Indy Pledge

A new grassroots initiative just launched aims to “reflect the Scotland we want to be” and sets out simple positive principles with “the intention to encourage people to be mindful of how our actions, in person or online, can impact positively or negatively on the independence movement.”

This is a really great and overdue move which was kick-started by Carol Gilmour and members of Yes Kelty. It’s precisely the sort of self-organising code of conduct that the movement needs to be self-reflective and mindful of how we organise, how we communicate and how we are perceived by the wider world.

The project was launched yesterday at the re-launch of Yes Glenrothes and with help from Independence Live and Yes Dunfermline a group was formed to create the pledge which speaks to the idea of trying  to “see ourselves as others see us”.

As new Yes groups form – and old groups reform (as is happening all over the country), this is a great way to re-set the movement and to kickstart with new energy and focus.

The intention is to encourage people to be mindful of how our actions, in person or online, can impact positively or negatively on the independence movement.

By signing this pledge, individuals, groups and organisations are agreeing to abide by the following core principles:

  • We are an inclusive movement that values all people equally and does not discriminate on the basis of race, colour, gender, religious beliefs or non beliefs or sexual orientation.We will promote this inclusiveness in all our expressions and actions
  • We work with respect for all people, regardless of our politics or differences of opinion.
  • We are a peaceful organisation and apply peaceful means of achieving independence. 
  • We will promote a positive vision for independence.
  • We will work constructively towards the goal of independence: as individuals and as a movement.
  • We are an open grassroots movement and work with the utmost transparency in our ideas and actions. 
  • We are a broad and diverse movement, and expect individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and contributions to the campaign for independence. 
  • We are the grassroots of an independent Scotland. We believe that a dynamic and creative movement will bring a thriving Scotland, and we want all people to play a role. As we work towards independence, we will enable and encourage fellow members to develop their own skills and talents.

Sign up to the Indy Pledge at http://indypledge.online/

Comments (17)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. David McGowran says:

    It’s “Independence Live”. There is no such entity as Indy Live.

  2. David McGowran says:

    Thank you for your immediate rectification. 😀

  3. Crubag says:

    It’s interesting that the list of protected characteristics is so narrow. Possibly these were the ones that came to mind (the full list is: age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity). Given the accusations around age that have been made in relation to 2014 (and now Brexit), it could be worth adding all of them.

    And to expand the list further, it might also be worth adding nationality?

    1. all good suggestions will be passed on to the organisers – thanks

    2. SleepingDog says:

      @Crubag, I think logically the Yes movement must discriminate, albeit respectfully, on nationality (or at least national aspirations): that’s how self-determination works. Not all discrimination is unjust, inequitable, injurious or inappropriate.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Defining_“peoples”

  4. Robert says:

    Interesting to read “as new Yes groups form – and old groups reform (as is happening all over the country)”
    But this begs the question — when, if ever, will there be an Indyref 2? Because forming a group around the answer to a question implies that that question is likely to be asked.

    1. I don’t know the answer to that Q Robert – just reporting what’s happening

  5. Alf Baird says:

    IF Scotland is permitted an indyref2, and IF Yes win, and IF any Yes win is accepted, then what does anyone think an ‘Independence Scotland Act’ will look like after Westminster’s 500+ English MP’s and Lords have trampled all over it? I would tend to think any ‘independent’ Scotland determined via this route would possibly resemble one of France’s African ex-colonies with all the treasury and asset constraints locked in, plus some more ‘conditions’. Is a referendum really the best or only option to secure independence?

  6. Norrie says:

    I am going to hold off on signing this until I am confident it is not going be weaponised and used to berate those in the Yes movement who take a feistier approach.

    1. Lorna Campbell says:

      Norris: I, too, feel that this might just end up giving the British Nationalists another stick with which to beat us. Ah, they will say, so you admit that you have OTT cybernats in your movement; you admit that they’re using extreme abuse? Why else would you need to make this pledge at all? If it wouldn’t stand up in court, it is not abuse. If it is based on fact, it is not abuse. If it is based on extrapolation of facts and proper research, it is not abuse. Be very careful, folks.

      1. It’s a voluntary declaration of positivity and transparency … why would you be against that?

  7. David Allan says:

    I would prefer to read how these YesGroups intend to appproach any new campaign. Will they adopt the same tactics of 2014? How will the state propaganda machine be countered?

    Will there be an umbrella YES Headquarters with a Chief Exec – a new Blair Jenkins?

    Where will any funding come from?

    How will the SNP, Greens, and SSP organise themselves?

    Will a grassroots boots on the ground activity actually be necesssary next time. Should any campaign be brief and possibly entirely media based?

    I’ll wait to see how things develop before committing to any particular campaign grouping.

    I think many who were active campaigners in 2014 are waiting on some leadership and direction to emerge.

    All decisions being postponed until a Referendum or other alternative action (such as Alf Baird has often outlined) takes place.

    1. Alf Baird says:

      David, I remain to be convinced that a referendum is a good way far less a constitutional way to withdraw Scotland from the UK union, which is primarily what independence means. As I noted above, at best all a referendum (if permitted) would do is allow 500+ MPS in England to determine, should they be so minded, what an ‘independent’ Scotland might ultimately look like, which is unlikely to be very pretty; the latter would again take Scotland’s future out of the hands of Scots, perhaps forever. Moreover, we can all see what has happened post referenda with Brexit, and also in Catalunya. So referenda are hardly a panacea for anything. A referendum may be considered by some to be a ‘democratic’ means, but that does not mean it is an effective, far less even a constitutionally necessary requirement for Scotland.

      Scotland’s present constitutional ‘state’ (unlike Catalunya) as a joint creator and signatory to the UK union (i.e. with both England and Scotland remaining in a kind of ‘limbo’) exists primarily through the 1706/7 Treaty and Act of Union which was enacted in Scotland by a simple majority of Scotland’s MP’s and therefore Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK union may be effected constitutionally in the same manner. Scotland’s people have now for some time elected independence supporting majorities of MP’s and MSP’s which is therefore de facto independence, i.e. constitutionally, Scotland may be withdrawn from the UK union now, and the majority of Scotland’s democratically elected national representatives merely need to announce it, and that is their constitutional right. And Scotland’s national representatives may empower a Scottish Parliament to bring forward a ‘Withdrawal from UK Union Bill’ to enact this.

      Alternatively, at a subsequent general and/or Holyrood national election Scotland’s politicians may prefer to ask Scotland’s people to give them a very specific mandate to withdraw Scotland from the UK union, for which constitutionally a majority of seats would again suffice. Those in Scotland opposed to independence may seek a future mandate from Scotland’s electorate for Scotland to join or rejoin any particular union, and that is their right.

      So, constitutionally, Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK union can be, and may best be determined through Scotland’s national election ballot box, and this has always been well understood politically as well as constitutionally. Scots do not have to wait on England’s 500+ MP’s to give their permission for Scotland to hold a referendum for which the former would ultimately also determine the final outcome of, which is neither democratic nor constitutionally required.

      1. David Allan says:

        “Alternatively, at a subsequent general and/or Holyrood national election Scotland’s politicians may prefer to ask Scotland’s people to give them a very specific mandate to withdraw Scotland from the UK union, for which constitutionally a majority of seats would again suffice. Those in Scotland opposed to independence may seek a future mandate from Scotland’s electorate for Scotland to join or rejoin any particular union, and that is their right”.

        I am in complete agreement with this proposal. If TM says “now is not the time” again,then this is the way forward.

      2. Lorna Campbell says:

        It is, indeed, Mr Baird, the way forward, and the way to get around that massive NO vote. At the same time, we really do need to make our case in the UN and in the human rights arena. The 2014 referendum was an insult to Scotland, in that its result was decided before the vote took place. Mr Cameron absolutely needed Scotland to be aboard before the EU referendum, and every organ and tool of the state we call the UK was used to achieve that result. Also, three-quarters of one ethnic group, using the potential collapse of the Scottish economy on independence (as they put it) as a shield to ward off any deeper analysis of its motives, had already decided to vote NO long before the referendum was held – because a) independence might have affected their own comfort; and b) because their core belief was that Scotland is a colony of a Greater England, subsumed in 1707, and that is an imperialist/colonial stance by anyone’s standards. That we have yet to face the truth of this, says a great deal about our commitment to independence. We can expect, and indeed, did expect, in 2014, Scottish Unionists to vote NO; and we should have foreseen that NO vote from the EU residents, threatened with repatriation because, they were told, Scotland would be out of the EU on 19 September if it voted YES (total lie – no such mechanism exists), but what we did underestimate was the sheer determination of our English/rUK migrants to scupper an independence vote. I believe they will do so again, given the opportunity, and, certainly, the statistics suggest as much. I am certainly not anti-English, and I know that many English people actually voted YES and continue to support Scottish independence, but we have to take on board why we might not reach a majority for YES in any indyref2, and take measures to change course on how we achieve that independence.

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia