Tom Harris and Liz Truss to secure the Union

At first it sounds like something from The Onion “Liz Truss set to secure the Union with new law to make it harder for the SNP to win”, but it’s not, its the Scottish Daily Express getting all over-excited about The Sunday Times scoop by Jason Allardyce (see here).

It is a sign of absolute desperation but also doesn’t make any sense. John Boothman writes: “UK ministers are considering introducing a referendum act that could wreck the campaign for Scottish independence. It would require more than half of Scotland’s entire electorate, rather than a simple majority, to vote to leave the Union before it would be allowed. The Sunday Times has learnt that senior government figures want to legislate quickly to introduce new barriers to independence in the event that the Supreme Court rules later this year that SNP plans to stage a referendum without UK consent are unlawful.”

Why the fear? They state that this is what they will put in place if the Supreme court rules against the Scottish Government.

What do they want? They want it to be illegal and then impossible?

Still, the cocktail of abject fear and desperation is palpable. Even the lackeys and faithful scribes know it’s a death-note:

The oleaginous Alex Massie squirms that he “doubts anything will really come of it” (it will):


… and poor Stephen Daisley has the fear:

“Across eight ComRes polls between May 2021 and June 2022, median combined support for another referendum within five years stood at 49 per cent. Across seven Panelbase polls between March 2021 and April 2022, the figure was 54 per cent. So 60 per cent is a hurdle but you wouldn’t have to be Aries Merritt to clear it.”

Neither are capable of recognising it as a disgraceful attack on democracy, and the country they purport to be from.

The accounts by these outlets are extraordinary.

Ben Borland, the Scottish Daily Express Editor talks of “The plan to defeat Nicola Sturgeon” as if she was an individual parachuted into post – rather than the elected First Minister.

Daisley too is a delusionist: “Let’s imagine a not-too-distant, all-too-plausible future in which the UK is in recession, burdened by vast public sector debt, and the prime minister of the day decides to embark on a programme of austerity. Let’s imagine, too, that the SNP still controls the Scottish government.”

I think by ‘controls’ he means elected.

As Liz Truss fails upwards crashing through the glass ceiling – she ascends to the throne with a platform of madness, a regurgitated Thatcherite agenda of wild reactionary politics, none of Daisley’s scenario is implausible, it is with us now.

As John Denham said: “It is hard to imagine anything more damaging to the long term future of the union than a UK government (whose majority rests on English MPs elected by less than half of those who voted in England) imposing such a high bar on Scottish independence.”

But these people are not interested in democracy. do not have democratic values just as we have watched them enjoy standards in public life descend into the sewer.

One detail from the Express which is worth noting is the origin of this latest ploy.

“The plan appears remarkably similar to calls for a “Clarity Act” from former Labour MP Tom Harris, who now acts as an advisor to Scottish Secretary Alister Jack. The Dumfries and Galloway MP is an influential figure behind the scenes in Whitehall.

Mr Harris has pointed out that Ms Sturgeon herself had backed the idea that another referendum should not be called until there was clear evidence that independence was the “settled will” of the Scottish people. However, she has backed away from this position under pressure from hardliners in the Scexit movement.

Writing in the Daily Mail earlier on Saturday, he said: “A Clarity Act or protocol (the name hardly matters) would provide some certainty to the whole nation as to whether another referendum was in prospect or not. Assuming that the threshold of support for independence was not going to reach the 60 per cent level for at least some time to come, elections at local, Scottish and UK level could once again be fought on the issues, not the constitution.”

Ah, bless Tom.

There’s devil in the detail.

Bill K Golden notes on Twitter: “So Scotland the Tories are considering changing the rules on how a Scottish referendum is run. Basically if the unionists don’t vote they win!!

Mr Daisley has noticed the same thing:

“There might be another problem. Among the many extra powers the Tories surrendered to Holyrood in 2012 and 2016 was substantial competency over elections. I’m not a lawyer and couldn’t tell you whether the SNP would be able to work around an enhanced majority requirement by legislating for compulsory voting, but I can tell you they would use every power at their disposal to overcome it.”

In a referendum Unionist withdrawal means they lose. Under their gerrymandered scenario it means they win.

The have lost and therefore they are manipulating the vote and suppressing democracy so they win.


Comments (17)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Axel P Kulit says:

    The harder they make it to get a win in a referendum the more likely the “Scottish Troubles” become. Probably preceded by civil disobedience and (digital and other forms of) sabotage. And the larger the SNP Majority becomes.

    1. 220905 says:

      The SNP doesn’t have the consent of a majority of the electorate; no one does. If it’s insisted that such a majority is required to legitimise the implementation of its constitutional policy, then coercion will indeed be its only recourse. But do you really think that the Scottish electorate will be susceptible to such coercion? Or is the ‘Scottish Troubles’ that you and your ilk are threatening us with nothing more than a fascistic wet dream?

      1. JP58 says:

        Holyrood has a majority mandate (on a PR system)to hold an independence referendum as the majority is based on parties who had a referendum in their policies and clearly campaigned on this issue. Under any parliamentary system this is the democratic will of the Scottish electorate and has established precedent via previous indy & Brexit referendum.
        This does not mean Yes will win the referendum if it were held.
        Re there being troubles in Scotland over the latest thresholds being suggested- apart from a few nutters I don’t see anything except some peaceful protests from vast majority of independence supporters.

        1. 220905 says:

          Yep, the SNP commands a majority of the seats in the Scottish parliament, and, under the so-called ‘Westminster system’ of parliamentary sovereignty, this (rather than a majority at least of the eligible vote, which the SNP doesn’t command by a long way) gives it the right to form a government and to use the coercive powers of the state to implement its policies and thereby impose its will on society on general. The SNP’s beef is that some of the coercive powers of the state are reserved to the UK government. My beef is rather with the ‘Westminster system’ of parliamentary sovereignty as such, which is democratically deficient, and which status quo the Scottish government’s prospectus for independence leaves untouched.

          1. JP58 says:

            Corrections to your reply:
            1.SNP does not have a majority at Holyrood it is in a coalition with Green Party whose votes it needs to pass for independence referendum.
            2.Holyrood is not the same as Westminster – Holyrood is based on PR while Westminster is FPTP.
            You may not like the current system of obtaining a parliamentary majority but this is the rules the election was fought on and all parties knew that especially Tories who ran their campaign on a Stop Indy Ref 2.
            You appear to take the approach of many others that if you don’t like the outcome you blame the rules that the election was fought under.
            I personally do not like Westminster FPTP system but accept that until a government is voted in to change it that these are rules of a Westminster election and I vote accordingly sometimes to keep a certain party out.
            To not accept verdict of the Scottish electorate as expressed in Holyrood election is being anti democratic.

          2. 220906 says:

            Reply to your ‘corrections’.

            1. The SNP might not *have* a majority of the seats at Holyrood, but it does *command* a majority.

            2. The SNP might command the majority it needs to pass legislation that authorises a referendum on the constitution, but does it have the legal competence to do so (which is a matter for the judiciary to decide)?

            3. Holyrood is not the same as Westminster, but Holyrood is still modelled on what is called ‘the Westminster system’ of parliamentary democracy. The Westminster system comprises:

            a) an apolitical head of state
            b) an elected parliament, made up of one or two houses
            c) a government formed by the political party or coalition that has majority support in [the lower house of] the parliament
            d) a ‘prime’ or first minister, who heads the government
            e) a cabinet of ministers, drawn from members of parliament, which collectively exercises executive authority and is accountable to the parliament
            f) the rule of law, which serves as important democratic check against tyranny, including the tyranny of a majority, irrespective of whether that majority is a parliamentary or a popular one
            g) an independent judiciary
            h) an apolitical bureaucracy that advises the government and implements the government’s policies
            g) a separation of power between the parliament (which makes the law), the judiciary (which interprets and applies the law), and the government (which implements and enforces the law).

            I don’t have a beef either of the current voting systems that Holyrood and Westminster respectively use to obtain a parliamentary majority; as I said, my beef is with the democratic deficit that the Westminster system as such produces in both jurisdictions, and which the Scottish government prospectus for independence leaves untouched.

  2. norm says:

    “surrendered to Holyrood” – Daisley

    Says it all.
    These people need to touch grass and frankly, get a life.

    1. Iain Lennox says:

      Hi Norm
      I respectfully suggest that the final word in your post should be replaced with “death”.


  3. SleepingDog says:

    I am in favour of a high-bar path-smoothed constitutional path to Scottish Independence (but not as the *only* path), but think about the implications for the British Imperial quasi-constitution: you’d have to have a proper codified Constitution! Not a royalist mishmash (legally Indepence is Felony Treason).
    “deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries”
    Perhaps contemporaries better understood, on the whole, Measure for Measure.

  4. Maclean says:

    It’s always been a matter of abuse masquerading as unionism and pulling out a three hundred year old piece of paper call “ the Act of Union”. If that’s the way of things , people of a skin colour different to what the English see as English would still be slaves . So why is Scotland still the Only nation of SLAVES under London rule . Westminster spouts on about democracy and the right to sovereignty and choice on one hand and deny Scotland it’s right with the other . This paedophile styled politics from the abusive Westminster parliament has to stop , it’s the only politicial arena where abuse ,intimidation,fear , hatred,aggression and corruption are tolerated other than some Tin Pot regime. Westminster forgets it’s the public that pays for them not the other way round . They are NOT our Masters , we the people are theirs. It’s Scotland the Brave , not Westminster’s Scotland the SLAVE .

    1. BSA says:

      Are we their masters ? Sovereignty in the UK lies with the Crown in Parliament, not the people – who are sovereign in every modern popular democracy. Correct me if I’m wrong but that seems to mean that in the UK the people exist only to serve the state and that’s probably exactly how the British Established;ishment sees it in practice.

  5. Squigglypen says:

    Why doesn’t Westmonster just forbid the Scottish nation from voting?…that way they might win ..for 5 mins or so…then the real Scottish troubles would start….what a corrupt, tangled system we inhabit.
    Here’s a solution for Westmonster… with the queen about to go to that great throne in the sky… cheating Charlie takes over with his paramour….Irish unification..the Welsh waken up…them damned savages over the border causing mayhem and refusing to sell their water et al…. …bring back Bojo…. that should do it…
    We wouldn’t need UDI…just walk away and count income from our resources that we would kindly sell to anyone who could afford them…….VAT@25%..(heavens we might have to subsidise the English….)
    For Scotland.

  6. Robbie says:

    They are forcing US into a corner by Literally trying to take away our Rights totally,well you Reap what you Sew, “wastemonster”

  7. Squigglypen says:

    Watching the announcement of the ‘New’ Prime Minister.Take a look at how the Union flag is now being folded…..see it?…an underhand way of promoting England….
    For Scotland

    1. Sam Gardiner says:

      I’ve noticed this since they started filming pronouncements from Boris and his brigade. The red cross of St George is always prominent to the exclusion (as far as possible) of the Saltire

  8. Martin Edmunds says:

    So basically making one person’s vote worth more than another’s

  9. john burrows says:

    Scots who continue to buy into the Westminster model of governance are simply not paying any attention to the shitshow the whole farse represents.

    Unionism is the comfort blanket which allay’s their fear of the unknown of a new nationhood. Unfortunately for them, they face an ever increasing bleakness in the future offered them by their “betters” in London.

    The pomp and circumstance of the ancient regime is now the only bread they will be allowed, in Global Britain. I am sure they will be mighty relieved their betters will get their fair share of tax revenues. As they always have.

    They will even now accept their own lifetime, and those of their children’s, indenture to the energy industries, to keep their houses warm and their stoves lit. From a resource extracted from the lands and seas about them. Huzzah!

    Self governance is a daunting path to take, be he person, or nation.

    Those who fear the future most will cling to the past with growing desperation. The quandary for them is their present future in the UK is not just embracing the past, but is rushing pel mele towards a revised 21st century version of the Dickensian denouement.

    Only those who benefit from this insanity, or are themselves round the bend, would consider this their best option. A solid 20% of the population these days.

    The maneuvers to once more change the definition of Scottish “democracy,” a concept they themselves fail to apply to the UK, only shows a desperation and fear of the consequences of their own stupidity in leaving Tories in charge of anything more than a street raffle. But they will never learn.

    It comes down to the simple choice of continuing to be run into the ground by the rogues gallery of creatures produced by Eton, or graduates of Glasgow, Sterling and St Andrews.

    I’ve chosen the latter, given the former has demonstrated its complete worthlessness, for all the world to see.

    The ruling class of Britain has gone insane. The UK will be a long time in bedlam.

    Scottish independence is the shock treatment that is not only needed to reform
    the politics of these lands, but is probably vital for its long term sanity.

    It is my hope that the people of England will finally move beyond the farce of letting “blue bloods” do anything more than cut ribbons at farming exhibitions. No one is born to rule.

    Modern nations should be ruled by those who have the talent to do so. A government without compassion is no government at all. That is why we turned our backs on Tory rule sixty five years ago.

    England, it seems, is not yet ready to do so. So be it.

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.