2007 - 2020

Locking the Doors

Stephen Bush is the political Editor of the New Statesman.

Here he puts our Prime Minister’s dilemma very well:

“If Boris Johnson kids himself that it’s sustainable for the Anglo-Scottish union just to say we’ll lock Scotland in the cupboard… I just think that’s crazy. If your partner says they’re going to leave you and your response is to say ‘I’m going to lock all the doors’, well okay you physically can do that, but it’s not a good idea and it’s a bad thing to do and it destroys the relationship…”

 

 

So what can be done to put pressure on Boris Johnson? It’s not credible to say that the options are a) wait for a legal referendum or b) hold an ‘indicative vote’. Both of these options are flawed.

We need to find a point of leverage to exert pressure. What does the rUK actually get out of keeping Scotland in the “Precious Union?”

Most of it is just a fuzzy sense of history and possession, a deep sense of entitlement. But stripping that away there are very specific tangible things that ‘Britain’ gets from Scotland being in place.

Here’s three ideas. You may have better ones.

They are world power through WMD, oil revenue and democratic legitimacy.

1. One of the great drivers of Brexit and Johnson’s election is a huge desire for prestige and power in the world. This is derived from being one of the top five permanent members of the Security Council. This only exists because of Trident. Trident is a source of power.

How about we create massive demos at Faslane? Shut it down and close it off. Demand that its withdrawn. Stop it on the roads. Valiant CND members are already doing this. The next AUOB should be at Falsane Peace Camp.

2. What if the issue of North Sea Oil became a constitutional rather than an ecological imperative?

On both the issues of WMD and oil the Scottish Government has limited powers. Both are reserved. But both are contingent on co-operation. Withdraw the co-operation.

3. The British establishment prides it self on some myths about the “Mother of All Parliaments” – the “world’s most successful union” etc etc.

With a majority of 80 the effectiveness of the 47 SNP MPs is questionable. We should consider whether its more effective to withdraw our MPs from Westminster until such time as we are awarded a Section 30 Order.

Withdraw legitimacy.

Distort and disrupt.

Comments (38)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.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

  1. Alex K says:

    I do not see how North Sea Oil could become a constitutional matter

    How could we paralyse the union (which would actually do something) if we withdrew our MPs from Westminster?

    What would non-cooperation involve and how could it be most effective?

    1. You dont see how North Sea Oil could become a constitutional matter?

  2. Graeme McCormick says:

    I can’t understand why the Scottish government Doesn’t use existing powers and raise all our public funds required for its programme plus a Universal Citizens Income by introducing a model of Annual Ground Rent to replace all existing Scottish and council taxes and set a zero rate for income tax.

    That would have a seismic effect on the relationship with the U.K. government.

    1. Papko says:

      Get the same person to pioneer “Basic income and ground rents etc ” who did the named person scheme, and brought in Minimum alcohol pricing.

      They took years and not much happened .
      Do you think they are capable of doing anything , apart from banging the table?

      Its a great result for the SNP high command, they can ask and be refused for the next 5 years.
      Sturgeon will appear defiant and determined and look good in front of her supporters and Bojo can refuse and look good in front of his.

      1. Lorna Campbell says:

        Papko: I doubt that the Scottish government’s keeping asking and being refused can be sustained for five years. The membership is already restive and angry at the lack of momentum. A complete lack of honesty about why we are in this situation of stasis in relation to independence needs to be addressed, too. We are going nowhere playing by Westminster’s rules and being oleaginously ‘nice’ to everyone in sight, even those who despise us and/or who voted against us last time for reasons that remain selfish and self-interested to a degree that is frightening, considering the kind of problems we are all going to face soon. The fear of being accused of all sorts makes cowards of us all, while the ones who need a ‘good slap’ (metaphorically speaking) for their arrogance, ignorance and sheer stupidity continue on their merry way, oblivious – or perhaps not – to their entire lack of self-awareness and/or mind-boggling self-centredness. That attitude must take years of cultivating to reach such depths of disregard for others’ rights. Oh wad some pow’r the gift give us… No voters from every demographic take note.

        1. Lorna Campbell says:

          That should, of course, be…”the giftie gie us…” Autocorrect – useless correct.

  3. Stephen Senn says:

    The oil argument held for some years but no longer has the same forcecbut you might like to ask “what did England and Wales get out of the Act of Union in 1707”? I think, to use modern parlance, it was not a zero sum game. Amongst other matters, the UK was cheaper to defend effectively than England and Wales and if an old enemy could be persuaded to become a partner and ally there would be a benefit for both parties. Of course, the ’15 and the ’45 showed that there were still problems on the road even if, many think (as I do) that to see this as an England versus Scotland story is to rewrite history. Subsequence is not consequence but the flowering of Scotland in the 18th century was truly remarkable and benefitted both parties.
    Regardless, IMO, the FM at the moment seems to be better at echoing the Tory successes (at the polls) than learning from their failures (coming up with a workable plan). Will she learn? I see no signs of it.
    To return to the first point, those, like me, who believe that the Union has not outlived its usefulness still see value in cooperation. That was what remainers like me felt about the European Union and some of us still think so about the United Kingdom.

    1. Douglas Young says:

      In reply to Stephen Senn

      You are posting on BC and unless I have read you wrongly you are a pro Unionist. Your comments are of little value as they are non existent on why ( given the current political climate )you still hold unionist views. However you are looking at BC. Clearly you must have doubts about the current constitutional arrangements in the UK. If I have misinterpreted you then I apologise if not I am confused by your comments on this site. Please explain.

      1. Hi Douglas – one of the things that makes BC unique is that we have reach beyond the sub culture of the indy movement and are read by people who dont agree with us already. This is essential.

      2. Stephen Senn says:

        Actually, it’s no secret that I dislike nationalism whether Swiss (I have been Swiss all my life) British (I also became British last year) or Scottish (I have lived in Scotland three times for a total of 18+ years so far and both my children were born here) or, indeed, any other. However, I also adhere to the dictum of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr that the opinions of those who don’t agree with you are particularly valuable. When it comes to the cause of Scottish Independence, whether you agree or disagree (and in my case it’s the latter), the argument of BC is of much better quality than you will encounter elsewhere. That’s why I’m here.

        1. Lorna Campbell says:

          Okay, SS, so you dislike nationalism. Do you consider the UK to be a particularly co-operative state? If you do, you are missing something, and I’m too polite to tell you what it is. It takes two to tango – always. Non-co-operation from one, finishes the game. That is the problem with the UK: it is incapable of changing itself, of evolving into something worthwhile for all of us. It is essentially England with bits on. Even 18 years here cannot give you the innate knowledge of what it is like to have been born into, lived in and experienced the UK, with your roots buried deep in the soil of Scotland. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m no racist, and I happen to believe that immigration is, on the whole, a good thing. However, Scotland is my country, has been for generations. I would no more think of going to Switzerland and pointing out that I think it would be better as separate national entities than I would go into England and tell them there that they are incapable of running an independent England. Co-operation between states and nations can only ever be a willing enterprise or it will fail. Eventually, I have no doubt, the human race will get there, but enforced imprisonment in a state we now have little affinity with, is abhorrent. With independence, we will be able to choose our friends and allies in the international community, and I do hope that England will be one of those because we have shared a commonality in the past, even though we have lost our road. It has nothing to do with not having other views; it has everything to do with being told there is only one view, and you are as guilty as that as the British establishment. You cannot see the problem because you are part of it with the views you hold.

          1. Stephen Senn says:

            I like to take the case of Switzerland as a positive example of what can be achieved. Our most recent civil war was 1847. To illustrate how independent the various cantons were, there is no need to look further than the subsequent creation of the Swiss Franc(1). At the time of the civil war there were more currencies than cantons. However, in 1848, after centuries of civil war, a decision was made to try and live together in peace. I have lived in both German and French Switzerland and England and Scotland, and can assert that the cultural differences between the latter pair are less important than those between the former (and the difference of Italian speaking Switzerland to the rest is off the scale!). I hope that the spirit of 1848 continues in Switzerland and that we continue to seek closer internal and external collaboration. I also see continued collaboration between Scotland and rest UK as a desirable thing and refuse to see this desire as negative.
            (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_franc#Franc_of_the_Swiss_Confederation,_1850%E2%80%93present

      3. Jo says:

        Douglas

        I’m happy to see Stephen here.

        While I support independence for Scotland and, most of the time, the SNP can rely on my vote, it’s also a good thing to be able to at least pay attention to other views.

        At times I’ve been accused of not being a real supporter of independence. Why? I disagreed with some SNP moves on some issues. For example, I think an indyref2 held too soon could lead to a second defeat. On lambasting me for this a poster on another blog said he didn’t care if the referendum was lost, the point was to secure a second vote. And there I was thinking the point was to win it!

        Following politics doesn’t mean closing everything outside your own views out. (I’m not suggesting you’re that way incidentally. )

    2. Chisenefrega says:

      Nicely moderate and reasonable comment , however if you consider that Scotland IS an independent entity then not independent enough

    3. Its an interesting argument that the Act of Union, like the acts of European Union was essentially an act of peace to bind in previously warring nations.

      1. Arboreal Agenda says:

        I just read The Steel Bonnets about the Borders in the 16th century and could not agree more. What became clear from that book is the intense Scottish – English rivalry but also that the very close and interconnected relations between England and Scotland are equally important, as well as familial relations trumping it all with Scots fighting on the English side and vice versa both in an official capacity but also as part of the general reiving culture.

        I genuinely do not think most people in England think of ‘ownership’ of Scotland. We grow up with the notion of the union so when an English person goes to Scotland, yes, it feels part of the land of we live on and not ‘foreign’, though once removed as it were, but it is not seen as an occupation, just where we live. Vitally it goes the other way – Scots in England should not see it as not ‘theirs’, because it is.

        I would have thought one thing that could be done for the independence cause would be not to up the divisive rhetoric because history tells us the links are deep and are in fact, permanent. Better to talk about how those will continue and are important(and in a way that is clearly just lip service) but from a politically independent position. The Union of Crowns was actually quite a useful way for this to happen but not that applicable now with monarchy essentially being an anachronism with zero real political power.

        1. Clare Galloway says:

          “I genuinely do not think most people in England think of ‘ownership’ of Scotland. We grow up with the notion of the union so when an English person goes to Scotland, yes, it feels part of the land of we live on and not ‘foreign’, though once removed as it were, but it is not seen as an occupation, just where we live. Vitally it goes the other way – Scots in England should not see it as not ‘theirs’, because it is.”

          People in a culture that are oppressing another culture often can’t see how they are doing so, but it does *not* follow that they therefor aren’t doing the oppressing.

          Because some English people don’t think they ‘own’ Scotland is simply an indication that they are unaware of the ways in which their economic, political and cultural privilege negatively affect Scotland.

          Just one good example is the economic migration of folks down south up to rural Scotland to retire, where young people thus can’t afford housing: for this reason, staying where I grew up was never (and likely will never be) an option.
          That is one very literal *ownership* of the very place in which I was was born.

          I could go into multifarious areas here; our culture, our values, our accents, dialects and languages, our spirituality, and so on – there are many and subtle areas where we’re systematically assumed to be ‘the same’ (or’British’), when in fact this is a means of projecting obligatory Englishness onto us.

          Mainstream media have been interpreting and diminishing our stories, and taking up all the airtime, whilst negating our voices and beliefs, for generations. It is a deep-rooted, complex unravelling which we’re engaged in.

          1. Arboreal Agenda says:

            In what way do I, living in Yorkshire, oppress anyone in Scotland or the nation generally? Simply by being born English perhaps and visiting Scotland, spending my money there for pleasure and business every now and then?

            The problem of richer people moving to rural areas and affecting the housing market and other things for local people has nothing to do with what country one comes from – it is an endemic problem that you will find people all over GB complaining about including where I live too. It is a class issue perhaps and certainly one connected to wealth differentials, but would only be seen as some form of oppression by ‘foreigners’ as part of a nationalism not of the so-called civic kind.

        2. Clare Galloway says:

          Hi again, Arboreal Agenda – thank you so much for your thoughtful response. It is good to have this dialogue, and to understand your perspective on these issues.

          I feel personally that your reply is by-passing the deeper issues I was trying to express: it’s not always about what one person is individually doing, but about what the effects of their collective privilege, choices and power are, over another culture. You personally do not have to be ‘doing’ anything, but you can still hold power over another nation through your very existence, not just through your political and economic choices (just the power of having that choice), but through the privilege of simply being a ‘superior’ culture. Part of the responsibility of a culture in privilege is, before anything, to listen to and hear the experience of the people who are being kept down by them.

          The culture of Englishness and the accepted norms of England are forced upon Scotland in myriad ways, including through English people having majority ownership of properties in many areas of Scotland, and relatively superior economic wealth (through migrating northwards), with English people often owning the core (or only) businesses in communities – they might also be at the centre of cultural activities and of local representation. (So far as I understand, this doesn’t work the other way so much: Scottish people do not take over English villages and towns, and make them more Scottish. We haven’t enforced Scots or Gaelic as the mainstream language anywhere in England, and our norms and values have been diluted much more into what is socially accepted down south, than vice versa.)

          This is not *just* about folks from the city moving to the country, though that is of course relevant; it is also about how a *culture* – the ethics, values, interconnectedness of people and place/ environment, language, dialects, accents, perspectives, rituals and meaning are infiltrated and changed, so that the culture and people become detached from each other – even at war with each other, and ultimately that people become both detached from the place, then completely removed from the place altogether.

          Yes, the class issue is one aspect of it, but the *oppressive* factor comes through one culture being deposed by another: through there being no means of the former culture keeping its roots – or even its presence – deep in land and the meaning and purpose of the place that they have been born into.
          ‘Modern life’ is making everyone suffer, but this particular variety of suffering that Scotland has under English rule, is one that we can at least focus on, understand, *express ourselves about* – and change.

          The problem with so much of the discourse on this subject, is that we are acknowledging relatively superficially what has been taken from Scotland, and how we might begin returning it.

  4. Voline says:

    Blockade the grouse shooting estates? That would hurt Johnson’s constituents and next to no one else. Also, justifiable on ecological and class war grounds.

    1. Good idea. Shut down Scotland in Unions playpark (aka the Highlands).

      1. Richard Easson says:

        Remember they have the guns. (and would probably get permission to use them if threatened)

    2. SleepingDog says:

      @Voline, arm the grouse?

  5. Craig Binns says:

    That is what what Irish MPs did in following the election in 1918. They refused to go to Westminster, stayed in Dublin and declared themselves to be the parliament of Ireland, Dáil Éireann. The UK declared this to be illegal, arrested its members, and war commenced. But Ireland finally seceded anyway. The bloodshed was pointless.

  6. SleepingDog says:

    I think the first part of (3) is why the second part of (3) is counterproductive. One of the main political benefits of sitting MPs is that they can gain access to information (for example, by participating in various committees) and disseminate it, particularly under Parliamentary privilege where they can say things in Parliament (including reading from secret documents and repeating allegations) without prosecution and with their words put into the record and available to the world’s media. What the SNP MPs should be doing is asking the most awkward questions possible and wrenching open the valves on the public disclosure pipeline that will pour out those myth-busting facts about the British Empire (as Labour and the Greens were apparently intending to do).

    For example, it seems like some awkward history regarding the Tasmanian Genocide is likely to arise from a new movie called The Nightingale (I haven’t seen it, although apparently some of its Australian cinema audiences have been walking out).

    I have not received any answer to my question of why there is no definitive history of forced labour in the British Empire. These are the kinds of questions that (SNP) MPs should be asking in Parliament (especially during relevant debates on, say, modern slavery). There is deeper point to this, and the method is a standard one that should work under Parliamentary rules.

  7. David Howdle says:

    Surely England gets other things from locking Scotland into the UK.
    1. Scotland is the only “region” of the UK that has, over decades, had a positive balance of trade with the rest of the world. England will, if Scotland leaves, therefore lose Scotland’s economy which currently subsidises the rest of the UK.
    2. The sea area, which would be Scotland’s, but is currently part of the UK’s territorial waters, makes up approximately 60% of that of the UK. England currently gets to trade Scotland’s fisheries away.
    3. What would, after independence be Scottish territorial waters means that England would, I believe, need Scottish permission to reach the north Atlantic by the direct route up the west coast. That is highly unlikely to be granted by an independent Scottish government in relation to nuclear naval vessels. Its alternative is to go the long way round the south of Ireland.

    Therefore the reasons successive UK Westminster governments have proved so resistant to Scotland leaving the UK are, I believe, very practical. They are economic and they are strategic. They are not sentimental and they are not altruistic.

    1. Yes we can make a lost of actual benefits rather than symbolic ones.

      The point is to apply leverage through geopolitical, economic or symbolic means.

  8. Clare Galloway says:

    Yes, absolutely: as Sleeping Dog writes above; a big part of what’s happening with the high support for conservatives just now, is the ‘last-stand empire-thinking’ – the entitlement and privilege that will not quite die yet – no matter how evident that it’s on its way out…

    The subtle but pervasive belief in the superior rights and power of a kingdom that has shrivelled to the palest imitation of its former Empire self: the subtle but pervasive belief of those within that kingdom, and those wanting to leave it, that the kingdom is still The Good Guy… the mentality that ‘this is how it has always been, it won’t change, it’s all meaningless’.

    No matter what logic is repeated, the core belief in the continuing reign of the ‘U’K would eventually be erased if it were not for ceremony, costume, royalty, fables and the heartfelt pride and entitlement which runs through it all. All of these things need to be dismantled and unveiled methodically, thoroughly – the whole class privilege and abuse of power on a horrific scale that lies behind it all. And the people who are defaulted into this numb state of compliance, have to be slapped awake!

    Like, they’re winning, if we’re even discussing the ‘theory’ of the NHS maybe being privatised in the future – it is already most of the way to being privatised – why are we not fighting with that information?! It has been going around the internet from before the whole TTIP drama, and there is a ton of information, if we go and look for it. I saw throughout the 2014 referendum, this repeated stance of being on the back foot, defending ourselves to inane ridiculousness that shouldn’t have merited air time. We should’ve been side-stepping that like a martial arts master, and renavigating to our direction, with the strong arguments that already exist.

    Alongside this, we as a Scottish nation have to use all of our inventiveness and creativity to find the best routes forward: it will come out of new, younger minds, alternative thinking; we have an immense wealth of this, and should tap into it.
    The solution of independence is unlikely to be won through material and physical effortfulness – through fighting and pushing and pulling … but by through the subtle force of *changing consciousness*. It HAS to happen that way, because the harder you push an entrenched, bigoted, tense, fearful person to come to your side, the deeper they entrench in their shit, and the muddier the field becomes.
    Rather than (as I read in The National’s campaign yesterday) seeking to ‘convert’ No voters, we have to look at removing the veils and the lies, the smoke and the mirrors, that keep the ‘U’K in its current state – so that people naturally no longer have a throne to sit in, a stage to command from, and so that the people rise up to the same level – we must occupy the power that we *actually* hold already; belief in it fully enough and act as though it IS.

    And we have to stop giving validity to the arguments and ‘reasoning’ for No that are utterly defunct: this is happening already – and will become easier in time: we can be positive that there has already been an enormous shift by even mainstream media, into a more ‘inevitable’ mindset towards independence.

    We should get on board that, ride the wave of it, and move forward… We’re in a period of significant change, and are moving from a stagnant and immobile position, to one of preparing for action.

    It’s vital that we see the long game, make intelligent use of leverage, know our power, hold to the Truth, and that we understand what is ready to easily shift when we push it.
    It is happening, it will happen, it is inevitable, it is moving that way. A vibrant, motivated nation cannot and will not be locked in a cupboard – we are already claiming our independence through myriad actions, and this will eventually filter into political action that reflects the collective direction that we’re heading in as a nation <3

    1. Robbie says:

      Very good piece of writing Clare Galloway I loved it,as an 80+ I,d hoped for us to be independent by now,but as you say it is inevitable and will happen ,and I,m going to be hear too rejoice in it

    2. Rosalind Lauchland says:

  9. Douglas Wilson says:

    Don’t get ahead of events, Bella…. you’re way, way ahead of events…

    We have to go through a process. Sturgeon submits the request, it is studied and responded to….

    I don’t take it for granted Boris won’t finally agree. I think he might well do.

    In any case, if he doesn’t, we start with persuasion and argument and “soft power” so to speak. We go through a process with English civil society.

    If all fails, we need to look at some of the things you mention, but I think England will agree before then…

    What England got out of the Union in 1707 was geopolitical above all . These days, they can get the same by a defence pact, say….

    1. Wullie says:

      Scotland is no more a region of the UK than England is a region of the UK. Just sayin like.

      1. Douglas says:

        WTF are you referring to?

        1. Clare Galloway says:

          I think that might’ve been a response to David Howdle’s comment above, Douglas.

    2. Lorna Campbell says:

      DW: you do realise that Johnson will be making trade deals with the EU, with the US and anyone else – often using our resources, assets and powers to do it? How do you propose to get Scotland out of disadvantageous trade deals in the future if we go along with them now? Has PFI/PPP taught us nothing? Never, ever allow anyone else to make contracts on your behalf because you will end up paying through the nose for them. We simply do not have years to argue the toss. We need to be going within the next six months or, at least, have started the real moves towards an independent Scotland, and we need to repudiate any deals made on our behalf now so that no foreign power is under any illusion that we will be independent and will make our own deals.

  10. Richard Easson says:

    Going back to first principals and looking at just what The Union is and stands for, could I make a point which i have made before ( so my wife tells me).
    The Union of 1707 formed The United Kingdom of Great Britain from the two Parliaments. As far as I can understand it , there is no mention of Wales, which was and still is a Principality. Ireland joined in , I think 1810 but then of course became independent and after partition the Provence of Northern Ireland was tagged on and the offical title as on our passports became The United Kingdom of Great Britain (and here I would add a comma) and Northern Ireland. To lump it altogether as the UK is wrong since this only describes Scotland and England in Union.
    Therefore, first of all to bang my old drum the actual Question in the EU referendum was flawed and lazy since “Should the UK leave?” is not a valid and inclusive question since iy does not mention Northern Ireland.
    Secondly if in a Union of partners on an equal basis if we take Scotland. England, Wales and Northern Ireland then the Referendum was a draw at 2 each. If we exclude Wales , remain won ,
    It has become a form of common parlance to be all encompassing with the term UK but for an official legal referendum of no small importance this is not on.
    Also when we (everybody ) joined The Common Market , Britain did so as a Unitary State but since devolution we now have seperate assemblies and a Parliament, perhaps not with full powers (England has none) and therefore these should be consulted by The European Authorities as to their positions on leaving.

  11. Graham Ennis says:

    OK. I have to agree completely with this. My key comment is that it has to be extended.
    Non-violent civil protest must be used relentlessly to pursue these aims.
    I would add:
    1:Contingency plans for any attempt to shut down the Scottish parliament. (Basically, mass silent resistance, a peace camp and masses of people, that make it physically impossible, unless they use severe violence and attack the parliament complex..)
    2: A statement by way of resolution of the majority MSP vote, that in no way will they be shut down, and will continue to meet and legislate. Also that any arrests of Holyrood members will result in severe measures.
    3:passive non-violent resistance to blockade border roads, seal off Faslane, and hinder in all ways possible movements of armed police and troops into Scotland.
    4:Blockade of the oil shore facilities.
    5: MSP’s to pass an order that Scottish law enables them to repudiate the present Monarch, who is not sovereign in Scotland, except by consent of the Scottish parliament. Then pass an order establishing an “Official administering the Constitution”.
    6: peaceful blockades like Faslane, of UK military bases, etc.
    7:An order of the parliament (majority vote) requiring all MSP members to swear allegiance to the Scottish People, and withdraw their vote of allegiance to the UK Crown.
    8:dismiss the present police authority and replace with trustworthy and reliable people.
    9: Notify the local councils that emergency powers will be instigated, and under those powers, all actions must be affirmed by the Parliament.
    10: Activate emergency powers.
    11:Scottish police to set up border posts on the border. All minor roads to be closed.
    12:Prior to any move by the London Government, a network of civil defence volunteers for emergencies is organised.
    13:Any MSP who refuses to consent to these tasks, is totally boycotted.
    14: Emergency plans drawn up by the cabinet for doing all of the above.
    15: all such preparations to be in place a month before Referendum two.

    The point about all this is to establish a political and economic trip wire for the UK Government, and show that the Scots are determined.
    this will force either a backdown, or a Catalan type confrontation, which will internationalise the situation.
    Since Scotland will be leaving to re-join the EU, the EU will either be neutral or supportive. Most of EU will be supportive of this.
    it will also, within the existing resources of the EU, make a clear and powerful effect on the London Government and international opinion, and make any use of force
    very difficult.
    I would add that if the Referendum says yes, then IMMEDIATLY the Scottish Government should declare an declaration of sovereignty and independence.
    All of the above will be possible. It just takes a stiff backbone by the Scottish people.

Help 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 to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.