Wednesday, February 24, 2021

A reminder: the public are behind the most important proposal of the Manifesto for Independence

You might be aware of the 'Manifesto for Independence', which has been drawn up by two SNP members in the hope that all pro-indy parties will endorse it and turn the forthcoming Holyrood election into a de facto referendum on independence, leading to the Scottish Government seeking international recognition as a sovereign state if there is a positive outcome. The two small 'pop up' list parties, Action for Independence and Independence for Scotland, have already signed up, but it's obviously going to be extremely challenging to persuade the SNP and the Greens to follow suit. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, though, it should be noted that opinion poll evidence suggests the public supports a key part of the manifesto. Here is the relevant result from the Survation poll commissioned by this blog a few weeks ago - 

The UK Government has stated that it will seek to prevent a Scottish independence referendum taking place for several decades, regardless of whether Scottish voters elect a Scottish Government committed to holding a referendum. In view of this stance, do you think pro-independence parties, such as the SNP and the Scottish Greens, should or should not include an outright independence pledge in their manifestos for this year's scheduled Scottish Parliament election, to give people the opportunity to vote for or against independence? (Scot Goes Pop / Survation poll, 11th-13th January 2021): 

Should: 45% 
Should not: 36% 

With Don't Knows excluded - 

Should: 55% 
Should not: 45%

OK, the Manifesto for Indy goes further than that and implies that there should be some sort of declaration of independence after the election, regardless of London's wishes.  But nevertheless, it's important that the public are at least behind the principle of using this May's vote as a plebiscitary election (ie. as a de facto indyref).  

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop stay afloat during this crucial election year, donations are welcome HERE.

Additionally, with the election looming many SNP candidates will be crowdfunding for their campaigns.  I hope to showcase quite a few of them over the coming weeks.  First up today is Gordon MacDonald, the incumbent SNP MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands.  At time of writing, he's just £300 short of his target figure of £3500.  You can visit his crowdfunder HERE.  

40 comments:

  1. I will support this but I feel we need the actual process for obtaining international recognition clearly spelled out. Otherwise this is little more than symbolic. A Declaration of Independence after the election is simply nonsensical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s down to the foreign governments themselves surely. They've got to balance whatever positive feelings they may have for Scotland versus the penalty was of supporting separatism in other nationstates. Meddling beyond your borders isn’t generally a good look. I honestly don’t expect much out of them while indyref2 remains just another hypothetical.

      Ex-ministers and think tanks, sure. But national governments making promises on our behalf? Nah. We can’t count on their support until the hypothetical becomes real.

      Delete
    2. Stephen, a democratic vote for independence is a democratic vote for independence whether the vehicle is a regular occurring election or a one of referendum.

      So how is it nonsensical?

      Delete
    3. Can you give me the specific legal authority for the proposition that one (or two) parties having a manifesto commitment in the lead up to an election that the election is also a referendum on independence can result in Independence. Will the ballot papers explicitly state this and will people vote on an Independence question as well as voting on the Constituency and list?

      Delete
    4. Stephen: That's not how a plebiscitary election works. What you're describing is, quite literally, a referendum.

      Delete
    5. That’s my point James and I am asking how a Declaration of Independence brings about the necessary legal recognition of such status as a result of a plebiscitary election.

      Delete
    6. If you understand the difference between a plebiscitary election and a referendum, I'm puzzled why you'd effectively ask if a plebiscitary election will be a referendum. Of course it won't. That's a feature not a bug.

      Delete
    7. We are at cross purposes. I am seeking clarification on the constitutional process envisaged following on from this Declaration of Independence referred to above.

      Delete
  2. The Claim of Right to self determination has been reaffirmed many times including on 4th July 2018, when the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that
    the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland's needs.

    With a majority of MSPs who have committed to the Manifesto For
    Indy Statement and/or political parties that have supported the statement then the Scottish Parliament is established as the only parliament that represents the sovereign rights of the Scottish People.
    The election result would provide final evidence of the sovereign will of the people that they wish and independent government. If election can gives the equivalent result as a successful referendum then the assertion is the same as the declaration of independence after a referendum and therefore not nonsensical.

    As I understand it international recognition could be sought by approaching other countries and the UN with the evidence of a lawful election, and our recognised sovereignty. In the event that there is any dispute then a case could be brought before the International Court of Justice which settles disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Broonpot - excellent post. It was also confirmed in a court case in 1953.

      Delete
  3. Latest Tory leaflet says a vote for the SNP means iref2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but they say that in every election, and then when the SNP win they still claim people don't want a referendum.

      Delete
    2. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - Smearer says that's alright then his pals say there will definitely be a referendum. 不不不不不不不不不不不不不不不不

      If he didn't lie all the time and continually smear people but mainly Salmond he would be quite funny.

      Delete
  4. True, But it's good to see the Tories two-faced position exposed well in advance of the election.
    The National front page let the cat out of the Tory bag.
    If the SNP as in 2011 gains a majority in May Boris Johnson and his Union Jaiket will be hingin on fresh air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crikey, Ramstam are you and the National only now realising the Tories are two faced and bad guys no wonder reading the submissions to the Inquiry are too much for both of you.

      Delete
  5. The message isn't getting through to the SNP leadership though. It they who arent listening to the voters. It is they who arent listening to the Scottish Nation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So many independence supporters are so used to getting Britnat shit dropped on them they are now unable to see when it is SNP/Scotgov shit being dropped on them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? Salmond has openly confirmed there was no 'SNP-wide' conspiracy against him in his submission. He was even clear he's never used that term.

      Salmond provided a list of just 4 people he said had personally acted maliciously towards him. 4 people. 1 of whom doesn't work for the SNP. None of them were MSPs and none are standing for election, so Scots voters can't be being shat on by 'the SNP'. By the UK civil service / Evans yes, but not by their elected SNP reps.

      Those he didn't name are those protected by the court order, who are civil servants mainly (7/9).

      It's therefore a straight out lie to say 'the SNP' have acted improperly and is twisting Salmond's testimony, persecuting him. Your taring a whole group from the actions of a few is classic right wing group punishment.

      We know that 1 of the complainers was a 'politician', so assuming they are still one, that would be 0.2% of SNP elected politicians.

      Salmond has helped Scots by showing them they can safely vote SNP now knowing that the SNP didn't persecute him and that the probability their local candidate was involved is essentially zero.

      Delete
    2. Extract from Salmonds final submission:

      "In addition to advocating the "pressurising" of the police (those text messages are public and before the Committee), Mr Murrell deployed his senior staff to recruit and persuade staff and ex staff members to submit police complaints. This activity was being co ordinated with special advisers and was occurring after the police investigation had started and after I ceased to be a member of the SNP. "

      Another extract from Salmonds final submission:

      "That includes for the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (Chief Executive), Ian McCann (Compliance Officer), and Sue Ruddick (Chief Operating officer) of the SNP together with Liz Lloyd, the First Ministers Chief of Staff. There are others who for legal reasons, as am not allowed to name."

      Yet the liar and Smearer Skier says it is nothing to do with the SNP or Sturgeon. Smearer Skier is keeping the correct company - all a bunch of liars.

      Delete
  7. Interesting analogy on your twitter James. However, I doubt that in many married couples splitting up one of them has tried to fit the other up for a long jail sentence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salmond doesn't accuse Sturgeon of this in his submission.

      Handily, he does provide a list of names, and none of them are standing for election in May, clearing the way for people to freely vote SNP-SNP knowing they won't be voting for someone who potentially acted maliciously towards him.

      This was already a fairly safe bet anyway give 7/9 complainers in court didn't even work for the SNP, but are UK civil servants. However, Salmond's wee list really helps clarify.

      Delete
    2. Smearer Skier (liar since2014) - Salmond obviously cannot name any of the alphabet women as he would be prosecuted by Sturgeons Crown Office.

      Delete
  8. Salmond's list of names puts to bed any 'SNP-wide' conspiracy. He's very clear that he has a bone to pick with a very small number of unelected individuals in the party who he believes personally acted maliciously towards him. And these are just accusations; those concerned are innocent until proven guilty just as was afforded him.

    His wee list does clear the way for people to safely vote for their local SNP candidates now, which is great news. None of my local SNP are on his list, so I'm good to go!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Can anyone shed some light into Alex's behaviour towards women that keeps being refered to? I can't see anything online regarding it, all I keep reading that although he could be abrasive demanding and possible a bit intemidating people who worked closely with him and knew him for many years never saw anything that raised any concerns about his behaviour towards women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's what Sturgeon and Murrell both said in their submissions.

      Delete
    2. He said any sexual relations were consensual and the jury agreed.

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18312641.alex-salmond-trial-former-fm-tells-jury-consensual-liaison/

      Delete
    3. I know that's why I'm really confused, she's now saying that he's making things up due to his past behaviour, as you say she has never raised any concerns about this in the past (as per her submissions) so was wondering what behaviour she was relating too:

      Maybe creating an alternative reality in which the organs of the state [were] all part of some wild conspiracy against him, for reasons I can’t explain, maybe that’s just easier than accepting at the root of all this might just have been issues in his own behaviour
      https://archive.is/CGMET#selection-983.1-983.266

      Is she now saying she does have concerns with his behaviour in the past? If so why has she previously said that she had heard of nothing that concerned her in all the time that she worked with him?

      Delete
    4. Is she now saying she does have concerns with his behaviour in the past?

      Not that I'm aware of. Her submission is clear enough.

      She says she never saw any evidence for sexual misconduct by Salmond. Then a load of women made complaints about him and he admits to (consensual) sexual relations 'on the job', which while not illegal by any means, can be professionally frowned upon (in some businesses it's a sacking offence due to conflicts of interest etc). It also opens you up to potential accusations of harassment, e.g. from a lover scorned. I certainly know that having an affair with a student of mine is a total no-no (even at PhD level I'd need to stop being their supervisor) and could land me in the shit. And who knows what they might start saying if they were 'jilted'; not everyone in the world is nice and honest.

      Sexual misconduct and inappropriate behaviour of course two different things. Flirting can be inappropriate but isn't criminal for example.

      This is why I understood salmond said he had 'made mistakes' etc. I'd class a male nationalist FM getting close to UK female civil servants as kind asking for trouble myself.

      So I can see why Sturgeon personally would see his behaviour as at least inappropriate. It's like her having an affair at bute house with the hunky kitchen porter or something. Not illegal, but not going to look good if it gets out, and pretty shitty for Murrell (unless he agreed to it!).

      Delete
    5. Anyway, Salmond doesn't accuse Sturgeon of being involved in is latest submission. She's not one of the 4 he specifically accuses of going beyond expected duties and being malicious.

      And of course this isn't proven in any way, nor is it the role of the committee to decide that either as only 1 of the 4 actually works at the parliament in a minor advisory role.

      Delete
    6. Adam, you are correct Sturgeons mask slipped during the Corona virus briefing yesterday when she went on a rant smearing Salmond.

      Delete
    7. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) is now mixing lies with smearing Salmond. I'll bet when this is over Smearer will try to claim he was just acting as a Devils advocate this is the sort of thing cowards do when they will not take responsibility for their words.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Corrected typo:

      Salmond named just 3 SNP individuals as acting 'maliciously'. That's it. Sturgeon is not named. These 3 are not part of the Scottish government; neither ministers nor civil servants.

      That is very, very far from some sort of 'SNP Gov conspiracy'.

      He's not pointed the finger at anyone in the cabinet or wider parliamentary parties and those are the people that count as they are who we vote for / who make our laws.

      This is the simple truth.

      Time and again I asked for a list of the SNP involved in this conspiracy. Salmond has provided 3 names and asked people to consider their actions. Just three names.

      It is all voters like me wanted. They can now freely vote SNP taking into account those three people (who are not standing) when they vote. Basically, they won't be voting for anyone who Salmond is unhappy with. End of.

      Delete
    10. Salmond has told Scots who he believes is not involved / did not act maliciously towards him. It clears the way for people to vote for SNP candidates with in good conscience.

      Delete
  10. If he loses control of Scotland,
    - er... sorry I meant "This precious Union" he'll be oot on his erse. Bonus.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great to know that Swinney and the SNP cabinet were not involved in anything.

    I think some on here should apologise for their attacks on Swinney, Salmond's friend of many decades.

    Also we should get apologies for comments such as the 'SNP trying to wipe Salmond from history'. Salmond makes no such accusation and only says he has gripes with a few individuals who are not even in the 'SNP Scottish Government'.

    I knew I was right not to trust wings about some SNP-wide plot. Salmond's submission confirms this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely. There is going to be meltdown in certain quarters and huge disappointment in the MSM and BBC. They will of course all still try to spin it, but they were alleging a complex conspiracy involving multiple parties, across a wide range of agencies. It turns out to have been certain named individuals who are not part of the Scottish Government. Those who were pushing this conspiracy theory should apologise, but I am not holding my breath. Let’s get this out of the way and focus on the May election. SNP both votes and a sound majority for Independence. I am hoping this has been a shot cross the bows for NS and she refocuses on the primary objective in the lead up to this election. A referendum this year is essential.

      Delete
  12. I'm in no doubt that the British State is behind all this turmoil. The initial plot was to cause infighting between Sturgeon and Salmond by throwing mud, and then exploit any resultant tensions to split the SNP. Going to court was probably not anticipated, but was gleefully seized upon when that happened.
    It's crazy that British civil servants are at the heart of an independence party that wants to leave the UK! Bonkers!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) posting a pack of lies.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "OK, the Manifesto for Indy goes further than that and implies that there should be some sort of declaration of independence after the election, regardless of London's wishes."

    You say this as If this was a rather unimportant side note, James. But to me this sounds like a big deal, and I kind of understand why the SNP would hesitate to make this their official position.

    I mean, I would love for them to show that they are dead serious about independence in their manifesto. But when it comes to maximizing their vote total in May, is this really a sound strategy?

    ReplyDelete