So just a few miscellaneous thoughts about the BBC's latest reporting on where the indyref2 saga goes from here. I know some people always get irritated with me if I take the BBC's account of anonymous briefings on trust, but let's just assume for the purposes of this blogpost that the report isn't entirely a work of fiction.
* First of all, it's encouraging that the expectation is still that Nicola Sturgeon will shortly renew her demand for a Section 30 order. There was a brief spell a few weeks ago when the mood music from one or two key people in the SNP seemed to suggest that even the Section 30 request might be subject to an indefinite delay, so I'm relieved that doesn't appear to be the case after all.
* There's no mention (as far as I can see) that the Section 30 request will be accompanied by an announcement of an intended date for the referendum. On the other hand, there's no indication that it won't be. My own view is that specifying a date would be highly desirable, because it would bring into sharper relief the fact that Westminster are attempting to obstruct an exercise in Scottish self-determination.
* Obviously the indications from Tory sources that Theresa May will deny a Section 30 request are no great surprise. We may have all been shocked two years ago when the Prime Minister reversed decades of British government policy by announcing that Scotland no longer had an unconditional right to democratic self-determination, but we now fully understand that the United Kingdom has become Scotland's prison, and the only question is what action we are going to take on our own initiative to escape.
* I'm heartened that the SNP leadership have clearly been giving serious consideration to that question, but I'm troubled that they might be coming up with unwise answers. We seem to be looking at the next Holyrood or Westminster election (whichever comes soonest) being used to produce an even more emphatic mandate for a referendum than the mandate we already have. Essentially that means that unless a snap Westminster general election happens to be called prior to May 2021 (something we have very little control over), the current mandate for an independence referendum will be allowed to expire. That seems to me a wholly unnecessary admission of defeat - albeit defeat only in one battle, rather than the whole war. But if it's really deemed necessary to seek a renewed Holyrood mandate, surely consideration should be given to doing so via an early election held well before 2021. Yes, that would be a drastic step, but if we're serious about Brexit being an emergency situation, there's nothing inappropriate about taking emergency action. If an early election is called for the express purpose of securing an indyref mandate, and if that mandate is duly secured, it would arguably become politically much more difficult for Westminster to continue saying "no".
* Nevertheless, there is a chance they will continue to say "no", and we need to have a Plan B ready for that eventuality. The Glasgow SNP councillor Mhairi Hunter suggested a few weeks back that we should respond to every successive rejection of a Section 30 order by just "campaigning some more for a referendum". That is not a sustainable position - if we go to the people asking for yet another mandate for a referendum, we have to be clear that if the mandate is secured we will expect it to be respected this time, and that we won't just keep going round in circles forever. That would mean moving forward to an alternative method of winning independence if there is a further refusal to grant a Section 30 - probably either a consultative referendum or a decision to use the next available election to seek an outright mandate for independence. Why the SNP leadership appear so squeamish about those options is beyond me, given that they would both be perfectly legal (a consultative referendum could only take place if it was upheld by the Supreme Court). And as it happens, the SNP have already moved beyond strict constitutionality anyway - as I understand it, Mike Russell has said that the Scottish Government does not accept the legitimacy of the EU Withdrawal Act as it affects the devolution settlement, even though there is no dispute that it is the law of the land.
* In a perverse way it's helpful that an SNP source from the 'delay' lobby was more specific than usual in claiming that we won't be ready for a referendum before 2025 at the earliest. Leaving aside the fact that this seems to be a random date plucked out of thin air, it makes abundantly clear that at least one of the 'delay' parliamentarians does not take seriously the manifesto commitment he or she was elected on to hold an independence referendum in the event of Brexit. I don't think any SNP voter who read that pledge would have thought they were in fact voting for a referendum six years after Brexit, and four years after the parliament they were electing had been dissolved.
Firstly, the SNP and Scottish Government have to make it crystal clear that anything other than "Yes" to the question "can we have a Section 30 order?" means "no". "Mumble mumble now is not the time mumble" means NO. It has to be made clear that's what that means. Previously I think they were so caught off guard by that response that they just sort of went quiet and let it slide, which was a mistake.
ReplyDelete"there is a chance they will continue to say "no", and we need to have a Plan B ready for that eventuality"
We have to be even stronger than that, I think we can safely ASSUME that they will continue to say no regardless of what happens and say what our plan B is, and plan C even, at the time we announce our Plan A.
The obvious question is, if the SNP tell people that they can't get a Section 30 order now so vote for us again in another election, what will they do then if they win that election and still can't get a Section 30 order? Indy voters will reasonably want to know the answer to that up front, not after another election.
My real worry is that the SNP have still not been able to work out a good answer to the "what if they still say now is not the time" question and until they do then the obvious answer from WM will continue to be "now is not the time".
Has anyone heard of any Brexit Street parties being held?
DeletePoor benighted Cordelia there, thinking there's going to be anything to celebrate.
Delete“If we're serious about Brexit being an emergency situation, there's nothing inappropriate about taking emergency action.“
ReplyDeleteBang on. And almost no matter what your view on theEU is, brexit, Westminster style, is clearly an emergency.
Incremental action to a catastrophic problem...is irrational.
DeleteScotland no longer has time to tidy the house before it runs out of the burning building. It now has a decision to make.
My advice is to RUN!
Cordelia the liar's head is full of bile; we've known that about it for years.
DeleteAny answer other than 'Yes' to a section 30 is England ending democracy and attemptig to enforce colonial fascism.
ReplyDeleteIt is as simple as that.
The only way to prevent (or put off) Section 30's is to win Holyrood elections. If we agree that Scotland is voluntarily part of the UK and that PR Holyrood wins is the means whereby Scots can express a desire to be consulted on independence, then Section 30's should be automatic.
The UK parties lost the 2016 election, but 'now is not the time' would be trying to overturn the result / simply dispense with it.
I hope to god that this is just them pushing their luck, because refusal of a Section 30 is an end to democracy. There is no question about this. It renders elections in Scotland utterly pointless if a voter cannot freely vote for the SNP, Greens etc on the basis of one of their core policies. There would be no need for elections / campaigns in Scotland if your choice is between unionism and unionism.
If 'now is not the time', then what was the point of the last Scottish election? In the case of 'now is not the time', my 2016 vote would have been binned. English voters by contrast are getting their brexit. It really is that simple; the master race can vote for what it wants while the 'sub-humans' have lesser rights. Fascism.
People have been unhappy with my stance of saying we are in the UK freely. I have maintained that because I believed it to be broadly true. For all the cards stacked against us through propaganda etc, 2014 demonstrated our freedom to choose. Even the previous ‘now is not the time’ I saw as simply a panicked delaying tactic before the UK government quickly body swerved the whole thing by ending itself and calling a new election. That left any Section 30 to the election winners and bought the union time. The SNP lost seats so stepped back from pursuing it.
But I like many Scots, including many no voters, will absolutely change my tune if a Section 30 is actually refused. Then I will call the UK anti-democratic, totalitarian, fascist…people who support the UK government ‘traitors and quislings’ etc because it will be absolutely true.
I voted for #iref2 in 2016, particularly in the event of brexit. We SNP and Green voters won. The people spoke. It is not for England to overrule the result of a democratic election, no matter how inconvenient that might be to them and their brexit.
There are a lot of Scots that voter No, but will be fuming just like I am at the prospect of having their vote / choice stripped from them by England. Refusing a Section 30 would be utterly desperate stuff as it means the union is no longer a democratic choice. That is a very dark and dangerous path; one that Britain has been down before and knows the ultimate result of (black and tans, SRA etc)....
If a Section 30 is refused, Scottish Lab / Con / Lib will need to immeadiately support granting off it and refuse to co-operate with London or they will be decimated in elections and be unable to go near a Scots doorstep.
Someone might not support indy right now, but if you take away their right to choose, they are not going to be happy people at all.
You've got a bit too much to say for yourself. The verbal runs if you ask me. Like, please note me more.
DeleteIf there is one thing polling has shown consistently, it is that Scots, Yes and No voter alike, say independence is a matter for them and their parliament alone; England gets no say.
ReplyDeleteAnd they mean it.
Wait and see.
As a pretty avid Europhile, I would have voted Leave in a second if Brussels had attempted to tell the UK 'now was not the time' for the EUref, and refused a Seciton 30.
You only need to look at the change in me in the last few hours as I start to seriously ask whether we are here freely to understand how Scotland as a whole will react to a Section 30 refusal.
It's just pouring out if you. Loads of words thrown at random on the page. No link between theme. Random verbal freefall.
DeleteIf May says no to a Sec 30 then Scots Gov can suspend the Act of the Union. There are no lawfull precontractual conditions that can stop this.
ReplyDeleteI believe SNP to follow the process but if the process breaks because of intransigence from Westminster, the only recourse would be suspension and to hold a second referendum.
6/10 for independence in the event of a no deal brexit from the least Yes friendly pollster.
ReplyDeleteWhat do people think it will be for 'England decides your independence jock scum and we say no!'?
Oh shit.
Unionism dead.
When dealing with narcissists (and the UK government is acting as such) there are several things you have to do.
ReplyDeleteFirst is, as you say, be clear that any answer other than a clear "yes" will be taken as a "no".
Second: Give them a firm date after which you will take a lack of response as a "no".
You also have to spell out to them the consequences of saying "no". And follow through.
Basically, you have to treat them as a hostile enemy in order to interact sanely with them at all.
---
Did we miss Sturgeon's indyref announcement, or are we still inside the "few weeks"?
So what will politics debate programmes on the BBC be about in this Section 30 refused 'Brave New Britannia'? Unionism vs unionism? If Section 30s are not automatic, that's what will apply; you can vote for whatever you want as long as it is unionism. Vote for pro-indy parties and unionist parties will simply overrule the result, refusing a Section 30.
ReplyDeleteAudience members won't need to ask 'Why should I vote for independence / the SNP / Greens' because they can't. They don't get to vote on that any more as their vote doesn't actually count. Unionists always win elections, even if they lose.
Yes, no Section 30 means unionist parties won the last Scottish election even though they lost. All pro-indy party votes are binned as the core policy of these has been outlawed.
The UK becomes a tin pot dictatorship where elections might be held, but the outcome is fixed. Even if Scotland votes 100% SNP, the SNP loses because unionism prevails and refuses a Section 30.
It is not 'anti-democratic' (attacking democracy), it completely ends democracy in any meaningful form. There ceases to be any need for debates, campaigns, elections as the results cannot effect change. Indy parties always lose, no matter what.
Here we go again. Pass me the electric cattle prod so I can stay awake.
DeleteWe shouldn't go asking mum and dad for a section 30 for obvious reasons. we should grow up and make up our own mind for ourselves. Mum and dad should allow us to get or own flat when we want - not tell us its not the time or to go back to our room.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I am probably ages with your mom and dad. Pensioners for Independence rock!
DeleteIf the answer from Westminster is No, then we don't need to have a Holyrood election to pressure them to grant one - we need a Holyrood election for a direct independence mandate.
ReplyDeleteIf it's a No Deal situation then the world will be a very different place - it will be a state of emergency. No chance of a referendum might even give the scotgov the justification for UDI (provided that it has the EU's support).
If there's a deal, then we have about a year to push for the legality of a consultative referendum.
Anonymous,
DeleteI agree with you. Why is there even a discussion about this? If, for instance the SNP stood on an independence brief at either Holyrood or Westminster and won a majority of Scottish votes, (clearly including Scottish Greens), whatever, a majority in either Parliament should trigger what we all see as 'The Question'. It is difficult to see whether that could be denied, either in the short term of a dying Theresa May Parliament, or without some aggression of England (and Wales) on Scotland. It is not at all clear that Theresa May has pacificist intent towards us.
Y'know, I suspect she see's us her last and most important subjects.
I suspect Cruella only cares about us in so far as no Prime Minister, whether red or blue Tory, wants to be the one to "lose" Scotland.
DeleteThe EU will only recognise an Independent Scotland if London signs it off. Without International recognition Scotland's currency would not be recognised, there would be no access to the International finance system, no ability to make International treaties.
ReplyDeleteThe Irish have secured their interests because the EU backed them up. The only realistic route to Internationally recognised independence is to wait until the point of maximum chaos in the English state while they are in negiotiations with the EU for a FTA and pressurise them then.
jeans-jacques rosseau
DeleteThere are folk that argue otherwise. Senior members of the EU Parliament would disagree with you.
Try to do better.
The EU will only recognise an Independent Scotland if London signs it off.
DeleteAlmost certainly true as long as the UK is in the EU. It's difficult to see why this attitude would persist if and when Brexit occurs, however. At that point, it's in the EU's interests to see the UK broken up.
When did this section 30 order first appear on the horizion.
ReplyDeleteAbout 3.30pm
DeleteTwo Northern Ireland fishing boats impounded by an ROI armed navy ship. ROI can fish in NI waters however the ROI do not allow NI fishing boats in their waters. So much for the Belfast Agreement. The Royal Navy should move in.
ReplyDeleteThe English navy you mean. There is no UK royal navy as there is no UK union, not if Scotland can't leave freely. To be in union, we must be voluntarily united.
DeleteInstead, Scotland is a colony of a greater England according to the latest BBC reports.
OK skier for your convenience we will pretend and call it the English Navy. Let us go a bit further and say it was the English Navy that fought the Nazis and the English Merchant Navy sent aid to the Soviet Union. The Scots did not take part as will be taught in Scottish schools post Independence.
DeleteNo, back then it was the British Royal Navy as Scotland was in the UK by consent.
DeleteThat seems to have changed as of yesterday according to the BBC. They are reporting that England is now saying Scotland is an English colonial possession that can only have independence with England's permission.
Scottish Skier, you seem a little anti-English. It is UK politicians that are denying you a rerun, not the English people - as diverse a group as you will find anywhere. If you're going to go after anyone, surely the UK establishment would be a more sensible target than the English. After all, it is half your own country that is the first obstacle to independence.
DeleteHowever, it's Cordelia the liar who advocates attacks on our neighbours.
DeleteThat means the BBC is anti-English. It is saying that the English government will refuse a Section 30. The fact it tries to pretend it is the ‘British’ government does not change reality. Do they think Scots zip up the back?
DeleteScottish politicians (inc. MPs) in large majority all back Scotland's right to decide, do not oppose a new iref / Section 30, and would recognise a Yes iref result. Scotland is not in direct union with Wales or N. Ireland, only with the Kingdom of England (see treaty of union). So, Great Britain / the UK cannot be refusing a Section 30 / British politicians cannot be refusing; only English politicians. Every Scot knows this; even you.
It is not clear from polling data that the English people agree with the actions of their politicians. However, that does not detract from the simple fact their government, elected by them, is seemingly trying to end democracy, attempting to turn Scotland from a voluntary member of the UK, to a colony here by force, where English MPs decide its future. What fucking right have English politicians to tell Scots when they can have an iref?
So long as a Section 30 is not automatic, then Scotland is here by force. Refusal of a Section 30 invalidates the 2014 result. Your 55% No ceases to be valid. It only holds, representing the free will of the people (until they are asked again), if Scotland is in the UK freely and can leave at any time by its own volition. It seems that's not the case any more. So, your 55% is wiped away, as is the 2016 brexit referendum, as it appears the latter was carried out in Scotland/Wales/N. Ireland under duress. If the Celtic nations are not here freely, then their votes do not count in British elections/referendums as people are voting under duress. The results do not represent the free will of the people.
Refusal of a Section 30 is an attack on you, your union and your 2014 no vote. And you know this. So much for Westminster being your friend huh?
Your side won in 2014. I accepted that. I have never said it was not valid or wasn't represantitive. It was on the day in 2014 and holds until such time we may be asked again (something which is my right to advocate and vote for). Well, your 'British' government is now invalidating your 55% No result. That is what refusing a Section 30 does. It is taking away the free will of the 55% and the 45%, wiping your win from history.
If the 55% No cannot be freely changed by Scots, then it is invalid. That is the very essence of democracy.
DeleteSo, if we have a new iref without a Section 30 (because that is refused), it will not be overturning the 2014 result.
Nope, we will be having a new iref because the 2014 result has already been overturned by English / British politicians through their refusal to jointly agree a Section 30.
So the only valid vote on Scottish indy will be the new one.
Likewise, it is also true to say that refusal of a Section 30 in itself means a new iref is immediately required as 2014 no longer stands.
Aslo, as noted earlier, if a Section 30 is refused, Westminster no longer has a democratic mandate to govern Scotland. All future UK elections are invalidated. These become simple tin pot dictatorship ‘show elections’ as they are not the free will of the people.
Jesus Christ. Easy on the eardrums, Katie!
DeleteLaura Muir gubbs all the Europeans in the 3 klick race. RULE BRITTANIA, GSTQ, WE ARRA PEE PEEEL.
ReplyDeleteI do hope it didn't hurt itself on the way back to the sobbing cupboard.
Deleteskier, I hear the new currency will have Keir Hardie on one side so you Nat sis can pretend you are socialists and Eck on the other representing the former Soviet Union.
ReplyDeleteThe USSR refused section 30s to member states.
DeleteWhilst all this England bashing is well and good just a reminder of what Nicola Sturgeon stated just shy of two years ago
ReplyDeleteYou confirmed to me on Monday, and repeated in your letter invoking Article 50, that you intend the terms of both the UK's exit from the EU and of a future trade deal to be agreed before March 2019 and in time for ratification by other member states - in other words, between the autumn of next year and the spring of 2019. As you are aware, this is the timescale endorsed by the Scottish Parliament for a referendum.
Its not the 'English' that has stopped this timetable that the Scot Parliment endorsed being upheld, it is the Scottish Governments. They are the ones who have stat on their hands for the last two years and they are the ones who have made no attempt to give the Scottish people a choice on Brexit UK or an Independent Scotland. For all the talk of Scotland being dragged out of the EU by the UK (sic England) they are the ones that have made no attempt to stop that from happening.
Maybe instead of the English bashing we should concentrate on the failings of our own Goverment.
You can get a Dublin Ulster bus ticket via Belfast back home. Bye.
DeleteI don't remember confirming anything to Nicola Sturgeon on Monday. I don't think I've ever met her. When did she tell you that? Did she say she knows me?
ReplyDeleteNo and no
DeleteWe need another huge saltire flag waving rally in George Square to muster the troops. We could have a sing song to lift our spirits.
ReplyDeleteWe could invite the white Protestant Unionist indigenous people along and tell them we are taking over. They are reasonable people.
More drunken screeching from poor embittered Cordelia. It needs help for its many issues.
DeleteIn the absence of free democracy (e.g. with a Section 30 refused), it would not be a rally, but a protest.
ReplyDeleteIf 'white protestant indigenous' people inhabiting the George Square area denied the right to freely chose to be unionists (as they were previously permitted to in 2014), they may wish to join the protest.
I do not recall anyone requiring to have permission on the day you suggest however I did walk through George Square on that day early daytime to get to the council tax office. I did note at least four stalls from the various leftie groups attempting to recruit and with various flags on display. On crossing the Square a few Unionists had gathered. This was notable by the lapel badges they were wearing. I was surprised to hear there was trouble later on and after dusk. I wonder why the Nat sis were hanging around so late. Was this to violently confront the victorious Unionists!
DeleteInteresting to see the fragrant councillor H is reduced to sharing videos from such a well balanced bigot as brillopadhead neill.
ReplyDeleteApparently even mentioning the name of a multi billionaire family beginning with R makes you a raving anti-semite. Which is odd.
I remember that name from a time when you were allowed to comment on their interference in democracies and their influence on governments without being attacked for it.
Does anybody else remember so long ago, October 2008, when G Osborne shared a yacht with those fine fellows Mandleson, Deripaska and Rothschild?
Remember how tariffs on aluminium were reduced by the EU commission allowing two of those people to make several Hundred Million in profit?
Remember how the Commissioner responsible was the self-same mandleson?
Odd that people were free to comment on how the super rich were buying votes back then but we can't do it not because jews. Maybe Leasky can investigate why journalists are being silenced. Or maybe he'll spend all day ranting about people being rude to the baldy fud on twatter while seeing Russians everywhere.
Leaky tap.
DeleteI agree very much with your main points, James, and I find it a bit embarrassing to see Iain Blackford in BritParl saying that Scotland will leave and it will be as a result of the BritGov's behaviour.
ReplyDeleteIt's starting to sound like the boy who cried "Wolf" or the Fluffy who threatened to resign.
There's no way the Govt should announce IndyRef2 just to placate the likes of me and others whose patience is running out, but we need some indication soon because - as you say - it's unlikely that a Govt seeking a 4th election is going to do fabulously well with the media and the BritState against it.
Iain what about a left wing military coup.
DeleteIf Scotland did hold a new iref without a Section 30, and it was a Yes, England would need to attempt a 'military coup' in Scotland to 'take back control' or accept the result.
DeleteThat's the thing about UDI; it either gets you independence, or in come the jackboots to crush it. The world waits to see which it will be before making a call on recognition. Spain opted for the jackboots in Catalonia.
I wonder what the English government would do? Storm Holyrood...disband police Scotland...arrest Sturgeon etc...impose direct rule? It's all this or accept the UDI.
You can't ignore a UDI; that's basically the same as accepting it. Ignoring means the independence gets underway and you lose control. Nope, you have to accept it or crush it. If Spain could have just ignored the Catalan referendum it would have. But then Catalonia would have started acting independent...stopping sending taxes to Madrid etc.. Nope, such things must be crushed violently, or accepted.
And the jackboots are going to have to be there on a permanent basis to keep the rebellion under control from then on. If you are crushing UDI, you've already lost the hearts & minds, and so the votes. So, you keep the territory by force.
This is where 'now is not the time' leads, if you want to take that path and stick to it. It's not as if we don't have a list of historical examples as long as my arm going back into the mists of time.
skier, are you sure about accepting results! It is not something you Nat sis are really good at unless you win of course.
DeleteScotland is in the UK and currently exiting the EU with it so...
DeleteThe only result I can see which is being disputed is the 2016 Holyrood election. Unionists are trying to overrule this by refusing a Section 30.
Oh, and if a Section 30 isn't granted, then Scotland absolutely is being forced out of the EU against its will.
DeleteOnly if a Section 30 is granted automatically is Scotland voluntarily leaving the EU at present.
Certainly, refusing a Section 30 makes the nats 100% spot on.
skier, I thought we were being dragged out. Is there a reporting centre for getting dragged? I voted leave so do I need to report?
Delete"skier, I thought we were being dragged out"
DeleteBBC says we are, so you are right it seems. I wasn't so sure, but the BBC has cleared things up.
#Section30refusal
skier, if the Beeb says it it must be true.
Deleteskier, if Labour MPs get a free vote then Brexit will happen. Looks like the well heeled Thornbury and Sir Stammer are wanting to weild the big stick to remain in the rich man's Club.
ReplyDeleteGWC, Scots MSPs had a free vote and they voted for iref#2, just as the electorate asked for on the 5th May 2016.
DeleteDid you know that more people voted just SNP (before we get to the Greens and other pro-iref#2 parties) in that election than voted Leave in total?
Aye, the people spoke that day, and they said 'now is the time'.
#iref2 is the true will of the people.
Here is an expose of your idol. There are many more such exposes. DJT is bringing them all down. It's about time you choked on your own vomit. She has managed to use her position to escape justice, but no more, it is over bar the shouting.
Deletehttp://humansarefree.com/2014/05/queen-elizabeth-found-guilty-in-missing.html
You sound like a saucy customer.
Delete