplomat for over 20 years, including six years as a member of the Senior Management Structure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I can assure you that MI5, GCHQ and the other organs of the UK security state are targeted on us. Scottish Independence supporters are rightly perceived as the biggest threat to the UK state.
My intention is to ensure that we are indeed the biggest threat to the UK state. Anybody who believes that the security services are not already targeted on us is a fool. The security services would not be doing their declared job otherwise. This new legislation is a threat to us. Remember Pat Finucane. Remember David Kelly. Above all, remember Willie McRae.
All the more reason to strike now for Independence and get out of the UK.
Let us use the economic powers of an independent nation to build a fair and just society with no billionaires, no foodbanks and no children living in poverty. Let us build a nation with a foreign policy not dictated by the interests of the USA, dedicated to human rights, international development and support for the United Nations.
Let us move quickly to secure an Independent Scotland. Let our descendants be proud of us.
Nobody accused me of being some kind of unrepresentative outsider. The SNP leadership were so panicked that, the day before nominations closed, the sitting President was told he was retiring and being replaced by the extremely popular Mike Russell MP as the party establishment candidate.
Voting was restricted to Conference delegates, where the party leadership had a huge payroll vote. Even so I came second out of four candidates, with 25% in the final round.
In those days we had AUOB marches for Independence of hundreds of thousands of people. One in Edinburgh I timed as taking three hours to go past. We had marches which, as a percentage of Scotland’s population, were bigger than the equivalent two million person march in London against the Iraq war.
It says a very great deal about how far the Independence movement has come – and all of it downhill – that my article last week caused pearl-clutching and fainting fits in the Independence movement, for daring to suggest that Scotland should announce that it will declare Independence if Westminster continues to block a referendum.
The SNP leadership-aligned newspaper, the National, even accused me – on its front page, no less – of aiming to start a war with the UK.
Nicola Sturgeon had never been on a single one of those AUOB marches. We were told that, as First Minister, it would be too divisive for her to attend Independence marches.
It was, it transpired, not too divisive for her to attend trans-rights events and attempt to push extreme and uncompromising trans-rights legislation through the Scottish parliament that went way beyond what public opinion would currently bear. It was not too divisive for her to attempt to abolish juries in sexual assault cases.
Sturgeon led the SNP down a cul-de-sac marked “identity politics” and left it there. Naturally, anyone who queried this was a misogynist.
Remember, I was never an opponent of the gender reforms. I thought they could have been improved, notably by Michelle Thomson’s amendments. But I was never against them. What I was entirely against was the prioritisation of this issue over Independence. The debate should have been left until after Independence. An independent Scotland could sort out these issues on its own terms.
Instead the issue was used deliberately and entirely successfully to split the Independence movement.
The SNP is still in the identity politics cul-de-sac.
The SNP is now absolutely wedded, as a matter of doctrine, to staying loyal to UK domestic legislation. That course was set by Sturgeon; the Scottish government brought a case for an Independence referendum to the London Supreme Court in the certain knowledge they would lose, and deliberately argued the case in a way that was bound to lose.
The Lord Advocate even stated in terms on behalf of the Scottish Government the British nationalist doctrine that Scotland had permanently ceased to exist on the coming into force of the Treaty of Union.
The SNP of Sturgeon, Humza and Swinney is the only instance in post-1918 world history of an Independence movement which does not advance its case for national self-determination as a right in international law. It really is.
The notion of an Independence party which swears unshakeable allegiance to the legal system and political diktats of its occupying power is so obviously risible, it astonishes me, truly genuinely astounds me, that some people still do not see it.
The harsh truth is this: Independence for Scotland will only happen against the opposition of the UK government and by doing things which UK law and its Supreme Court consider illegal.
The enacting of Independence itself will – as the UK Government explicitly stated in its intervention in the Kosovo ICJ hearing – by definition almost always be illegal in terms of the legislation of the state being seceded from. But as the UK also stated, that is not a determining factor.
By abandoning the possibility of disobedience to the UK state, the SNP has doomed itself to waiting for London agreement which will never, ever come. London is highly dependent on Scottish resources. It needs the UK to stay together to retain its permanent member status at the United Nations. It is never going to agree to lose Scotland.
My own view is that the SNP leadership is riddled with MI5 agents, and that the rest are careerists who love the big fat pay packets they get from their privileged position as administrators within the British state. They will never risk all their personal material success for Independence. Their unswerving allegiance to the laws of the UK state is reinforced by their extremely well-feathered position within it.
Their plan for achieving Independence always boils down to this: if you vote us into our highly paid jobs again, we will actually do something about Independence this time. This time. This time. This time. This time. This time. Astonishingly, decent well-motivated Independence supporters still fall for it.
In 2014, at the start of the referendum campaign, support for Independence was somewhere between 29 and 32%. That is why Cameron agreed to the referendum – he thought the result would kill off Independence. Over several months of campaigning support leapt and finished at 45% – despite massive media bias against us, on an incredible scale, in a referendum which met no international standards.
Since then, nothing has happened. Alex Salmond resigned, Nicola Sturgeon took over and she deliberately took all momentum out of Independence campaigning.
This was Sturgeon’s speech at the Aberdeen conference in 2015. Members failed to grasp the import of what she was saying:
I don’t just want to win the votes of independence supporters. I want to inspire people who voted No last year to vote SNP too. I want them to vote SNP because they know we are the best party, with the best ideas and the best people to lead Scotland forward. Everyone, from the strongest supporter of independence to the stoutest advocate of the Union, has the right to know we will continue to govern well with the powers we have at any given time.
Independence support has gone up very slightly over the 12 years since the referendum and now hovers around or just over 50%. Nothing has been done to replicate the months of campaigning, enthusiasm and hope which permanently raised support in a 20% step change during the referendum campaign.
If you do nothing, nothing happens.
The SNP has done nothing. It almost never mentions Independence outside elections. SNP MPs never participate in Westminster by saying how the subject under debate will be handled in a post-Independence Scotland; they operate entirely within the UK framework. At Holyrood, if the word “Independence” is ever heard, other than in a taunt from a Unionist MSP, it is a certain sign that an election is shortly pending.
You cannot increase active popular support for an event which its own supposed advocates accept is subject to a veto by a power you cannot control, and which is determined permanently to veto.
“Sign up to surrender to Westminster” is not an inspiring slogan.
I sympathise greatly with those, like my good friend Robin McAlpine who have been so disillusioned and demoralised by the SNP that they have tipped into the slough of despond and – ironically – joined the ranks of the very gradualists they despise, because they cannot see a way out.
Momentum is important in politics. If you accept to stay stuck behind a barrier you will never achieve momentum. The only way forward is to say that the people of Scotland will refuse to be bound by the laws of the UK state if they offer no democratic option for Scotland to leave the union.
That is the only effective pressure Scotland can bring. My own proposed solution remains to threaten to declare Independence unilaterally if London does not agree a proper, international-standard referendum subject to international norms on media, franchise, vote security etc. And then to declare Independence if our demand for a referendum is not met.
This last week I have heard other proposals to defy London – holding an “illegal” referendum, ways of withholding revenue, ceasing government cooperation in various areas. They are all worth exploring.
Support for Independence will leap up another step change when we actually do something about it. Leadership sweeps people along with it. No country which ever became Independent did not have a substantial number of sceptics among its own population. History shows us that such sentiment soon dies following Independence.
You will look very hard indeed for an example of any country that went Independent and then wanted to go back.
There is a tide in the affairs of men which, if taken at the flood, must lead on to success. That remains today a crucial insight. Momentum is vital and to build momentum you have to surge forward.
It is equally true that stagnant water starts to stink. That is the lesson the Scottish Independence Movement must learn from the dead end of the Sturgeon years and from what then happened to internal governance and probity in the SNP. The answer is to abjure stagnation and to embrace the urgent need to move forward.
No nation ever achieved Independence without leaps of faith and acts of courage. I am sorry if that shocks people. There is no safe, agreed path to Independence, and never will be. The Independence movement needs to shake the parasites who hold us back.
————————————————————————————-
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
Excellent article.
McAlpine, like the rest of us who do mind, is depressed at the state of his nation.
‘The Independence movement needs to shake the parasites who hold us back.’ Only then will we move forward and It can’t be progressed until that has been achieved. It would be dead, sabotaged before it begun. Charges, court cases, convictions required.
Sound thinking and I wish you every success.
Once Scotland breaks free, then Wales will surely follow.
Cheers, Walt. I read your Substack on – real – life in China. Excellent piece.
I’ve mentioned previously here – in * conversation * with Bayard, my longstanding admiration for aspects of Chinese Culture – most deeply for things like Lao Tzu’s Taoism; Confucius’s ideas on, eg the harmonious organisation of Societies; the ancient wisdom contained in the I Ching ( there’s a wonderful book equating that book of divination with ideas and implications of Quantum Physics – The Tao Of Chaos ); Chan ( Zen in Japanese ) Buddhism ( which IMO transcends all ” isms “, including Buddhism itself ); as well as the wonderful Poetry & Art and physical/mental health facilitating systems like Tai Chi and Chi Kung and, of course, Kung Fu that immensely old and cohesive Culture has produced.
Despite this long admiration, and an awareness of the Sino-phobic propaganda, false impressions can still insinuate themselves, eg the idea that the Chinese Gov is significantly more controlling – authoritarian, even – than those of the West. Your article has very comprehensively laid that falsehood to rest.
Thanks for taking the time and expending the energy in giving us a much more honest – and accurate – picture of life in contemporary China than is ever available in the West MSM
Appreciated. Reads have just gone up by ten thanks to this site. It was originally commissioned by Ron Unz for the Unz Report after I had done some comments on his site, got a lot of reads and comments there.
Yes, it’s an uphill struggle. The loudest Sinophobes are the ones that have never been here. It’s not all wine and roses mind, but nothing short of a revolution in the UK would perhaps persuade me to return home to Wales, MJ please note.
Just found your article on China that I will read later. Very few people grasp what has happen in China over the last 30 years.
Great, get back to me there in the comments.
It wasn’t cohesive during the Warring States Period, nor during the Great Leap Forward Movement, nor at Tiananmen Square, nor if you’re a Uyghur…
Confucianism isn’t particularly great for women either!
Thailand is the third worst country in Asia for alcoholism. Yet about 80% of their population identifies as Buddhist. Buddhist precepts describe drinking alcohol as an offense. Interestingly, that – also – doesn’t seem to stop Buddhists in China or Japan from consuming alcohol.
And yes, I have been to China. I also regard the UK as a rogue, terrorist state.
ZZZZzzzzzzzz. Is it not passed yr bedtime?
fantastic, intellectually robust response. Here’s a Nobel Prize. Zhōngguó would be proud. Not.
Anyone who ends a statement with “not ” should already be in their bed; aye, I know, it’s not a school night: still off you go now. Maybe read a book about the 1000s of years old Chinese Culture, then you might not make such petty, nit-picking remarks about, relative to the longevity of that Culture, extremely short-lived aspects of Chinese History. You might start by ACTUALLY reading Walt’s article in which he addresses the Uyghar ” controversy “.
@Walt – Have you ever conversed with any Uighur people in China? The camps are real. Never mind that some have wrongly said there’s a policy of killing every Uighur. That the Chinese state has a presence in the Exile is obvious.
“Confucianism isn’t particularly great for women either!”
There is a section at the end on the treatment of women in China, personal knowledge of actual cases, if you are interested.
waltking.substack.com/p/living-in-china
@Robert – See also the binary system, Leibniz, and the I Ching.
Sturgeon could hardly have been more frank in admitting her role/ task in that 2015 conference speech (only omitting her intention to rob independence supporters in a literal as well as figurative sense). Not sure what people observed since then that convinced them she was lying about making the SNP a bastion of English colonial rule.
But are SNP supporters really unique in convincing themselves they need English permission to leave? Even in these islands? Look at Sinn Féin supporters.
To have a Border Poll in Ireland in the North does NOT require English permission. Legally speaking, it requires something that has already come to pass: if a majority in favour of a united Ireland “appears likely”. Since the majority has historically been drawn on religious lines and recent data demonstrates that those lines which previously held no longer do – in addition to the Brexit Referendum and Genocide being at odds with the majority of citizens in Ireland in the North – it is reasonable to conclude that a majority would appear likely to favour a united Ireland and thus the Northern Ireland Secretaries have been in breach of the 1998 Act at least since such religious change took place.
Capital letter NOT, before acknowledgement it does need English permission.
No; the Northern Ireland Secretary is required by law to initiate a referendum if that condition I quoted is met. It isn’t a question of giving permission – that used to be the case before the 1998 Act but that Act changed the legal situation to an obligation upon the Secretary to launch the referendum process.
Wouldn’t any reasonable codified constitution be a bigger threat to the British Empire let alone UK than the Scottish Independence movement, as well as providing formalised exit paths? And would it not be safer to have a southern neighbour constrained by such modernised governance instead of continuing to run all these spooks and policy areas under Royal prerogative? Would not the Unionists be more concerned about reform of treason law and official secrets than unilateral Scottish oath manoeuvres?
Are there not tipping points as well as tides?
Good point about a constitution and a formalised exit path. If the SNP wasn’t British government property as it so obviously is, it would take the appointment of a British prime minister who waves an “I’m so regional” flag as an opportunity.
As things stand, though, I’m not sure that any of them have the independence of mind even to make some political capital out of where Burnham, who is sold as being from “the North”, is actually from “the North” of.
Which is reminiscent of the ending of a Finbarr Saunders and His Double Entendres story.
Basically there is a British prime minister who goes on about being from England to a far greater extent than any of his predecessors have done since Harold Wilson the Yorkshireman more than 50 years ago.
SOMEBODY CALL A DOCTOR, NOW! The SNP ( can’t re ) membership has collective fainted – again – at that ” madman ” Murray propagating the heresy that, maybe, it’s more honourable to die upright than survive as a worm-like creature burrowing into the manure of * Union *. The streets around Holyrood must be littered with ( simulated ) pearls, scattered by their frantic clutching, and the air replete with smelling salts – or, wait……I recognise that heady, sickly-sweet aroma……yes, it’s unmistakably Dopium: ah! that explains the extreme torpor that has overcome the Independence Movement-That-No-Longer-Moves – The Static Movement. And look, that cloud of soporific intoxicant is being pumped-out from Meek Little Lamb House, Jackson’s Entry ( adjacent to Inspiration’s Exit ) Angloburgh
The castration of the SNP has been remarkable in it’s rapidity and thoroughness: every last vestige of – even potential – defiance, courage and commitment to it’s former raison d’etre has been erased; that Swinney was able to be re-installed – unchallenged – after almost single-handedly killing the SNP with boredom on his first go-round as Funeral Director-In-Chief ( a dire situation only rescued by Alex Salmond’s critical intervention ) says everything about how that party has been comprehensively FUBAR. Every word that issues from that Church of Latter Day Faints ‘ trendy ‘ vicar is a verbal white flag of surrender: every sentence delivered with Extreme Unction and will, indeed, be that party’s prayer for the dying.
Robin McAlpine is a genuinely good man, a highly intelligent and thoughtful one also – a massive asset to our cause: but he ‘ needs ‘ to stop believing there is ANY possibility of achieving Independence-Through- Reasonableness – the British State is immune to such a quality. I don’t know how much more obvious it needs to be that all/any routes to Independence by appeals to democracy ( FFS, don’t make me laugh ) ‘ fair play ‘ ( guffaw ) or supposed electoral mandates ( how many of those have the Post Salmond SNP had, and squandered? ) will end in the same WM contrived cul-de-sac: the Brit State can and will just keep saying….” oh dear little Jocks, do please fuck-off “- to which the political eunuchs of the SNP LGBZzzzzzz Harem will reply……” of course, Your Most Exalted Highnesses, we beg your forgiveness for our ingratitude and disloyalty “. When people like Robin finally accept the unavoidable necessity of confrontation with our opponent we may start seeing real progress in the restoration of our stolen and sold for ” English Gold ” ( with turned-out to be the Fools kind ) Autonomy.
In the interim ….3 LOUD Cheers for Mr Craig Murray – ‘MON THE CRAIG! ‘MON THE CRAIG! ‘MON THE CRAIG! Would that there were more like him. And others like Peter Bell; Alf Baird; Sara Salyers; Grousebeater; Roddy McLeod & TASP regulars. Imagine what a ScotGov/ Alternative * Gov * comprising these stalwarts could achieve.
ps….it appears Sturgeon’s Union-preserving work is not yet done; now stabbing in the back the clown that sacrificed whatever meagre integrity he ever possessed to cover that wretch’s foul misdeeds – Swinney – and injecting her poison into the already dying carcass of the party she led up Shit Creek and abandoned after smashing the oars on the rocks of Identity Politics mind-rot. We shouldn’t be surprised in the least if she joins the Greens in order to sabotage that party’s progress too and in the process wriggle out of the SNP’s historic rejection of ever accepting the imprimatur of all loyal servants to the Crown – Knighthood or some kind of bauble in recognition of ” services rendered “, taking her place in the Pathetic Pantheon of Jockish Forelock Tuggers
Gotta agree with both of these points:
“My own view is that the SNP leadership is riddled with MI5 agents, and that the rest are careerists who love the big fat pay packets they get from their privileged position as administrators within the British state.”
“At Holyrood, if the word “Independence” is ever heard, other than in a taunt from a Unionist MSP, it is a certain sign that an election is shortly pending.”
(The SNP was only bigged up in the early-to-mid 1970s in order to stomp on the rise of autonomous working class activity in Scotland associated with radical left ideas, e.g. Upper Clyde, etc. A similar point can be made, mutatis mutandis, about the North of Ireland.)
But Robin McAlpine’s comparison of a wildcat referendum with Nigel Farage’s effort in Clacton – or at least with how many are reading it [1] – is apt.
Last, on the issue of a war – the possibility that some paths might lead to a civil war within Scotland deserves to be addressed.
Notes
1) The qualification here is that I am not sure that “Turn off the Water Supply” Starmer’s contemptuous advice to “put your vote in the bin” – doubtless to be followed by regime media saying “hey, everyone, look at the funny bin” when Farage wins – is actually going to hurt the new parties’ [2] electoral chances. Let’s recall that it wasn’t the electorate that decided Labour wouldn’t field a candidate.
2) I am calling Reform and Restore “new parties” because to call them “the hard right” in this context would be to obscure the fact that Labour is now also hard right.
3) Will it always be “London”, or will it soon be “London-Manchester”? 🙂
” The SNP was only bigged up in the early-to-mid 1970s in order to stomp on the rise of autonomous working class activity in Scotland associated with radical left ideas, e.g. Upper Clyde, etc. A similar point can be made, mutatis mutandis, about the North of Ireland. ”
And yet it was – predominately – the engagement with and the support for Independence of the Scottish Working Class that brought us so close ( maybe not just close but over the line ) to winning the 2014 Referendum. Glasgow & Dundee both YES Cities.
Not sure who you refer to as doing the ” bigging up ” and the ” stomping “; you surely can’t mean the UK MSM or it’s * Scottish * subsidiary. Which only eased-up in it’s vitriolic attacks on the SNP AFTER Sturgeon became SNP Leader/FM; tellingly.
It’s also worth remembering who was in charge of the * Official * YES Campaign – yip, that’s right The Sturgeon & Murrell Double ( faced ) Act. That from subsequent reports by close, non-supplicant observers was equal parts bungling incompetence and vicious suppression of competing/challenging opinion. Exactly like her – their – tenure as leader + spouse . No surprise * we * failed
It’s true that the overtly Left/Political elements – like the Radical Independence Campaign – were marginalised in favour of the Broad Church idea and the promotion of a Positive ” we’re all great pals, really ” vibe ( like there couldn’t have been a more rigorous balance of Independence Good – Continuing * Union * Subservience Bad approach? ) and any vestige of ( whisper it with dread ) Socialism ruthlessly excised from both the SNP ( such as was ever there in the first place, ie not much ) and the Independence dialectic in general.
No, Independence was/is now all about managing the hegemonic Neoliberal/conservative Capitalist paradigm with a nice, innocuous smiley face; the proud manifesting of the Gayest Parliament In The World and the uncritical adoption of every ridiculous, fragmenting, socially-divisive * Woke * policy extant; as well as complying with every unhinged, war-inciting brain-fart emerging from the diseased bowels of the Brutish State. Or rather, the supposed Pro-Independence narrative of the SNP was/is the above.
It becomes clearer by the day that mob of losers, frauds and performing chimps has no intention or even desire to achieve Independence. That cause is merely it’s USP dug-up from it’s peaceful interment for a few weeks before every election. I have the distinct sense that that ruse is rapidly losing it’s efficacy. Let’s hope so
Leaving aside the fact that this process is arbitrary insofar as it is demonstrably not applied equally (so many Labour and Tory MPs alike should have been subject to it who weren’t, including Starmer), you should bear in mind that the sole reason Farage called this by-election is because he was under multiple investigations that would likely have resulted in him being suspended from Parliament for a sufficient period of time that his constituency could have decided themselves to call a by-election. So he actually took that specific decision away from the constituency. And because he called it, those investigations were suspended. If he loses, he goes out Johnson style (i.e. refusing to be held accountable). If he wins, the investigations resume and it will be seen as an even more political farce for him to subsequently be suspended again, to again risk his constituency triggering a by-election. He is simply gaming the system to avoid accountability.
The Independence movement, via SNP: it’s a bit like Scotland’s qualification for the World Cup – elation, and then the slow , inexorable elimination as other teams pushed Scotland out of qualifying in 3rd place, though taking place over a far shorter timespan.
Good luck Craig. If our brave men do nothing we might as well all be dead.
“The notion of an Independence party which swears unshakeable allegiance to the legal system and political diktats of its occupying power is so obviously risible, it astonishes me, truly genuinely astounds me, that some people still do not see it.”
Doesn’t astound me at all.
This is a regime based on Big Lies.
The sort of Big Lies that little people would never dream of telling themselves, and so cannot believe that their betters would do so.
They have been getting away with these lies for well over a Century and a half (eg the Promisory Notes Act).
They won’t stop now.
It seems like Colonialism 101.
Hear hear !
I agree with what you say except this:
“The only way forward is to say that the people of Scotland will refuse to be bound by the laws of the UK state if they offer no democratic option for Scotland to leave the union.
That is the only effective pressure Scotland can bring. My own proposed solution remains to threaten to declare Independence unilaterally if London does not agree a proper, international-standard referendum subject to international norms on media, franchise, vote security etc. And then to declare Independence if our demand for a referendum is not met.”
By granting London the possibility of a formal role grants them influence over, interference with, and involvement in, Scotland’s choice. That is to say, any process including Westminster/Prime Minister/British state is undermining Scotland’s popular sovereignty.
London has no say in our right to choose. Period.
It is the people of Scotland who are sovereign in their own land. Nobody else!
Hear! Hear!
Nothing here to disagree with but I for one would like to see Craig address the issue which nobody wants to talk about, namely what exactly is the point of independence in today’s globalist economy? How is independence going to make our lives any better? Look across the water to Ireland for evidence of how it can’t and it won’t. A country which people once fought and died for has been gift wrapped by their own elected representatives and is now being presented piece by piece to anybody who cares to rock up on their shores.
From my POV the point of Independence and Scottish Nationalism is precisely as a defence against ” today’s globalist economy ” – more broadly, as a defence against Globalism as such.
One of the defining characteristics of the latter being – as you infer – the dilution and ultimate erasure of National Identity via Mass Immigration. There is no other defence as far as I can make out. All the so-called Left Political Parties in Europe are completely in lockstep with the All Immigration From Anywhere Is An Unalloyed Good shibboleth; which just leaves their Right Wing obverse side; that uses the demerits of Immigration to further it’s agenda and provide a focus for, eg Working Class anger – ” look, over THERE, it’s all those Foreigners’ fault you can’t afford to rent/buy decent quality housing, timely, vital medical care; ditto employment ” : trouble is, there is truth in that claim even if the people claiming it are repellent swine who couldn’t give a fuck about the Working Class; and even they don’t actually DO anything to seriously reduce Immigration – look at Farage backtracking on the main thing that has got him to the point where is v likely to become the next UK PM. Checkmate
As Craig said in response to you on his previous Independence-related post……saying Scottish Independence won’t eliminate Capitalism is – in his words – ” a moronic argument against it ( Independence ) “. I agree, but you’ve chosen to make that argument again, Alan. Why?
The elimination – or even diminishing – of Capitalist domination will require nothing short of a revolution in consciousness: a physical one is not only extremely unlikely but would also be counter-productive and almost certainly lead, ultimately to no improvement in the quality of life of the mass of Humanity.
It’s ( Capitalism’s ) philosophical ( largely ‘ unconscious ‘ , ie taken for granted ) underpinning, ie Materialism would remain untouched, and, so, would follow the endlessly repeated vicious circle of rebellion-overthrow-replication ( of conditions preceding/prompting the first ).
Can you not imagine possible positive outcomes of Scottish Independence? I can
Unless Scottish independence is firmly tied in with ridding the country of nukes and listening posts the outcome will certainly be just a swapping of rule by westminster to rule by washington. IMO. Careful what you wish for.
Well, historically the SNP were committed to a No Nukes policy; not certain, but I’m fairly sure that policy has been abandoned: if not formally, then by implication, ie New SNP’s compliance with UK Gov ” Defence ” Policy. It’s pretty obvious the upper echelons of that party have been/always were acting in the interests of the Brit State’s determination to prevent Scotland leaving the * Union *. That is why they can longer be considered a credible Pro-Independence vehicle; well, an Independence dodgem maybe.
I don’t see how those aspects of present Scottish reality – nukes and listening posts – can have the slightest chance of being removed if the status quo prevails.
Seems to me * Westminster * and * Washington * ( UK + US ) are doing a phenomenal job of destroying themselves and may, in the not too distant future, have graver problems to contend with than their continued interference in Scottish Affairs
It may be a “moronic” point of view but it’s my point of view. Please explain to me why you and Craig holding a different point of view means I should simply admit defeat and shut up?
I didn’t suggest that, Alan. Of course you can hold any view you like. I just asked that rhetorical question of you because it didn’t make much sense to me given you’d previously asked it and got the reply from Craig that you did. Were you expecting a different reply to the same question?
I wasn’t expecting any reply. Last time I checked, this was an open forum where we were all free to express our opinions whether Craig likes them or not.
All these morons talking about “immigration” being detrimental to “national identity”, or “culture”, ignoring that without immigration there would never have been any identity or culture at all.
The entities you should be concerned about are the megacorps.
But sure. Don’t look up!
ahahahahaha. See if you can get yr head round this idea, Cecil: there is a BIG difference between gradual, ‘ organic ‘ immigration and the Mass Immigration that is happening in Continental Europe and in lesser degree the UK.
My son lives in Berlin and I have family in Govanhill in Glasgow – two areas that have had large numbers of immigrants imposed on them. No consultation, no ability to object or even ask questions re, eg numbers, housing etc. Both areas have seen tangible decline in public safety, crime generally, sense of common neighbourly interaction and the visual appearance of once pleasant, well-looked after ( by residents ) communities. This is not fucking ” bigotry ” or ” racism “, this is the lived reality of decent people who deserve none of those now meaningless-through-overuse slurs, rather are sick to death of being subjected to some kind of Social Engineering experiment imposed by bastards that never experience the negative impacts of those imposition. And as if that’s not bad enough, get slandered and condescended to by ” morons ” like you.
No-one is saying things like National Identity & Culture are not the products of and influenced by historic trends of Immigration – nor that these things are immutable monoliths. The fact remains though that certain aspects of Culture & National Identity DO have a kind of permanence, stability and commonality. Take, eg that great English Cultural fixture , ie The Proms, have they changed much in the decades of their existence? Yes, there may be more foreign performers and non-native UK residents in the audience – great! – but the structure and ” what it’s all about ” has remained constant: again – great
Nor is anyone saying all Immigration is a bad thing. It has to be measured and proportionate to existing conditions in whatever country in question. So don’t be so ready to call people ” morons ” until you’ve had a taste of what their lives are like. I’m willing to bet you never have; and probably never will
RH: “My son lives in Berlin…”
So he’s one of those immigrants who’ve been imposed on the local residents?
I love it when we refer to all these wretched, unwanted ‘immigrants’, but when us decent, white, ordinary British people just happen to be ‘living’ in someone else’s country, that’s absolutely fine.
The question of ‘migrants’ or ‘immigrants’ never even comes up! No, because we’re ‘ex-pats’, you see. Nothing wrong with that.
Not singling you out, RH – everybody does it and thinks this way.
Oh yes. It’s not like we’ve been bombing the infrastructure necessary to live and propping up western puppet dictators in countries from which many people then reasonably flee… Nah. And even if we had, it’s not like we bear them any responsibility or anything… We’re fine being inhumane, supremacist dickheads.
Remember, don’t look up!
@ Glenn- my son met a German girl whilst doing a gig in Berlin, and stayed for that reason. He works, pays German Taxes and understands and respects German Culture. So, y’know, spare me the superior tone
I used to live in a multicultural district of a major industrial city in northern England. The cultures were English, Irish and Pakistani. I loved it.
The pubs were great – good beer (English), live music (mostly Irish). The restaurants were great – Pakistani mostly but misnamed as “Indian”.
There was symbiosis between the pubs and restaurants – Can’t get a table in a restaurant? No problem, go for a pint in the Irish pub (or the English one) and a waiter will come and tell you when there’s space. Bring your unfinished pint with you, the pub won’t mind – the waiter will return your empty glass.
All that’s gone. There’s not a single pub in the entire district now, only restaurants. I love multiculturalism, but eradication of other cultures is not it. I moved out and never go there now.
“He works, pays German Taxes and understands and respects German Culture. So, y’know, spare me the superior tone”
He’s still an immigrant, though. There tends to be a lot of prejudice against immigrants marrying British citizens, even ones who work here, pay their taxes and understand and respect what passes for culture in the UK, but it’s fine when we British expats marry a native of the country we’ve expatted to, it shows we’re not prejudiced against foreigners so long as they stay in their own country.
I’m quite happy for all the ‘morons’ who think that mass, uncontrolled immigration is just fine to house and fund them themselves. I just don’t want my tax money to be wasted in this way, I prefer for my taxes to be used to help the legal, indigenous citizens of the UK not the illegals, ie. criminals.
Just how would you propose to “control” immigration, drown the illegals in the Channel or kill them by starvation or cold once they get to land?
Hyperbole aside, Bayard. How would you, Or is the current situation just fine with you ?
As things stand this is a very reasonable question. The SNP as they exist at present certainly wouldn’t make any difference. Continuing with the same idiotic economics that is rapidly increasing inequality, making the environment increasingly inhospitable, and making the life experience of the vast majority of humanity unpleasant or worse, would be pointless. However an independent Scotland with it’s own currency and a fresh view of economics could do so much to make its citizens lives better and preserve the environment. Don’t let the status quo defenders convince you otherwise.
Would it be an idea to sue the party under the Trades Descriptions Act? They are not a nationalist party. They are a Devolution ist Party. A Dependence Party.
Thank you for another excellent article, you warmonger!
I think stability is too important for people’s lives and for their economies to have frequent referenda. Unless there’s exceptional circumstances my opinion would be about every 25 years. I’m also sceptical about having a 50% majority. If just over 50% vote for something you’re just swapping one half of the country being unhappy with the other half being unhappy. I think we saw that with Brexit. Maybe it should be 60%.
I’m English with a Scottish dad. I guess my English half is where I got my conservatism.
Apparently it works in Switzerland? With far greater regularity than Scotland – or Ireland in the North – have seen.
It can slow change though. Swiss women didn’t get to vote in Federal Elections until 1971, the second from last in continental Europe, one Canton held out until the 1990s.
Regarding women’s votes: anyone like to take a guess as to when the first UK general election occurred in which the majority of women’s votes was NOT for the Conservative Party?
A:1931
B:1948
C:1964
D:1979
E:1997
The answer may surprise you.
I’ll take a guess at E….?
@glenn_nl:
Bingo!
The answer does not surprise me in the least.
Telegenic Tony Blair succeeded John Smith as Labour leader because of his (then) boyish appeal to women of a certain age in Middle England.
Thanks Piers, a brilliant example of the “If it’s not going to be perfect, then don’t do it” school of thought.
The answer does not surprise me in the least.
The telegenic Tony Blair succeeded John Smith as Labour leader because of his (then) boyish appeal to women of a certain age in Middle England.
As an Englishman, I support your position that Scotland should have a referendum, and if a majority of residents of Scotland want Scotland to be independent, it should become independent – regardless of what London wants.
There are arguments on both sides of what the economic impact would be. I don’t think they are relevant. If a majority of Scots want an independent Scotland, then it’s just plain wrong to deny them independence.
I second this motion.
By the same reasoning, if the majority of residents of Scotland want Scotland to remain in the UK, it should remain. That’s exactly what happened in 2014. Therefore Scotland should remain British. Q.E.D. for Unionists.
In theory, if a clear, moral majority of people North of Hadrian’s wall wanted out of the UK, I don’t think I would want to stop them. But the UKSC has now prevented such a referendum being carried out by the Scottish parliament without permission from Westminster.
I must admit that I don’t like the UKSC’s decision, which seems to me of the same spirit that would restrict freedom of speech. I wonder, in fact, if it is a human rights issue: could the SNP take HMG to the ECHR over the refusal to allow them to consult their own population about their views? No doubt Catalans or Basques might ask this about the Spanish government. I am not an expert in Human Rights Law, so I leave this question to others.
But suppose for the sake of argument that the case could at least be brought. I suppose HMG might argue that there had been no evidence of a sea-change since 2014. One way to get such evidence might be a good-quality market research opinion poll on a sample of the population. If I wanted to strengthen the argument for Scottish independence, and were convinced that a moral majority actually wanted out of the UK, that’s how I would go about it. The cost would be only a fraction of the amount lost by embezzlement from the SNP recently. Since the greater part of this fortunately looks to be paid in the future, it looks as though the SNP will be in a good position to gather such evidence.
I commented recently that Scotland needed to learn from Iceland on the subject of a public-built constitution. But in the case of Independence, while Iceland got there eventually, they are actually an example of the very rare thing you mention towards the end of this piece; they gained Independence from Denmark…only to later beg Denmark to take them back. Then they regained Independence (excluding temporary American occupation during WW2). A major part of the reason they begged Denmark to take them back was because of the malicious ways the Danish Kingdom treated their ability to trade, leading to serious impoverishment. So the lesson there is to expect London to do likewise.
And if the first major obstacle to international recognition of Independence is not having disputed border territory (related to point #2 of your previous article), then I ask again how long do you expect London to leave the border undisputed?
Finally, the Independence movement obviously requires a leader recognised by the international community who is not a Privy Councillor…
A British government and SNP-approved route to independence would run like this:
1. referendum victory for Yes,
2. within an hour the SNP says the most important thing for iScotland is to have good relations with Rump Britain,
3. over the course of maybe a year, it turns out (whodathunkit?) that Rump Britain holds some strong cards and that Scotland is being told it can do one,
4. Scot Lab-Libdem-Tories whinge their tits off to an unprecedentedly embarrassing extent
5. SNP says look, “London” is kicking us in the teeth, but don’t worry because
a) the population having to eat grass for a decade or two is worth it for the national pride, the UN membership, passports with thistles and no roses, etc.,
b) tell us truly, did we promise you paradise, you suckers?, and
c) we know some really nice “Russian” and Gulf Arab billionaires (and maybe even one in the White House whose mum was Scottish) who want to, er, “invest” in the country in these times of trouble, and we don’t have to ask “London” for permission nowadays, y’know, so STFU down there in the ranks and on the schemes…
Don’t trust any politicians ever…
“No nation ever achieved Independence without leaps of faith and acts of courage.”
What do you mean by acts of courage? I assume acts of courage means partly bloodshed as independence is based upon land ownership, no struggle for independence has ever achieved ownership without bloodshed. So is this “granted” independence with associated governors and financial restrictions or the creation of a sovereign state? If the latter, are acts of courage really understood?
When the SNP supported independence it was small, when it de facto adopted devolution it became big and full of non-independence supporters. Instead of calling it Alba it should have been called Scottish Independence Party and under proportional voting would have revealed true strength of independence movement.
Ah (Horse Box) Mike Russell, yes the SNP is riddled with Scottish Mi5 traitors as is Holyrood itself, which much be bugged to high heaven by those treacherous b*stards – its not just Mi5 traitors that that swarm over the the Westminster extension Holyrood we have many Zionists as well in the form of Angus Robertson etc.
UDI is the only way forward, after all its what the international community thinks – not what the foreign country of England or its government thinks, about Scotland restoring what has always been there our sovereignty – of course Westminster will be raging – and will try every dirty trick in the book to undermine Scotland we know that – England has a long history of being called Perfidious for using underhand tactics, so I expect that to happen, I also expect the USA to oppose it to begin with – and several European colonisers countries such as France, but that’s normal they see Scotland restoring its independence and think their colonies will be next, but Scotland case is unique, in that we are a nation older than the colonising nation – we possess the lands and have borders, and although not in use in the aspect of having a monarch we have a live crown, much is in place just waiting to be officially restored and UDI will do that.
So what’s required for Scotland to declare UDI – first -off UDI will never happen via Holyrood – Holyrood is an extension of Westminster, and all the parties that reside in it are subservient to Westminster, so its out of the question to use it in any way those so called politicians (traitors inside) vehemently oppose Scotland restoring its sovereignty.
A type Convention of the Estates is required (Peoples Parliament) if you like that bypasses the Westminster controlled arm in Scotland known as Holyrood, I’d say along with ordinary public members experienced folk like yourself Craig, Alf Baird, Sara Salyer and others would sit on it, ordinary folk to represent the masses – and the others to deal with the technical difficulties that will surely lie ahead.
The English propaganda machines in Scotland the MSM must be stopped – they poison the minds of Scots with lies – this will free the minds of many Scots and swell our numbers, to the point of that – declaring UDI will been seen by a bigger majority as the right way forward – lets not forget we have friends in the UN as well, when we make our move we must be prepared to fight – for the colonial controlled admin at Holyrood will first call in the police, and if that fails (and it must)then plead with Westminster to sent in the English army – anyone who thinks that it will be a Velvet Revolution type escape for Scotland – is seriously misjudging the situation, England CANNOT afford to let Scotland reclaim its sovereignty, and with the world moving towards might is right thinking – preparation is the key.
We have allies abroad – who can and will secretly help us in whatever fashion is required, England has many enemies and some would like to see it weakened, Scotland taking back what’s rightfully its would do that, but we MUST have the courage to defend what we liberate or its all for nothing.
It hasn’t been officially rubber stamped at the UN yet – but the general consensus (reading articles of those who stated our case) – that Scotland is a colony of England, a nation held against its will to asset strip – hopefully the conformation of our status as a colony won’t take too long to be officially declared.
Anyway, once that happens a whole new set of rules comes into play.
“Long ago, it was settled that resistance and even armed struggle against a colonial occupation force is not just recognised under international law but specifically endorsed.
In accordance with international humanitarian law, wars of national liberation have been expressly embraced, through the adoption of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (pdf), as a protected and essential right of occupied people everywhere.”
https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201125/volume-1125-i-17512-english.pdf
And
“Finding evolving vitality in humanitarian law, for decades the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA) – once described as the collective conscience of the world – has noted the right of peoples to self-determination, independence and human rights.
Indeed, as early as 1974, resolution 3314 of the UNGA prohibited states from “any military occupation, however temporary”.
In relevant part, the resolution not only went on to affirm the right “to self-determination, freedom and independence […] of peoples forcibly deprived of that right,[…] particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination” but noted the right of the occupied to “struggle … and to seek and receive support” in that effort.”
On the above that would also cover foreign air and military bases in Scotland such as (Faslane, Coulport) and English RAF bases.
“The term “armed struggle” was implied without precise definition in that resolution and many other early ones that upheld the right of indigenous persons to evict an occupier.
This imprecision was to change on December 3, 1982. At that time UNGA resolution 37/43 removed any doubt or debate over the lawful entitlement of occupied people to resist occupying forces by any and all lawful means. The resolution reaffirmed “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”.”
When the time is right we must seize broadcasting – and put the truth out over the air waves to reach every Scot.
Our host, Mr Murray stood as an MSP candidate for the Alliance To Liberate Scotland (ATLS). Their key policy was using the 2016 Scottish Parliament election as a de facto referendum on Scottish independence.
However, the major issue I had with that idea is the way it was put into practice: Mr Murray and the other ATLS candidates were also seeking election to the Scottish Parliament. I find the two incompatible: Either you seek election or use the election as a referendum: in my view, you can’t do both.
On a related matter, I don’t see how anyone who champions Scottish independence can honestly seek election to the Scottish Parliament or WM, when one of their first acts would be swearing fealty to the English Crown. Especially in the circumstances that those exercising Crown in parliament power, namely the UK Govt, do not recognise the right of Scottish self-determination. Here we can find common ground with many in England who are also opposed to royalty and monarchs.
Most people will probably not have heard of them but, I respect the position adopted by the ISP, who like some others, refuse to swear fealty to King Charles and his heirs, in respect of the principle that true sovereignty lies with the people, not a monarch. The problem is, winning candidates are then denied the right to sit in parliament or collect a salary.
However, if genuinely using an election as a de facto referendum independence, then that issue would be irrelevant.
Yes, post Brexit – London will never give up Scotland without a fight.
…and we saw – just a taster – how dirty they could be in the run up to the Referendum.
Yet, the lingering, scary thought is: what if The Referendum was delivered in 2014?
What would Sturgeon be doing now?
What would Murrell be doing now?
The whole of Scotland would be ruled more blatantly under the vice-like control of the ‘Cult of Nicola’ ?
In hindsight, we maybe dodged a bullet in 2014 …?
Maybe not, Alex Salmond might not have stood down, and he might not have gone to North Macedonia either – so its just speculation.
Kind and typically open-minded of Mr Murray to provide the very well-reasoned counter argument in the link to Robin McAlpine’s article.
As an outsider following the issue with interest, I’m always intrigued by the results to differently worded polls on Scottish independence.
On a general poll for support, as Mr Murray points out, you can still find 50% or thereabouts. Impressive, but still I’d wonder about the wisdom and fairness of such a huge change for everybody with the corresponding 50% or thereabouts opposed. Kosovo, which is often mentioned here, had 95%+ support prior to independence, and they still, almost 20 years later, don’t have full international recognition.
Second point: in polls specifically asking about routes to Scottish independence without Westminster support – unilateral declaration or unsanctioned referendum – support is well under 30%. As I thought at the time of the last Indy referendum, and also for the Brexit vote in the UK, it might be easier for people to vote against the status quo for various different reasons and with various potentially conflicting alternatives in mind, but more difficult to work out what they actually do want or how to implement the break. This by itself seems a good reason to require a vote well over 50% (75, 80%?) for an event as seismic as independence. Along with a clearly defined alternative that the people are actually voting for.
(Apologies for the ramblings of a potentially uninformed outsider…)
64.7% of Scots voted for unionist parties in the 2024 general election.
Current polling has unionist parties on around 60%.
Less than 30% of registered Scottish voters endorsed independence at recent Holyrood election.
AUOB marches and rallies now get pitiful turnouts. They actually could all fit under one, not very big, banner.
It’s over. Time for those with big egos and empty lives, and a plentiful resource of hate, to find a new hobby/crusade methinks.
And if you think the brain dead numpties in the SNP would get taken on by MI5, or any responsible employer, I have some magic crystals to sell you.
Just saying…
Very interesting. So if the SNP uses some of its embezzled funds (after they’re recovered) to commission a first rate market research survey, they might well find that a moral majority of people North of Hadrian’s wall want to remain in the UK after all, just like in 2014.
Of course many people here would claim that there’s been a sea-change in the pro-Independence direction since 2014. Well, I have no objection to the truth about the matter being found out, and made known. Avanti, SNP good quality survey!
Continuing the watery metaphor. Just like the tides this independence discussion is going to regularly come and go, and like Cnut the nationalists are powerless to change the reality. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it … we’d all like to see Westminster ‘reformed’ but that ain’t going to happen.
There is another version of the Cnut story: surrounded by sycophants and multiple hangers-on, who praised him to the skies, he directed that he and his throne would go to the seaside and attempt to keep the waters at bay. Of course, it didn’t happen and Cnut showed that he was but a mere mortal and not a god.
Helen Mackie
Tory traitor Michael Gove (he’s a Scot) commissioned a indy poll in Scotland paid for with taxpayers cash – when he was part of an English Tory government, Gove was shocked by the result and never released the results of the poll, even though public cash was used to hold it in Scotland, and several Scottish MSPs urged Gove to release the results and still the treacherous b&stard wouldn’t post the results, and I think we all know why.
Broadcasting MUST be seized in Scotland, to ensure that Scots are informed, and not lied to no Scot living in Scotland should ever vote in a foreign country’s (England) elections, and no foreign political party Labour/Lib/Dems/Tories/Reform should ever be allowed to stand for election in Scotland.
Broadcasting is the key to informing Scots.
“Gove was shocked by the result and never released the results of the poll..”
As I understand, leaked results showed the percentage of the people polled at the time wanting independence to be in the high 50s. No wonder Gove wouldn’t release them. But they were a flash in the pan caused by Brexit and Covid, and once water had flowed under the bridge, they went down again. It’s not at all certain that a stable moral majority would want independence now.
What is a ” stable moral majority “? Whose morals; whose definitions thereof? Are you saying that the question of Scottish Independence is one of morality? If so you’re attempting to wade through a swamp wearing diver’s boots.
If the United Kingdom is a product of and sustained by the 1707 Treaty of Union ( it was/is ), that supposed agreement between equals had and has specific conditions, restrictions, and obligations – ALL of these have been breached numerous times and in numerous ways by one signatory of that Treaty – guess which? Whither Morality? or, if you like, wither Morality.
” some are more equal than others “, ah, ok: I guess that’s just one of those things, right?
Of course, the question of Scottish Independence has nothing to do with Morality, and everything to do with Politics.
Notable that when the issue of * legitimacy * and * consensus * arises regarding the ” Scottish Question – as it does with tedious predictability – not to say risible hypocritical bluster – suddenly impossibly elevated standards are being demanded; not just ” elevated ” – in practical terms, virtually unobtainable, eg – ( the goalposts shift according to how high the threat of * Secession * is perceived to be at any given time ) unique, bespoke definitions of ‘ Majority ‘ are invented, ie 60/70/80% in favour; everyone living in Scotland must be included in any Franchise, irrespective of how long they have been there or how long they intend to stay – like the EU REF Franchise, right? Oh, maybe not…….
.” Eligibility to vote
The right to vote in the referendum in the United Kingdom is defined by the legislation as limited to residents of the United Kingdom who were either also Commonwealth citizens under Section 37 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (which include British citizens and other British nationals), or those who were also citizens of the Republic of Ireland, or both. Members of the House of Lords, who could not vote in general elections, were able to vote in the referendum. The electorate of 46,500,001 represented 70.8% of the population of 65,678,000 (UK and Gibraltar).[64] Other than the residents of Gibraltar, British Overseas Territories Citizens residing in the British Overseas Territories were unable to vote in the referendum.[65][66] “. Despite which there are those who insist the entire UK should have a vote on Scotland’s future – aye, sure, nae bother – how about giving, eg Falkland Islanders a say too?
Then there’s that question of ” Democratic legitimacy “; as exemplified to such perfection in the last G.E where less than third% of the vote went to the * winning * party, yet was declared a ” landslide ” and giving – in this instance Labour – virtually unchallengeable power to impose agendas that were never even in their Manifesto – as well as completely abandoning things that were; par for the * democratic * course in these Post Truth/Integrity/Honesty times.
Also, lest anyone forget….
Results of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership …
On 24 June 2016, the recorded result was that the UK voted to leave the European Union by 51.89% for Leave to 48.11% for Remain, a margin of 3.78%. This corresponded to 17,410,742 votes to leave and 16,141,241 to remain, a margin of 1,269,501 votes.
No such ‘ Super Majority ‘ demanded there, eh? Or achieved, for that matter
No, Scotland will take no lectures on Legitimacy and/or * Democracy * from the perverters of both embodied in the English-as-British Socio-Political Establishment – or it’s pathological, compulsively lying MSM henchmen/women.
As for the Cat’s Chorus of naysayers here and elsewhere – dry ’em. Every such aspiration to Liberty is deemed ” impossible ” ” ridiculous ” and, indeed ” immoral ” ( HA! ) – until every such aspiration is realised.
Scottish Independence will be no exception to this recurring historical trope.
Remember……..
” First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ”
( apocryphally ) M.Gandhi
“What is a” stable moral majority “?”
If you ask me. I would say a sustained majority of over 55%, eligibility being those who live there (same as last time). This might be indicated in polls over a few months, but of course a complete referendum is only practicable to do once.
The EU wasn’t a union like that of England and Scotland, maybe justifying a simple majority.
” Westminster has seen fit to devolve some powers, retain others. Parliament is supreme, and so, if you want to end the Union you will have to convince Parliament. They agreed to a once-in-a-generation referendum in 2014 “.
Christ! Did someone ask you to provide an example of everything that makes Scottish Independence not just desirable, but inevitable?
Are you capable of grasping how laughably condescending and arrogant that statement is to any self-respecting Scot? And that should be the case for every Scot whether they support Independence or not.
” seen fit “, well, tug my forelock, ain’t that just incredibly magnanimous of our * Superiors *. Truly, we are not worthy of such grace
” Parliament is supreme ” – ahahahaha whit’s this, have we wandered into a Game of Thrones set, Westeros-on-Thames? Or is the provenance more divine, like ordained by God….” .On the 8th Day God ( in a moment of drug-induced psychosis ) created Angleland and granted it dominion over creature – animal, vegetable or Jock ( to the Angles, the latter a pitiful melange of both ) – within it’s ever-widening gyre “. Naw, really, that’s whit happened; honest
Something/Anything is only * supreme * for as long as people consider it to be such. Rules & Laws made by men can ALWAYS be unmade by men. Though it appears the bananas idea of Divine Right just morphed from the Stuarts into ” Parliament “; and, again, what is Parliament other than the people who * work *, eat, sleep and bore in it? A building.
” ……..you will have to convince Parliament ” – Aye, in the same way the dove has to convince the falcon to not tear it apart? Naw, we don’t need to do any such thing; what we need to convince is a majority ( don’t start! ) of Scotland’s residents of the absolute necessity ( given where England-as-Britain is headed and it’s intention to drag us all into it’s demented spiral of precarity, ” crisis ” and constant war & conflict ), the likely socio/economic benefits & most of all the psychological value of a return to normal, autonomous statehood.
” they agreed to a once in a generation ” oh FFS! THAT canard trotted-out AGAIN! That was nothing more than a throwaway remark made by Alex Salmond in the heat of the Independence campaign, a piece of hyperbole intended to add urgency to and underline the importance of what was imminent – nothing less than Scotland’s Destiny. There was nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement about a ” once in a generation…….”. It had no and has no legal or any other kind of standing. So jist gonnae no
” so forget it ” – naw
Ahhh for those halcyon days of Cool Britannia: when every Fish n Chip Shop sold guacamole disguised as mushy peas; kids who’d never heard The Beatles thought Oasis were Gods and that the Sunshine Supernova would continue beyond the last E and the world had yet to learn what absolute c***s Blair, Mandelson, Brown and the whole New Labour con-trick were.
” Lie down son and take a walk; wake up to dream
Of what was lost and what might have been
You blew the whistle; ferocious funk
Harvest of thistles; galleons sunk: galleons sunk “
M.J.
The true figure on Scots wanting to restore sovereignty must be higher, but lies via broadcasting have slowed it down – once broadcasting is taken and it MUST be, and Scots are fully informed – then the figures will shoot right up, why do you think our foreign coloniser blocks broadcasting – an informed public is a dangerous public, dangerous to the stability of the status quo.
“why do you think our foreign coloniser blocks broadcasting”
I understand that broadcasting is legal in Scotland, but under the Scotland Act 1998, broadcasting policy is a “reserved” power. This means the UK Parliament in Westminster makes the laws, not the Scottish Parliament.
The internet OTOH is pretty much a free for all. On Youtube or social media you can say what you like, in terms of political free speech.
MJ
“Reserved Power”
A polite way of saying f&ck-off we control what you watch – its a classic determinant of colonisation, which Professor Alf Baird explains in his eye opening Doun Hauden book – of course the likes of Albert Memmi and Aime Cesaire the latter pointed it out clearly – in his Discourse On Colonialism.
Scots must break the fake union forever.
Republicofscotland August 11, 2026 at 13:14
Actually all power belongs to Westminster, since it is the Parliament of the whole United Kingdom, including Scotland.
As I see it, any devolution should be in harmony with both these facts: the Union of 1707, and the fact that it preserved distinct legal and educational traditions in England and Scotland.
Westminster has seen fit to devolve some powers, retain others. Parliament is supreme, and so, if you want to end the Union you will have to convince Parliament. They agreed to a once-in-a-generation referendum in 2014. We know the result.
Therefore there should be no more talk of another such referendum, till we’re all long gone. So forget it! 😁
MJ.
There is no United Kingdom Parliament, just a continuation of England’s parliament and all its treaties (Scotland’s treaties were quashed) and few Scots added to the benches of the Commons, but not enough to make any difference, Scotland’s Crown wasn’t dissolved or absorbed, it was to remain active in the background even to this day – but don’t take my word for it, below Professor Robert Black KC eloquently explains what happened.
There was no union of the crowns either in 1603 – what happened was James VI/1st held both the Scottish crown and English crown at the same time, but they were never merged, there is no UK crown, or more appropriately – Atlantic Archipelago crown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cGi7Q-EcyU
“The United Nations has established the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) to monitor the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This committee was created in 1961 and is exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization.”
Westminster panicked when the above was set up – and told the UN that Scotland was in an equal union, when the UN looked towards Scotland, Scotland had no voice at the UN back then it does now, and it also has allies as well.
England shouldn’t – and will not play ANY part in Scotland restoring its sovereignty – the treacherous colonial admin at the Westminster controlled Holyrood can beg English PM’s as much as they want for a S30, meanwhile at the UN Scotland’s case continues to make good progress.
Republicofscotland August 11, 2026 at 18:51
1. The Acts of Union did not just add Scots to England’s parliament. They officially closed both the old English and Scottish parliaments to create a brand-new, shared parliament for the United Kingdom.
2. Scotland is not a colony, since In 2014, the Scottish people voted freely in a referendum to stay part of the UK, proving the union is a modern, democratic choice.
3. While King James held two separate crowns in 1603, the nations legally merged into one United Kingdom under one single crown in 1707.
4. Both the English and Scottish parliaments passed Acts of Union that explicitly extinguished their separate sovereign existences to form a single, unified Kingdom of Great Britain. Maintaining identical institutional procedures in London was a matter of practical continuity, not proof of an “annexation”.
5. Article 3 of the Articles of Union of 1707 refers to the “Crown of Great-Britain”. The physical reality is the Imperial State Crown, which is the state crown of the British monarch. Therefore it does indeed exist.
“The Acts of Union did not just add Scots to England’s parliament. They officially closed both the old English and Scottish parliaments to create a brand-new, shared parliament for the United Kingdom.”
MJ.
Watch the video I provided – the English parliament never skipped a beat.
“2. Scotland is not a colony, since In 2014, the Scottish people voted freely in a referendum to stay part of the UK, proving the union is a modern, democratic choice.”
Scotland is a colony and its openly talked about as a colony at the UN, the 2014 indyref was advisory, (non binding) and anyone who moved to Scotland from wherever 5 minutes before the indyref had a vote, it was a constitutional vote yet every foreigner had a vote, and of course we had the English media (still do) scaremongering 24/7, we had false threats of businesses pulling out, we had threats of not getting the BBC broadcast in Scotland if we voted yes (if only) we even had statements from politicians that England couldn’t protect us from attacks from outerspace if we left, we had paid for union jack carrying thugs stab folk in George sq for holding their national flag the Saltire, we even had a ex-Nato secretary and traitor to Scotland George Robertson say that Scottish independence would lead to the Balkanisation of Western Europe.
” While King James held two separate crowns in 1603, the nations legally merged into one United Kingdom under one single crown in 1707.”
Nope never happened, the Scottish crown has always been there in the background, alive even though Scotland has no monarch to speak of, infact the Scottish honours are older than our colonisers England’s crown jewels.
Scotland’s parliament was not extinguished it was suspended, and it will return soon
As for the crown in England its the English crown – Scotland has no monarch, no monarch can be king of Scotland unless he/she swears to uphold the Claim of Right.
As for “Britain” its just another way of saying England – they are interchangeable.
You can argue your points all you want – but England (Westminster) will have no say in Scotland reactivating its sovereignty – that will happen via the International Community at the UN.
MJ: “They agreed to a once-in-a-generation referendum in 2014. We know the result.
Therefore there should be no more talk of another such referendum, till we’re all long gone. So forget it! ”
“Forget it” – with a smirk?
How long is a generation in your suck-up-to-the-Establishment world, MJ?
In the real world, a generation is about 25 years. Hopefully you – with your royal “we” – will be long gone a generation after the last referendum. As for everyone else, the next referendum, even on that despotic frame of reference, should be about another decade away.
Just wondering, MJ – is there anything over which you won’t subserviently parrot the conventional Establishment line?
glenn_nl.
There was NO official agreement on a once in a generation indyref, it wasn’t included in the Edinburgh Agreement, oh it might have been verbally spoken by Alex Salmond – or Sturgeon but it wasn’t official in any capacity.
@glenn_nl August 12, 2026 at 05:16
” is there anything over which you won’t subserviently parrot the conventional Establishment line?”
I once offered to send some politicians who shall remain nameless copies of Ilan Pappé’s little book on Palestine (ISBN 0861549716), but there were no takers. Apparently it was too hot a potato to even acknowledge.
The Lib Dem and Green policy of allowing asylum seekers to work seems to me a good idea, provided that UK workers don’t want those jobs. But Establishment politicians seem to be scared of not appearing tough on the issue.
Republicofscotland August 12, 2026 at 09:53
“it might have been verbally spoken by Alex Salmond – or Sturgeon but it wasn’t official in any capacity.”
Nicola Sturgeon, as we know is an honorable woman whose word is her bond, so once-in-a-generation meant just that, effectively forever. 😁
Republicofscotland August 11, 2026 at 21:48
Scotland is not only not a colony, but the UN has never suggested it is. People who are trying to get the UN to do so are IMHO chasing pipe dreams.
The UK itself was created through laws passed by both the Scottish and English parliaments, bringing them together under one Crown. That’s also why “Britain” doesn’t just mean England; if it did, Article 1 of the 1707 Treaty wouldn’t have been needed.
As for the 2014 independence referendum, both governments agreed to it, and everyone accepted it as a binding vote. People living in Scotland got to vote, which is exactly how democratic decisions normally work.
MJ
Re your self-representation as some kind of anti-establishment, pro-Palestine thorn..
You openly express admiration for British and American politicians whom you know were either key facilitators of the Gaza Genocide or among the most avid celebrators of it.
You praise the trollish gaslighting of genocidal Israel’s ‘disaster rescue’ missions. A clear case of game recognising game.
“Scotland is not only not a colony, but the UN has never suggested it is. People who are trying to get the UN to do so are IMHO chasing pipe dreams.”
MJ.
Scotland meets just about all the criteria to be classed as a colony – is any wonder then that Global South UN reps are already calling it a colony at the UN, they know because they suffered from the same colonisation process.
Markers of colonisation.
“1. Military Occupation and Infrastructure
Colonial powers often establish garrisons, forts, barracks, military roads, and bridges to secure control and suppress resistance liberation.scot. In Scotland post‑1707, for example, the British Army built an extensive network of garrisons and military roads to enforce occupation after the 1746 Battle of Culloden liberation.scot.
2. Legal and Political Imposition
Colonial rule is marked by the imposition of the coloniser’s laws and governance systems, often replacing or overriding local legal frameworks liberation.scot+1. The 1708 Treason Act in Scotland was introduced to assert English Crown dominance over Scotland, violating the Treaty of Union liberation.scot.
3. Cultural Suppression and Displacement
Colonisers frequently outlaw or marginalise indigenous languages, dress, religion, and customs liberation.scot+1. In the Highlands, policies after 1746 aimed to eradicate Gaelic, clan society, and traditional practices liberation.scot. Settler colonialism also involves displacing or replacing indigenous populations National Geographic.
4. Land and Resource Control
Colonial powers often seize or reorganise land, impose property surveys, and redirect resources to serve colonial economic goals Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1. In North America, property boundary surveys became a tool of colonial territorial control Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
5. Administrative and Territorial Reorganisation
Colonialism often redefines borders, creates new administrative divisions, and imposes colonial governance structures Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1. These changes can persist long after independence, shaping modern territoriality Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
6. Economic Exploitation
Markets, trade routes, and resource extraction systems are reorganised to benefit the coloniser, often at the expense of local economies”
zoot August 12, 2026 at 11:33
I answered a specific question (not yours), which wasn’t about self-representation, which I don’t have to do.
@Republicofscotland August 12, 2026 at 12:45
1. Military Occupation and Infrastructure.
Scotland was not colonised by force. The 1707 Union was a treaty between two sovereign parliaments. The post Culloden military presence targeted a Jacobite rebellion, not Scotland as a nation. Highland forts and roads were internal security measures, not colonial occupation.
2. Legal and Political Imposition.
Scotland kept its own legal system, courts, education system, and national church — none of which colonies retain. The Treason Act 1708 aligned laws across a unified state. Scotland has full representation in the UK Parliament and has produced Prime Ministers and senior ministers. Colonies are ruled without representation; Scotland is not.
3. Cultural Suppression and Displacement
Post 1746 repression targeted Jacobite Highland culture, not Scottish culture as a whole. Lowland Scots culture, Scottish law, and Presbyterianism were never suppressed. Gaelic decline followed industrialisation and migration, not a colonial project. Today Gaelic receives state funding, media support, and legal protection.
4. Land and Resource Control
Land injustice in Scotland came from feudal landlordism and class power, which also affected England, Wales, and Ireland. It was not a colonial relationship between nations. Scotland benefited from UK wide economic development and receives higher public spending per capita. Scotland became an industrial powerhouse, not an underdeveloped dependency.
5. Administrative and Territorial Reorganisation
Scotland’s borders were never redrawn, and its national institutions survived the Union. Colonies lose their institutions; Scotland kept them. Modern devolution gives Scotland extensive self government, including control over health, education, justice, and transport. Scotland is governed by its own elected parliament.
6. Economic Exploitation
Scotland was a full partner in the British economy and played a major role in the Empire. Scots were heavily represented in imperial trade, administration, and the military. Scotland industrialised rapidly and became a major engineering and shipbuilding centre. Today Scotland receives significant fiscal transfers rather than being economically drained.
7. Claim: “Global South UN reps call Scotland a colony”
This is not an official UN position. Scotland is not listed as a colony or Non Self Governing Territory by the UN. Any remarks by individual diplomats reflect political sympathy, not legal classification. Scotland has democratic representation, its own parliament, its own legal system, and the right to leave the Union through a referendum — none of which apply to colonies.
MJ @14.08.
If you are trying to get a rise out me by posting shit that’s been debunked on countless occasions – the you are onto plums, it won’t work, infact I’d add that English forces committed war crimes even genocide – as up to 4 million Scots were displaced – forced abroad or killed, during and after the colonisation of Scotland.
“Scotland has also been subject to population displacement, initially through genocide and clearances from the 1700s. This was followed by over a century of state sponsored transportation and emigration of Scots to Britain’s overseas colonies. The result was a loss of around 4 million Scots, one of the largest losses of population in Europe for a country of our size and population.”
Courtesy of Professor Alf Baird.
Republicofscotland August 12, 2026 at 17:38
Indeed, you should not give up values you consider important because of some ‘clever’ argument. Actually I now think it better not to get into such debates without proper commitment, because values are at stake. So you have my apology – for using AI as a tool in this debate, as if this were a game. Once that starts happening, and some contributors even start getting personal or swearing, it’s time (IMHO, anyway) to recognise that things are getting out of hand, and to step back.
If you believe that Scotland is a colony, and you are determined to try to persuade the UN to agree, good luck with that.
But I would be prepared for things not going as you might wish. The SNP may have had enough after 2014, plus the embezzlement scandal. If Craig thinks that Scotland can’t become independent except by using illegal methods, what does that indicate about whether most people in Scotland would actually want to leave the UK, if push came to shove?
No doubt Scottish Nationalists will maintain a culture of enjoying their/your Scottishness (Burns suppers, whisky, Scots poetry and so on) whether or not political endeavours succeed. Good luck with that.
” If Craig thinks that Scotland can’t become independent except by using illegal methods, what does that indicate about whether most people in Scotland would actually want to leave the UK, if push came to shove?”
MJ.
“illegal methods” in whose eyes – if you are referring to the foreign parliament in England seeing Scotland’s emancipation as illegal – I’m sorry to inform you that England will play NO part in any form in Scotland restoring its sovereignty, the colonising nation (England) cannot have the slightest say – in the decolonising nations (Scotland) process – of decolonisation.
Also there’s no need to apologise – robust debating requires none.
M.J. said; (August 11, 2026 at 21:07)
“1. The Acts of Union did not just add Scots to England’s parliament. They officially closed both the old English and Scottish parliaments to create a brand-new, shared parliament for the United Kingdom.”
Agreed. And those closures had constitutional consequences, the key one being the loss of England’s sovereignty, owned exclusively by England’s parliament as of 1689. The Treaty didn’t cause that loss, that was down to simple arrogant carelessness on the part of the English establishment, which assumed that England’s parliamentary sovereignty would pass automatically to the brand new British parliament, without the need for any constitutional mechanism to carry it through. Big mistake!
Another was the creation, at least in principle, of a dual-sovereignty state, with a parliament that contained two distinct bodies of MPs, each body formally representing a different territory from the other. Since neither party agreed in the Treaty or elsewhere to transfer, subordinate or abolish their own sovereignty, neither body of MPs has any legitimate authority over the other body, nor over the other’s territory. Of course, given England’s carelessness as pointed out above, only one sovereign kingdom is actually and legitimately represented in the UK parliament today, and it is exclusively Scottish, and its authority may only be exerted in that place by its own representatives.
This inevitably means that Scotland’s MPs are not legally, constitutionally, or democratically obliged to accept being overruled by England’s MPs on any basis, any more than England’s MPs are obliged to accept being overruled by Scotland’s MPs. That makes England’s MP numbers meaningless with respect to Scotland’s.
“2. Scotland is not a colony, since In 2014, the Scottish people voted freely in a referendum to stay part of the UK, proving the union is a modern, democratic choice.”
Scotland is a de-facto colony, in that it clearly meets all of the UN’s stated criteria for being a Non-Self-Governing Territory. The UN simply hasn’t yet got around to making that a de jure declaration. Even so, it is now well understood by many of the UN’s member states that Scotland is not and never was “a voluntary partner in a Union” as formally declared to the UN by the UK Government in the 1950s.
Your ‘freely’ is doing far more heavy lifting than it can credibly support. And the union is not remotely a democratic polity, English arrogance saw to that. In a democracy power flows upwards from the people. In Scotland that was recognised many centuries ago, and it was written down in plain Latin in 1309 in the ‘Declaration of the Clergy’ at St. Andrews, at Robert the Bruce’s first parliament.
“3. While King James held two separate crowns in 1603, the nations legally merged into one United Kingdom under one single crown in 1707.”
Did they, indeed? The highest authority in Scotland, its people, did not give its consent to any such thing. In fact, their constitutional right to refuse that consent was deliberately and illegally suppressed, so your ‘legally’ is bogus.
“4. Both the English and Scottish parliaments passed Acts of Union that explicitly extinguished their separate sovereign existences to form a single, unified Kingdom of Great Britain. Maintaining identical institutional procedures in London was a matter of practical continuity, not proof of an ‘annexation’.”
This is an English establishment myth! Your use of ‘explicitly’ is unwarranted. England’s parliament may have owned sufficient authority to ‘explicitly extinguish England’s sovereignty’, but Scotland’s parliament certainly did not, and nothing in Scotland’s Act of Union states that it did any such thing. Quite the reverse, in fact; the Scottish parliament appended an obligation to Article 25 preserving Scotland’s constitution as cited, affirmed, and exerted in Scotland’s 1689 Claim of Right, as an explicit condition of ratification of the Treaty.
That obligation was unequivocally accepted by both parliaments in 1707. Also, the Treaty itself doesn’t even mention ‘sovereignty’. Also missing is any mention of Single Majority Voting for the new parliament’s debating chambers.
Scotland’s sovereignty still resides today in Scotland’s people, no-one involved in negotiating the Treaty ever having possessed any legitimate authority to transfer, subordinate or abolish the sovereignty of the Scots. Therefore that cannot have legally happened. And as mentioned, England lost its own sovereignty from rank arrogant carelessness.
The loss of Scotland’s parliament on the other hand affected Scotland’s sovereignty not in the slightest, since it belonged, and still does, to the Scots people at large, and they never gave their sovereignty up, and literally no-one had the authority to make them. This is still the case today.
As for “Maintaining identical institutional procedures in London”, this was a straight out con. In 1706, both former parliaments used Single Majority Voting in their chambers. That means that there were two separate votes, one in Edinburgh, and one in London. That allowed the two institutions to make different decisions. All the Treaty did was bring some Scots MPs down to London and, given that the Treaty did not specify the use of a Single Majority Vote in the new parliament, both bodies of MPs were and are fully entitled to maintain their independent votes, meaning that the two MP bodies between them can provide a clear Scottish Yes or No, and a clear English Yes or No, just as they did prior to the Union. And since, as mentioned, neither MP body is entitled to outrank the other, only if both bodies vote in favour of a matter can that matter be legitimately passed in the Union parliament as a true Union decision.
This version respects both sovereignties and both democracies. The one that was actually imposed does neither.
The brand new British Parliament in 1707 was unique in these islands, in that its MPs did not represent a single unitary sovereignty, but instead represented two distinctly different and incompatible sovereignties, constitutions, and legal and justice systems within the same parliament. None of these national institutions and systems were inherently subordinate to the other’s systems. Therefore, with no formal agreement stating otherwise, both systems must stand intact and immune within their own respective territorial jurisdictions.
That is what “Maintaining identical institutional procedures in London” is required to mean, and not the abusive fake we have.
Article XXII of the Treaty clearly states (twice) that Scotland’s MPs are the representatives of Scotland. Not representatives of Britain, and not representatives of a region of greater England. And clearly England’s MPs cannot seriously pretend to represent any part of Scotland, nor Britain on their own. They represent only their own parent kingdom, and no-one else’s, and can exert only their own parent’s authority, and may only do so over their own territory, and not someone else’s.
The Treaty of Union was negotiated, agreed, written, signed, and ratified by two equally sovereign states, and not their 558 non-sovereign, non-self-governing constituencies. It is the governance authorities of the two Treaty Principals that may be wielded by the Union’s parliament, and not the non-existent governance authorities of their respective constituencies. Thus Westminster’s authority over Scotland must derive exclusively from Scotland’s own elected MPs, and from no other source. If they walk out, so does Westminster’s authority over Scotland and over the Union.
“5. Article 3 of the Articles [Treaty!] of Union of 1707 refers to the “Crown of Great-Britain”. The physical reality is the Imperial State Crown, which is the state crown of the British monarch. Therefore it does indeed exist.
Whether it does or not is irrelevant; Scotland’s Crown also still exists, and so does its authority, and it is not legally subordinate to England on any basis. Under Scotland’s long-standing constitution, the ‘Crown’ in Scotland refers to the Community of the Realm of Scotland, ie, its people, and they are the sole formal owners of Scotland’s sovereignty under their own permanently-guaranteed constitution.
64.7% of Scots voted for unionist parties in the 2024 General election.“
==========
Is that all? I think that figure excludes votes for the SNP – a devo-unionist party these days.
On the other hand, your number probably includes Labour and LibDem voters who are supporters of Scottish independence! Also, I understand that even even 5% of Tories back Indy.
Indeed, C. It’s also the case that a significant % of previous SNP voters ( and presumably Pro-Independence supporters ) declined to do so in the last S.E; for reasons that are not difficult to understand, eg the truly awful state of that party and it’s abject failure to progress it’s raison d’etre. Despite which it still won * convincingly * – at least more so than Labour’s * victory * last year
Extrapolating results for G.E/S.Es onto putative, future Independence electoral outcomes is nothing more than voodoo divination. For one – major – thing, doing so leaves out the demonstrable galvanising effect of a nationwide campaign as witnessed in the dramatic rise of YES from before the Ref announcement was made and the campaigning began.
YES would already be starting from a substantially higher base.
A bit of future speculation, Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have just signed a military defence agreement in Mecca – which states an armed attack against one is an attack against them all – it will be interesting to see how Iran reacts to it with Saudi Arabia in mind, and Yemen as well – Scotland could benefit from such an agreement with other nations – though not Nato, which is a warmongering bullyboys club, besides we’ve had enough of hosting foreign countries nukes, let them host their own.
Maybe Denmark/Greenland and Iceland – the former casually, if not threatened by Trump – then surely found itself in Trumps crosshairs, even now Trump has shares in a oil/mineral exploration firm that is illegally drilling in Greenland – whatever happens Scotland will need to covet powerful allies (Not England) to if not give it a seat at any table, then to not be on the menu most of all.
I believe, as with NATO, if one of the members is actually the aggressor then the arrangement is void. Since Saudi is obviously the aggressor, albeit a proxy, then Turkey and Pakistan aren’t going to intervene. My take !
Stevie Boy.
I actually think the military pact, is a pact to attack Iran and Yemen, not a defensive one but an aggressive one, mind you Nato is a belligerent force, and Trump the head of the snake – sorry I meant Nato, is currently attempting to plunder Greenland’s resources, by giving the nod to multiple drilling rigs to set up in Greenland, without consent from either Greenland or Denmark, so how does that one go, the Nato head, (US) impinging on Denmark/Greenland, another Nato member of course Nato’s Article 5 isn’t worth the paper its written on.
Labour zog refuses to release information about an Israeli firm caught meddling in the Scottish parliament elections, saying it would ‘prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and another state’.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26455109.uk-withholds-files-israeli-firm-meddling-scottish-elections/
Labour zog in London deciding what’s what. The usual, completely normal state of affairs in the completely normal country of Scotland.
Zoot.
Not just Scotland – its a firm called Black Cube – they deeply interfered in Slovenian’s elections to remove a pro-Palestinian leader, and replace him with a pro-Zionist leader – the same scenario occurred in Colombia, and a Rabbi was even present to speak at the new right wing president inauguration.
“Another Israeli firm tied to election meddling is Black Cube, which was founded by former Israeli intelligence officers. Its “services,” in addition to cyber-operations, also includes more “traditional” blackmail operations, including “honeypot” sexual entrapment. ”
https://www.mintpressnews.com/psy-group-to-black-cube-israels-role-in-global-cyber-election-meddling/245819/
Yes Stevie Boy that’s the one alright, I’d add that the EU is now also interfering in European elections, as in Romania, Moldova etc the one prominent opposition member in the Romanian elections who was winning in the polls – was falsely accused of corruption and barred from standing in elections – and in the Moldovan elections hundreds of thousands of Moldovans working in Russian were virtually excluded from voting – Brussels tried dirty tricks in the Georgian elections as well, they failed in that one, and in the attempted assassination of Slovakia’s leader Fico though they did manage to remove Hungary’s leader Orban.
Yes, other countries’ elections have been subverted too. But it is not permissible in any of those other countries for English zionist politicians to come in, shut down investigations and tell native voters to look away. Subversion of Scottish elections by Israel can just be buried by the English Labour zog from London. It’s completely normal and legal. Indeed in the minds of many Scots, natural.
To provide a bit of balance, the zionist infiltration is not limited to England. Scotland has a long history of infiltration which continues to this day. It may be popular to blame England for all of Scotland’s ills but I suggest a closer look at your own house !
https://www.mintpressnews.com/caledonian-cousinhood-scotland-zionist-families-israel/290252/
Yes Stevie Boy I read that one several months back and I nearly fell off my chair – its my home town and I didn’t even realise the depth of the Zio-Monsters infestation, of course the Westminster puppet Swinney denounces Zionists act of genocide in Gaza, whilst behind the Holyrood curtain the colonial admin’s string puller Angus Robertson is in bed with the Zio-Monsters, Swinney’s denouncements are to adhere voters to the colonial SNP – and fool the punters into believing that the SNP stands against Zionism and genocide, when the reality is they are just obeying their master orders.
Hardly balances English zog rule, does it? Most countries have powerful domestic zionist elements. Difference is, they are not ruled by the English and would never consent to being.
If you have powerful domestic zionist elements within your country, maybe you’re not ruled by those you think you are. The giant face sucking vampire squid that is zionism has one agenda unlike the fractured domestic politics of its targets. I’d just caution that Scotland needs to be clear on what an ‘independent’ Scotland actually means. Your country, your choice.
Ending English zog rule would still be the first, most essential step.
Whether your priority is combating domestic zionism or achieving independence (by any conventional understanding of that term), why would you leave the massive English zog elephant in the room??
” It may be popular to blame England for all of Scotland’s ills but I suggest a closer look at your own house ”
One of many boons of Independence would be the elimination of that tendency, Stevie; though I’ve yet to meet anyone in Scotland who blames England for ALL Scotland’s ills: even within the limited range of this site you’re as likely to hear criticism of Scotland – that is Scottish Politicians/Politics – as English ones. We can speculate about degrees of infiltration, blackmail, cynical careerism etc as malign influences, but the fact is it has been and continues to be predominately the Scottish Political Class that has made such an utterly cringe-inducing shitshow of things North of the Border.
Likewise it will only be ( predominately ) Scottish men & women that will have any chance of drastically reforming the current atrocious state successive Post Salmond SNP Govs have brought us to and raising the calibre of Representatives and overall and functioning of the country’s governance.
I keep saying it, but……rooting-out and removing the malignant interference by * Israel * from our country’s affairs is just one more thing will only be possible by restoring our autonomy. FFS Burnham ( who has rapidly reached unwatchable/unlistenable/unreadable/unbelievably pish status ) won’t even tell the SNP Colonial Admin Gov the nature of this ‘ interference ‘ – how-the-fuck are we – as a country – supposed to do anything about such outrages when the Westminster Supremacy withholds the vital information regarding it?
“If you have powerful domestic zionist elements within your country, maybe you’re not ruled by those you think you are.”
Stevie Boy.
The above would’ve been a fair point had their not been a plethora of evidence to the contrary – though in to day’s world both England and Scotland so called politicians are in bed with the Zionists, but the Zionists didn’t colonise Scotland, or bribe (The Equivalent) their nobles and politicians back in the day to sell out their people, it was England that did that – with a huge army standing by at Berwick – to invade Scotland if the parcel of rogues didn’t sign on the dotted line – and immediately Scotland took on England’s £19 million pounds debt along with the Malt tax.
Power = Money = Power. The political system is totally controlled by money. The USA pumps money into Israel who uses it to buy influence, at the same time the USA provides under the table bribes to exert influence and above the table bribes via billionaires to exert influence. The voice of the people will never be able to overcome the corrupting influence of all that money. Cui bono? Unless the USA supports independence it won’t happen. One could try reforming the political system to remove lobbyists and their money but that would be like asking the turkeys to vote for Christmas. I might be wrong but from my viewpoint we don’t live in a fair equitable country anymore, if we ever did. Revolution not evolution is probably the only way forward !
Stevie Boy.
Agreed money and power unfortunately rule the world – our politicians don’t work for us anymore, oh we elect them but they work form themselves – and the corporations/super rich that secretly funds them – they are supposed to serve us – we elected them to office to carry out OUR will and not the WILL of private corporations/super rich.
Infact I’m quietly confident that most elections that matter – have had some sort of interference from private funded bodies, to either get someone elected – smeared or removed from office, and the Corporate Controlled Media plays its part in that as well.
Here’s a bit more on this issue.
‘The British government has refused to publish any information it holds on an Israeli firm suspected of interfering in the Scottish parliament elections, on the grounds that doing so may “prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any other state* “.’ [* that’ll be Israel and USA]
‘The watchdog said BlackCore-linked accounts specifically targeted Scottish First Minister John Swinney.
Swinney, the first minister, leads the Scottish National Party (SNP), which has been heavily critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Swinney himself accused Israel of committing genocide in August 2025.
The Scottish government, meanwhile, withheld some information on national security grounds,’
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-withholds-information-israeli-firm-accused-targeting-scottish-first-minister-elections
British taxpayers are subsidising ‘therapeutic healing’ for IDF soldiers returning from the genocide in Gaza.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/exclusive-uk-funded-therapy-for-israeli-soldiers/
When does it end?
And, the same ‘Charity’ is also using tax payer subsidies to fund illegal settlements.
Where indeed does it all end ?
A bit off-topic I know, but wouldn’t it be absolutely spiffing if Frottage lost his Clacton seat to Count Binface tomorrow?
Appears Rubber Face beat Metal Head in the Clash of Un-recyclable v Recyclable Waste Materials; even, according to the former, increasing his vote share in the process.
What a great example of the exceptionally high calibre of UK Political Representation that a one-trick-onager’s closest contender for the seat was some gadje dressed-up as a metal dustbin.
This is the same Political Culture that is spewing-up a succession of ever-more-worthless/devious P.Ms ( at a rate that would make Banana Republics blush ); evident fckn idiots like ” look how tough I am; how profligate with other peoples lives and £££££s ” John Shit On Yr Healy; bendy-spine cowards like Eddie aka “The Beagle” Millipede ( How I read Israel the Riot Act – in braille ) and this entire wincingly awful UK Political Class are all gung-ho about ‘ taking on ‘ Russia, ” Controlling ” Immigration ( it’s already being ” controlled “; by, let’s say…” Market Forces ” ), achieving Net Fuck All and quelling terrible, divisive, deeply unpatriotic unrest in the Northern Province of Jockshire. ( as things stand, that last one should be easy, just shout BOO! behind, eg Swinney and he’ll pish his pants and flee instantly )
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. IMBECILES RIGHTS NOW!!
For the Jewish influence in Scotland one might have a gander at the book:
‘ When Scotland Was Jewish ‘ by E.C. Hirschmann and D.N. Yates.
It’s free online
It looks interesting on the face of it, but here is a critical review from the website genealogy.com and another from rootsweb.com.
Putting “AI review hirschman when scotland was jewish” in google search brings “While the book appeals to alternative history enthusiasts, it is widely rejected by mainstream historians and genealogists who label its evidence as highly flawed, speculative, and inaccurate.”
MJ.
A great man was born today.
“Fidel Castro, born on this day in 1926:
‘We repudiate with all our might the ruthless persecution & genocide unleashed by Nazism against the Jews…
But I cannot recall anything more similar in our contemporary history than the genocide carried out today by imperialism and Zionism against the Palestinians.”
Castro’s support for Palestinians and opposition to Zionism is worthy of note. Here’s another thing: Cuba has been providing free medical education to students from Africa. That is one of the most impressive things I have ever learned about Cuba, when you consider how gaining admission to medical school is considered an apex achievement in many societies, a passport to privilege. The idea of giving medical education free, and that those who qualified would then go back and help poor countries out of solidarity, instead of making a fortune in the West, might seem amazing to many people – yet they do, according to a film about it. Here’s the link:
https://tomfawthropmedia.com/healing-africa-the-havana-prescription/
Here’s a tribute to Fidel Castro, made for the centenary of his birth by an educational activist I know.
IMHO the phrase “China and other democratic forces” needs a pause after ‘other’!
You did not read Living in China, did you, for which I put up a link for you?
China has a full democracy which operates all the way from local communities to Xi Jinping, elections all the way through five layers. Read it, and learn something for a change before making more ill informed comments about China.
https://waltking.substack.com/p/living-in-china
And what’s more, it works.
@ Walt King August 14, 2026 at 07:41
1. All candidates must be approved by the CCP. A system where voters cannot choose independent or opposition candidates is not a multi-party democracy. True political agency requires the right to dissent and offer competing political visions, which does not exist under the CPC’s absolute control over nominations.
2. While the idea of a single, unified “gamified score” for every citizen has been debunked by researchers, the state reality of blacklists (laolai) is well-documented. China’s legal and administrative systems actively restrict citizens caught in civil or financial infractions from buying high-speed rail tickets, booking flights, or securing certain jobs. Conflating the absence of a literal “score” with the absence of a massive, state-enforced digital compliance mechanism is highly misleading.
3. China’s militarisation of the South China Sea, the construction of artificial islands in disputed waters, and constant maritime confrontations with neighbours like the Philippines represent clear regional assertiveness. Furthermore, persistent military manoeuvres around Taiwan and aggressive cyber-warfare operations contradict the narrative of passive isolationism.
4. China’s poverty alleviation and infrastructural achievements are genuine, but the article uses this as a justification for the complete suppression of political expression. Pointing out low utility bills or efficient trains does not negate the documented crackdowns on civil society, the intense monitoring of minority populations, or the scrubbing of digital platforms. Your own searches on local AI tools were wiped and censored when touching political topics.
5. Your perspective is that of a relatively privileged, wealthy foreign expatriate living in Shekou—an affluent, internationalised area of China. An expat’s experience using a VPN to browse the global web does not represent the reality of average citizens living under strict information controls, tight labour markets, or structural rural-urban inequality.
6. Last but not least, the article’s view would strongly rejected by civil society just across the strait, particularly Taiwanese Christians who view China’s authoritarian model as an existential threat to fundamental human dignity. Leaders within the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan (PCT) and broader evangelical communities argue that true human rights demand a clear separation of church and state, rather than the mandatory “Sinicization” and heavy surveillance faced by religious groups on the mainland. From this perspective, a society cannot be truly stable if its peace relies on the forced compliance of conscience, making Taiwan’s vibrant democracy a critical ideological alternative to the CPC’s absolute control.
Walt King August 14, 2026 at 07:41
Oh, I forgot to mention:
1. The CCP disapproves of Shen Yun, an excellent reason to see it.
2. The CCP also disapproves of Brother Yun, a good reason to read his book The Heavenly Man (ISBN 185424597X).
3. Anyone who thinks that China is democratic should be an Uyghur in Xinjian, a Tibetan or a pro-democracy blogger in Beijing. They will learn their mistake very quickly!
MJ @8.55
I agree that China isn’t a democracy – but on the Uyghur thing, its not as it appears – Zenz’s even claims god told him to try and destroy China – the real reason for the so called “humanitarian concern” for the Uyghur’s – is that China has built a route through its Western Xinjian province into Afghanistan – to further its Belt and Road trade routes, and the West wants it stopped so, what better way to do that than create a false accusation of humanitarian abuse, and try and hew the province from China, using human rights as the way to go.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-genocide-relied-on-fraudulent-far-right-researcher/
MJ. Did you actually read Walt’s article ? Could you ever conceive of a situation where you might have to admit you are WRONG, and have just been repeating western propaganda ?
@ Stevie Boy August 14, 2026 at 09:45
I did read the article (quickly). Much sounded to me like propaganda, but not all. The most interesting parts were those related to ordinary everyday life, like the greater availabiity of public transport compared with previous eras.
I’ll add a couple of things not said earlier.
Interesting that the author marched in London in 1968 against the Viet Nam war.
The genocide of the Uyghurs is cultural, not homicidal as in Gaza or Europe in WW2. A report of Amnesty International (not the only one) can be recommended.
Your second question could be put in reverse: what independent evidence would convince you of something? What would you make of independent organisations like Amnesty?
I trust such organisations as free agents, and I would expect the MSM of democracies, as safer and better guides than any media of dictatorships, or anyone with an axe to grind.
There was absolutely no genocide of the Uyghurs. It is all CIA/MI6 propaganda.
MJ.
I recall Michael Moore – taking two dozen or so Americans on the 90 or so miles trip to Cube – the American’s couldn’t afford to pay for their expensive medications in the States, so Moore took them to Cuba, where they received it free, most of the American’s began crying in shock and delight – delight at getting their medication free, and shock finding out that Cuba’s social medicine system was so good.
America IS rich enough to do the same for its not so rich citizens, but big pharma – and the lack of political will by US politicians – is blocking it from happening.
Republicofscotland August 14, 2026 at 17:40
I remember that film (was it Sicko?). Good stuff.
I agree that America ought to have a state-funded health service. As I understand, there are many blocks in the way which include:
1. A multi-billion dollar private sector, with a vested interest.
2. Fear plays an important part, of migrating to an untested system, and losing private plans people are currently satisfied with, Medicare (over 65s), Medicaid (low income) and VA (veterans) programs.
3. The USA gives States a lot of autonomy.
4. State-backed healthcare has been branded by opponents as “socialism”, even by the American Medical Association.
But above all, America is a bitterly divided country. Overcoming the above would take bipartisan consensus and long-term planning, which is impossible at the moment.
Too bad for them.
AS far as mainstream historians go, I can only think of Mandy Rice-Davies. ‘They would say that , wouldn’t they.’
I’m not saying the book is in anyway accurate, but they do say that the reaction would be just as you have shown.
It’s probably a good idea that you actually read it and make up your own mind.
Ewan2
Ewan, thanks for the link I scanned the first couple of pages and it looks an interesting book – I will read more of it at a later date.
A thought provoking article, i hope Scotland gets independence one day and rejoins the EU. But on the UN point i googled it and it came up the remainder of the UK would still be allowed to stay in the UN, similar to the Soviet Union when they broke up. Yes, the United Kingdom would still be able to stay in the United Nations and keep its permanent seat on the UN Security Council if Scotland became independent. Continuing State: Under international law, the remainder of the UK (the continuing state) retains all original treaty rights, legal obligations, and international statuses of the former union. Precedent: Historical precedent shows that when parts of a nation split off or gain independence, the primary legal entity continues its membership without needing re-admission.
Why leave one undemocratic supra-national power and join another?
Independence means independence, or alternatively:
“I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have me as a member” – Groucho Marx
Well let’s get the ball rolling we should all say it to camera and broadcast it.
I do hereby declare, as is my Constitutional Right as a Sovereign Scot, that Scotland is an Independent Sovereign Nation, and that We, as a Nation, no longer consent to Westminster Governance, forthwith.
What about the pub? An article on the Conch Republic (Key West, FL) declaration of independence in 1982 says that they then had a rum and tonic party in the streets. You’d go for whisky, I imagine.
But teetotallers, if they make the declaration in Princes Street just before the cannon goes off at the Castle, could head to Dishoom afterwards. I had a Chole Puri there many years ago, quite nice. 😁