I'm rather touched that Peter A Bell keeps posting such flattering photos of me on his blog, but just on a point of clarification, he's wholly wrong to suggest that I've "changed my tune" on Scotland declaring UDI - something which I basically think is a bad idea, although I've always stressed I wouldn't totally rule it out in extreme circumstances where absolutely every other possible remedy has been completely and genuinely exhausted. Peter is implying that my support for the principle of a consultative referendum is tantamount to support for UDI, but of course it isn't - the point of a consultative referendum would be to reverse the 2014 result, establish a mandate for independence, and use that as leverage to bring the UK government to the negotiating table. Ideally, the negotiation would be over an independence settlement, but less ideally it could result in a further agreed referendum to put the mandate beyond dispute.
As I understand it, Peter's own position is to passionately advocate for UDI while pretending to oppose it vociferously. The wheeze is to rebrand UDI as "dissolving the union", and to make out that if you call it that, it somehow becomes an entirely different concept. But of course any attempt to dissolve the union without Westminster's agreement is by definition a unilateral declaration of independence. I remain baffled as to what the point of all the semantic game-playing is.