In a significant move, the SNP yesterday announced that it is prepared to call a wildcat referendum of its own if Boris Johnson refuses to grant one himself (4)
— The Sunday Times (@thesundaytimes) January 23, 2021
The Sunday Times also used the above language in its front page today, and added for good measure that the so-called "wildcat vote" would be akin to the one held in Catalonia - thus implying it would be illegal and presumably that its instigators could end up in jail. All of that is completely and utterly untrue. I've no idea whether it would be best characterised as a lie, or as utter cluelessness.
In reality, the plan Mike Russell set out the other day was to hold a legal referendum on independence, and to do it without Westminster's permission if necessary. That is not a contradiction in terms. "Westminster doesn't like it" is not synonymous with "illegal". Any referendum would be held under the terms of an Act of the Scottish Parliament - which by definition means it would be the opposite of illegal or "wildcat". If the UK Government feel that the Act in question exceeds Holyrood's powers, there is a well-established procedure for putting that to the test and obtaining a legal ruling. There are three possible outcomes -
1) No legal challenge occurs, in which case an independence referendum is the law of the land.
2) The UK Government mount a legal challenge, but it is rejected by the Supreme Court, in which case an independence referendum is the law of the land.
3) The UK Government mount a legal challenge and the Supreme Court uphold it, in which case no referendum takes place. (Although in a rational world the SNP would then move on to using a scheduled election as a de facto referendum.)
As you'll have noted, in none of those scenarios does an illegal or 'wildcat' referendum occur. If anyone can face being royally mucked around and fobbed off with technicalities, there is - on paper at least - a strong case for complaining to the press regulator IPSO on the grounds that the Sunday Times' reporting is straightforwardly, demonstrably and verifiably inaccurate.
Well said...Just wondering, are you heartened by recent developments? I confess I am no longer brave enough to be encouraged by anything other than a plebiscitary election in May. And it doesn't look like that will happen.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am heartened, in a glass half full sort of way. The plan should be -
Delete1) Legislate for a referendum.
2) Let the UK Government challenge the law if they wish.
3) If the Supreme Court uphold the law we move on to a legal referendum.
4) If the Supreme Court strike down the law we move on to a plebiscitary election.
The SNP leadership now seem to be on board for 1, 2 and 3, but not 4. That's not enough, but it's not nothing either. Hopefully in the long run the rejection of 4 will prove to be, to use the dread word, "unsustainable".
Thank you - that sounds like a rational plan.
DeleteJames
DeleteIt’s always slightly soothing to read your considered replies to events and questions. It makes for a calmer landscape than that created by the full spectrum alarmists.
SG must legislate for a referendum, with a date this year asap. If it is challenged and Supreme Court has not already upheld the legislation before May 2021 then move straight to a plebiscite election on 6th May 2021.
DeleteGiving Westminster any more time to strip powers and funding from SG will both make independence more difficult to achieve and lead to a worse position once, indeed, if, it is achieved.
The SNP "11 point roadmap" is just kicking the can down the road. We must seize the moment now!
Some points re James 1234 above.
DeleteWhat if the legality is challenged after the referendum?
What about the Martin Keetings case in this scenario?
What if Westminster just pass a law (before a referendum) saying Scotland can not hold a referendum for 10 years say.
I still say May 2021 is the safest route to deliver a yes vote.
"What if the legality is challenged after the referendum?"
DeleteToo late. The people have spoken and when they voted, they did so legally. You need to prevent the vote or try to seriously disrupt it so the result becomes questionable.
This is why Spain sent in the jackboots; so turnout could be kept down and ballot boxes stolen / voters prevented from voting. That way the result could be disputed as invalid. If it had just let people vote and there was a decent turnout, the people would have spoken and it would be in a much more awkward position.
What if Westminster just passes a law saying Scots can't use elections as a plebiscite for indy for 10 years?
We just do so anyway.
Try and learn something about the Spanish Constitution, designed to try & protect Spain from another Franco, before commenting on something you clearly have no idea about.
DeleteIf that's directed at me, then I know what using jackboots to disrupt votes is about; that's not exactly a uniquely Spanish thing.
DeleteYou try to stop people expressing their desires at the ballot box with laws they did not agree to and, failing that, with jackboots if you don't like what they might say.
Smearer Skier the poster who now says we should "just do so anyway."
DeleteSmearer used to call people who posted what he now says unionists. What an arse he is.
No doubt when Sturgeon is gone and everyone knows what happened with the persecution of Salmond Smeare Skier will say he never Smeared Salmond and always knew Sturgeon was a "bad un".
Smearer is a charlatan.
You would think the Martin Keatings case wasn't happening. The one where the Lord Advocate who sits in Sturgeons cabinet is trying to stop a legal decision being taken on whether the Scottish parliament can legally hold an independence referendum. Just whose side is Wolfey boy on? He of the malicious prosecutions.
DeleteHe who just loves wasting public money when businesses and individuals are crying out for funds during a pandemic. It is remarkable what you can get away without being forced to resign when part of the Salmond persecution. Not to mention the Hirst persecution or next up the Craig Murray persecution.
Using the justice system to persecute people you do not like is banana republic stuff.
I understand Keatings is arguing what I've been arguing, i.e. that a referendum cannot be illegal and doesn't need a Section 30. This is also the SNP's Plan A.
DeleteSalmond is innocent as that was the finding of his trial. Before his trial I didn't pass judgement either way.
I apply the same to Sturgeon. She's innocent until found guilty of something. That is my opinion; one based on the principle of fair justice, which you apparently don't believe in.
I'm not part of the 'lynch mob for the union'. As much as you and all the unionist media want to convince me of Sturgeon's guilt, I will wait for the outcome of due process. If she's not found guilty of something, then she's innocent. If she's guilty, she'll get her comeuppance, e.g. be forced to resign.
'banana republic' is how unionists describe Scotland.
DeleteSmearer Skier with his "only unionists" crap again.
DeleteSmearer Skier already trying to deny he smeared Salmond time after time on this blog. What a charlatan.
Smearer Skier - sorry to to surprise you - please pay attention - she has already been found guilty of letting the Scotgov act in an unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias manner. She is duty bound to prevent her Government acting unlawfully. She knew that was what they were doing and did nothing to stop it - guilty and that's a fact.
So your opinion as so often is just wrong.
I can find no such personal conviction of Sturgeon. She's only mentioned in the Salmond civil case as an 'interested party'. Anyway, if she's been convicted, we can await her being sentenced.
DeleteBut then as you've told us many times, while sturgeon 'signed off the harassment procedure after it was drawn up, she then washed her hands of it / had nothing to do with it afterwards', so I can't see how she can be at fault for the botched UK civil service investigation.
Smearer Skier see where you inserted " on blogger since 2014 " it should be saying "lying since 2014."
DeleteNever said she washed her hands of it/ had nothing to do with it afterwards. You are just a blatant liar Smearer.
Smearer back to punting Sturgeon as a First Minister who has no responsibility for her Government actions. So Smearer would have you believe that when Sturgeon is Chairing the Scottish cabinet it is really Evans that is pulling her strings and Evans runs the Government. Truly a pile of nonsense.
It was Sturgeons responsibility to ensure the Scotgov acted lawfully. She didn't. She contested the Judicial Review knowing that it was an unlawful procedure. Guilty.
Smears just punts nonsense about "awaiting her being sentenced"
Any updates on the possible non-standard question & exclusion of 16-18 year olds in the Panelbase poll? I can't see anything on Panelbase's website, and the Times is behind a paywall. Wikipedia's "Opinion polling on Scottish independence" states that the poll "Excludes 16 and 17 year-olds" referencing the Sunday Times as its source (but that's behind a paywall).
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't even trust Wikipedia on 16 and 17 year olds - they've been wrong about that sort of thing before. My guess is that it was a standard Yes/No independence poll, but we'll find out for sure when Panelbase publish the datasets (probably tomorrow).
DeleteJames - would the timescale envisaged under option 4, be 2026?
DeleteIf so, I think holding together the YES movement and a substantial part of the SNP vote until then, might prove very problematic.
It will be seen as yet another "march the troops to the top of the hill and then down again" in 2021.
This never-ending succession of false dawns cannot continue.
As a side issue, virtually all recent polls have shown the YES lead lessening, although just remaining north of 50%.
Do you detect a softening of some support and do you anticipate it rising again in the build up to May?
The next UK election is just over 3 years away.
DeleteHowever, I understand there is nothing stopping Holyrood voting to dissolve itself early, triggering a new Scottish general election.
2/3 majority needed to vote for dissolution.
DeleteThat or the FM resigns. If no successor is elected in 28 days, parliament is dissolved. Given Yes parties hold a majority, I imagine they'd have no problem preventing anyone becoming FM or staying in that position as they could hold a vote of no confidence.
Sturgeon could of course just stand again for FM after the election, which she needs to do after any election anyway.
So an election plebiscite is readily possible as early as desired. Unionist parties might try to delay it, but they couldn't stop it, not if the Greens + SNP forced it.
Yep, I am aware of all the possiblities, even though some look unlikely.
DeleteI just wondered how James saw it.
Sure, but I felt it worth reiterating for the benefit of other readers.
DeleteSome seem to imagine that it would have to wait 5 years or something before an election plebiscite could happen.
Or rather unionists try to pretend that's the case. :-)
That's the bugger about democracy; the people will get what they want and they won't forgive you for standing in their way.
Some seem to think Sturgeon would not dissolve the Parliament to have a plebiscite election. Nothing to do with whether it is technically possible.
DeleteSmearer Skier hope you checked under your bed for unionists before you go to sleep tonight because you see them everywhere else. What a pathetic excuse for a human being you are.
DeleteIts not up to sturgeon to dissolve parliament. She doesn't have that power. It's up to all MSPs. Only unionists try to pretend she alone rules scotland.
DeleteAs per my earlier post, Sturgeon could set things in motion by resigning, but if she refused, a simple majority no confidence vote disposes of her.
Everyone is a Unionist to Smearer Skier who doesn't hold the same view as him at the current point in time. He changes his view in future but lo and behold he doesn't declare himself a Unionist.
DeleteSmearer Skiers most used phrase "only a Unionist " and even that is out of date - they are Britnats you diddy.
If I start calling Scotland a 'banana republic' which is planning to hold a 'wildcat' vote, you are welcome to tell me that's unionist talk.
DeleteThere seems to be a 'suppress the vote' campaign going on for weeks by the British State, aided by some useful fools. Most sock-puppets stating they won't vote for the SNP are pretty obvious, but i worry they might suck in enough folk to affect the election. The tactic has worked before, especially in the USA.
ReplyDeleteThey tried the same for the 2019 General Election. All the twitter posts as to why they were not going to be voting SNP. It failed.
DeleteAye, I remember English right-wing blogs demanding Sturgeon resign just ahead of the 2019 UK election.
DeleteSooty, sorry the nutter called Juteman, pleased to see you can string a couple of sentences together that give the impression you are on the road to recovery but your words are still showing signs of paranoia.
DeleteCubby aka Independence for Scotland aka GWC aka McGubbin aka Floppy.
DeleteIs that you projecting again? Keep your pecker up old chap.
Juteman - your paranoia is pouring out of your posts along with your coarseness.
DeleteYou have admitted you are a woman hater, so just embrace it, Independence for Scotland aka Floppy Cubby. That damp photo you have on the wall is your secret.
DeleteYou could always become a monk after the British State are finished with you.
Just because you can't rise to the occasion doesn't mean your life is a failure. Counselling can help you face the hard, really hard, problem you don't have, Floppy my dear. :-)
Juteman following in the footsteps of his heroes - Sturgeon and Smearer Skier - telling lies.
DeletePonder for a moment who is the most disgusting character who has posted on SGP
Juteman, GWC or Smearer Skier.
Your paranoia is well out of control Juteman.
Floppy. :-)
DeleteIf they are against a referendum, just hand a notice to the leader of the commons, that the Scottish people hear-by repeal the Treaty of the Union of the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament as it is now 2021 not 1706. We are not living in the past as England is doing. The Scottish People are SOVEREIGN from a long before the signing of the treaty. It is Scotland who will decide.
ReplyDeleteA referendum without Westminster consent will not be "illegal". Something that is "illegal" is explicitly "contrary to or forbidden by law". There is no law prohibiting such a referendum (nor a law that specifically permits one). That is the whole point of Martin Keating's action at the Court of Session.
ReplyDeleteAn unconsented referendum would be either "lawful" or "unlawful".
Hold the Referendum. Win it. Then have the debate.
ReplyDeleteWe have nothing to loose at the moment given the big Boris NO!
Remember with an 80 seat majority there's nothing stopping BoJo from enacting a law that *would* make a referendum illegal
ReplyDeleteThe Empire did that with salt collection in India...how did that go for London.
DeleteImposing a Law leads to a legal case AND a World media challenge regarding democratic behaviour.
Would and should result in a constitutional crisis. Especially if instead of enacting a law to remove or restrict the subject of even consultative referenda the move was to repeal any legislation passed at Holyrood to hold one.
DeleteThere's an interesting lack of restriction in how the FM can advise the Queen on Royal Prerogative that means it doesn't just apply to bills passed by Holyrood. It applies to any proposed legislation covered by devolution.
In this case it means that the FM could advise that Royal Assent be withheld.
There is a post today on David Halliday's twitter, that explains the underlying legal logic for a referendum, which seems to be entirely consistent with what James has written, and also the position put forward by Mike Russell. I do not have access to the Sunday times article mentioned by James. Did it explicitly compare Scotland to Catalonia? This fills me with fear and rage. The movement for independence in Scotland has conducted itself in a civil and respectful manner, within the law. I do not believe that the people of Scotland would find it acceptable to be treated as Catalonia has been treated by the Spanish government.
ReplyDeleteThere are links available to archive copies of the article that avoid the paywall. But I'm not sure it's worth the effort of following up, apart from the polling data which is widely available anyway. Even by the standards of the London press the commentary is woeful. It does mention Catalonia but shows no knowledge of the legal and constitutional issues involved.
DeleteThere is a post today on David Halliday's twitter, that explains the underlying legal logic for a referendum, which seems to be entirely consistent with what James has written, and also the position put forward by Mike Russell. I do not have access to the Sunday times article mentioned by James. Did it explicitly compare Scotland to Catalonia? This fills me with fear and rage. The movement for independence in Scotland has conducted itself in a civil and respectful manner, within the law. I do not believe that the people of Scotland would find it acceptable to be treated as Catalonia has been treated by the Spanish government.
ReplyDeleteScotland is a Nation IN a Union. The Act of Union is a legal issue.
DeleteJulia Gibb there were two Acts of Union - one passed in the English Parliament and one passed in the Scottish parliament. If you are referring to the act of union in its wider sense and not legal sense then act should be used not Act.
DeleteWhat is important is the Treaty of Union.
No need to thank me for improving your understanding and use of terminology.
Now Julia if I was a diddy like your pal Smearer Skier I would say something like:
Deleteonly a Unionist would be ignorant of that information.
Oh and you are pretty free with your Unionist accusations as well.
The plan Mike Russell set out the other day was the same plan set out last year, the year before that, the year before that, and indeed the year before that. ie. A referendum that is beyond legal challenge.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference is that it won't happen before the current pandemic is solved (possibly economically solved......).
You sound awfully nervous.
DeleteAye Right!!!! The Sunday Times live on a different planet from me! I don't think the craven SNP has any intention of calling a wildcat referendum or any other referendum for that matter.
ReplyDeleteIt's only unionists that refer to Scottish people holding a referendum as a 'wildcat' vote.
DeleteYou give yourself away craven Yoon.
DeleteI'm not the one referring to the democratically elected government of Scotland holding a referendum as a 'wildcat' action. As I said, only unionists try to claim a vote would be 'wildcat'. Does that include you? If not, then sorry for any confusion but you should better word your posts.
DeleteThere goes Smearer Skier with his "only unionists" say this or claim this accusations. Smearer have you kept a tally of how many independence supporters you have labelled unionists since first posting in 2014.
DeleteYou of course will reply none since they were all unionists. What a diddy. Wildcat is the wrong term but you just fling out your accusations of unionism like a a nasty spiteful drunk man.
Wildcat is the wrong term
DeleteYes, the correct term is 'legal, free and fair' referendum.
Thanks James .... Maybe we should simply cut out the middle man and simply ask Rupert Murdoch's permission. If he says it's OK then we'll leave it to him to tell Boris.
ReplyDelete#BetterTogether
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-trade/brexit-butchers-eu-trade-for-scottish-beef-producers-idUSKBN29U1A8
Brexit butchers EU trade for Scottish beef producers
Brexit has dealt a blow to Andrew Duff’s business. His burgeoning sales of high end Scottish beef to Europe are on hold because his business is too small to navigate the post-Brexit customs border for now....
...his Macduff business is now one of thousands across Britain that lack the financial firepower to throw at the myriad health checks, customs declarations and higher logistics costs that are required to export goods into the European Union.
"3) The UK Government mount a legal challenge and the Supreme Court uphold it, in which case no referendum takes place. (Although in a rational world the SNP would then move on to using a scheduled election as a de facto referendum.)"
ReplyDeleteWhats wrong with the May 2021 as a plebiscite? Carpe Diem.
Why don't you stand in your region on that commitment if you feel it's the best way forward? Margo got elected easily enough alone.
DeleteAlternatively, you could join the snp and campaign from within.
It's what people committed to the cause do.
Could be a stunning victory for Yes if unionists decide to abstain in a legal referendum.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-scotland/boycott-wildcat-scottish-independence-vote-says-scottish-conservative-leader-idUSKBN29U1CP
£50k spent by the Svotgov on helping people to lie (sorry it's called coaching seemingly) at the Inquiry sessions at the same time as people and businesses are crying out for financial assistance.
ReplyDeleteWhat a disgrace - it may be a much smaller sum of money compared to the tens of millions thrown away by Lord Advocate Wolfey but it would help a lot of people who are more deserving than a bunch of liars.
This is not what I voted SNP for and shame on anyone who defends it.
Are you suggesting the Salmond inquiry be shut down?
DeleteI would prefer to find out of the UK civil service was out to get him and if so, see Leslie Evans gone just as Salmond called for after the civil case.
Independence for Scotland - All your anti-SNP trolling is having no impact whatsoever.
DeleteI hae ma doots that you've ever voted for the SNP.
There is a feel-good factor in Scotland today with independence in the news in London as panic sets in.
If you don't want to "vote SNP again" that's fine wi me.
We've got votes to spare IMO and yours won't be missed.
It would be great if Scotland can continue to be part of Erasmus.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenational.scot/news/19031460.snp-green-politicians-welcome-news-brussels-may-open-eus-erasmus-scots/
Erasmus: Politicians welcome news Brussels may open EU scheme to Scots
It's vital that we bypass the UK in all dealings with the neighbours given the inward-looking, parochial nature of Britian.
So I understand an investigation hasn't found which unionist leaked the Alex Salmond allegations to the British media. Was likely the same one that leaked the Murrell tweets to the unionist media too.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders what an earth is going on.
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish government continues to come under fire for its slow pace of vaccine rollout, as UK government sources confirm that Scotland has been supplied with nearly one million doses, yet under half a million Scots have so far received their first dose.
UK government sources said that 984,000 doses were under the Scottish government’s control as of today, but making a weekly Covid statement to the Holyrood parliament, deputy first minister John Swinney said that 437,900 people had received their first dose, as of 8.30am this morning.
As the Guardian reported yesterday, the Scottish government came under fire as the latest data showed Scotland’s per capita rate of vaccinations of over-18s stood at 9.4% on Monday, lower than the UK average rate for over-18s of 12.4%, with England close to reaching a first-dose vaccination rate of 13%.
Describing the SNP government’s roll-out as “slow and sluggish”, Jamie Greene for the Scottish Conservatives said: “People do not understand why this government has half a million doses sitting unused.”
We can give the vaccine much more quickly if we just want a good headline and don’t worry about giving it to those who need it most but take longer to get to (care home residents)
DeleteRevolts me how people attack the brave Scottish NHS workers to score political points.
DeleteI understand the NHS Scotland strategy is different due to the different situation in the different nations, which affects deployment, which in turn affects the speed at which different stages can be achieved.
So, the same final goal may take the same length of time, but the route and speeds at stages different. Of course thick people try to make like for like comparisons of apples and pears.
You can see why the Scottish NHS have more freedom in the approach they take:
Deaths within 28 days of a positive test per 100k population:
105 Scotland
151 rUK
7-day case rate per 100k population:
195 Scotland
377 rUK
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19031217.scotlands-covid-19-vaccine-roll-out-makes-absolute-sense-doctor-says/
Scotland's Covid-19 vaccine roll-out 'makes absolute sense', WHO doctor says
SCOTLAND’S coronavirus vaccine roll-out “makes absolute sense”, according to a World Health Organisation special envoy on Covid-19.
Dr David Nabarro told the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme that he is “glad” to see people in care homes, who are among the most at risk from the virus, being prioritised.
I think I'll trust the WHO!
It is self-evidently much more difficult and risky to vaccinate care home residents due to the fact you need to go to them in what is the most high risk environment possible, and because of their vulnerability.
DeleteThe vaccine does not confer immunity for a few weeks, and the first dose does not give full protection.
One accidental contamination of a care home while attempting to rush vaccinations could result in huge death toll. The risks are much lower for younger adults who can come to specially designed vaccination centres with all the facilities in place for outbreak control.
But then of you can get care home victims done first, then you protect the most vulnerable.
Any way to speed it up is welcome, but for god's sake don't rush and risk lives just so you can 'get one over on the jock vermin'.
@ Unknown, You are either incredibly gullible (a mug) or you are concern trolling. I've ruled out genuine curiosity, because a pro Indy blogspot specialising in polling & sometimes Eurovision isn't the best place to seek answers to your questions. So I'm forced to conclude that you really are a fucktard or you just want to spread the SNP/Scotgov baaad pish.
DeleteTypical abuse from SNP supporters whenever you question anything. Foul mouthed insults are just a sign of desperation.
DeleteI know understand why you posted the above unknown.
DeleteI'm just looking at the UK headlines right now.
Virus outbreak control is of course primarily a reserved matter.
@ Unknown,
Delete"One wonders what is going on"; not really a question, followed by your dissemination of the, context free, slow rollout propaganda pish absolutely does indicate you are either gullible or a concern troll.
FYI, conflating support for independence with support for the SNP, rather shows your true colours.
If you really are curious as to why, then in a nutshell, the Scottish government have prioritised the most vulnerable who are generally more difficult to reach.
There is no guarantee that the UK government's approach is wise. Corralling large numbers of people into mass vaccination centres & playing fast and loose with the recommended time between doses? Gets the headline numbers up and, as a useful byline, gives them something to make Scotgov look bad.
If there is one thing I won't miss with independence, it's unionists and their parochial petty comparisons between the UK nations.
ReplyDeleteNext they'll be on telling us the latest unemployment figures.