Journey to Independence
For those constantly asking “what next?” or claiming there is no path beyond repeatedly requesting a Section 30 order, the answer is this: there is a path, but it isn’t a shortcut. It lies in building a sustained, undeniable democratic mandate through the Scottish Parliament, and using that mandate to shift the argument from political preference to constitutional necessity. This is not about begging Westminster, it is about establishing a position so clear, consistent, and legitimate that it carries weight beyond Westminster, including in legal and international contexts.
*
As I’ve said before, and it is no small point, there can be no storming the gates of independence. We must walk through them, deliberately and lawfully, if we are to realise the opportunities beyond without division or exhaustion. Independence has to be achieved within the law, with space for reconciliation afterwards, so that no one in Scotland is left behind, regardless of how they voted or what they believed.
*
As I’ve said before, and it is no small point, there can be no storming the gates of independence. We must walk through them, deliberately and lawfully, if we are to realise the opportunities beyond without division or exhaustion. Independence has to be achieved within the law, with space for reconciliation afterwards, so that no one in Scotland is left behind, regardless of how they voted or what they believed.
That matters, because the nation we build after independence must remain a cohesive, cosmopolitan one. Any drift toward extreme nationalism or unlawful routes such as a unilateral declaration risks fracturing that social fabric before we even begin. History shows how quickly that path can lead to instability and lasting division. Scotland cannot afford that. We need a transition that brings people with us, not one that imposes outcomes upon them.
*
There is also a practical reality. Independence must be legally robust. If it is not watertight in terms of domestic and international law, it weakens Scotland’s standing in the world, particularly in areas such as EU membership or wider diplomatic recognition.
*
Legitimacy is everything.
*
That is why securing a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament matters so much. It is not just about forming a government, it is about establishing an undeniable democratic mandate. One result can be dismissed. Repeated victories, culminating in a majority government elected on a clear commitment to independence, cannot be so easily set aside.
*
At that point, the argument shifts beyond politics into constitutional territory. A sustained and explicit democratic mandate builds moral authority, and that moral authority becomes evidential. It creates a record that Scotland’s will is being consistently expressed and consistently denied.
*
There is also a jurisprudential dimension to this. Courts do not rule on sentiment, but neither do they operate in isolation. Within jurisprudence, a sustained and consistent democratic mandate forms part of the evidential context in which legal arguments are assessed, particularly in relation to self-determination. The repeated expression of a people’s will demonstrates that the issue is not theoretical or fleeting, but settled and ongoing. In that sense, moral authority, when consistently affirmed through democratic means, strengthens legal credibility. It does not determine the outcome on its own, but it materially reinforces the case.
*
That record can then underpin legal arguments grounded in self-determination. If necessary, it opens a pathway to challenge continued refusal through international legal and political channels. This is how legitimacy is weighed globally, through consistency, clarity, and democratic continuity.
*
There is also a jurisprudential dimension to this. Courts do not rule on sentiment, but neither do they operate in isolation. Within jurisprudence, a sustained and consistent democratic mandate forms part of the evidential context in which legal arguments are assessed, particularly in relation to self-determination. The repeated expression of a people’s will demonstrates that the issue is not theoretical or fleeting, but settled and ongoing. In that sense, moral authority, when consistently affirmed through democratic means, strengthens legal credibility. It does not determine the outcome on its own, but it materially reinforces the case.
*
That record can then underpin legal arguments grounded in self-determination. If necessary, it opens a pathway to challenge continued refusal through international legal and political channels. This is how legitimacy is weighed globally, through consistency, clarity, and democratic continuity.
*
So, unity at the ballot box is not just about maximising seats. It is about constructing a cumulative case, moral first, then legal, that becomes increasingly difficult for Westminster, and ultimately the wider international community, to ignore.
So, unity at the ballot box is not just about maximising seats. It is about constructing a cumulative case, moral first, then legal, that becomes increasingly difficult for Westminster, and ultimately the wider international community, to ignore.
*
Perseverance is key. Step by step, building that mandate, strengthening that case, and carrying the country with us.
Perseverance is key. Step by step, building that mandate, strengthening that case, and carrying the country with us.
*
That is how independence is secured, not by rushing the final stretch and risking a fall, but by finishing the journey on firm ground.
That is how independence is secured, not by rushing the final stretch and risking a fall, but by finishing the journey on firm ground.
Again a commentator who disregards dissolution of the Union. We are a partner in a union not a colony. It is not for one partner to legislate for another partner to dissolve the union. That’s the difference in jurisprudence between a colony and a partner in a union. Dissolution is recognised in international law and the UN provides for it.
You’re right that dissolution exists in international law, but the key issue is how you get there from the UK’s actual constitutional position.
The UK is not a treaty between two still sovereign states. In law it is a unitary state, with sovereignty held at Westminster, something the Supreme Court made clear in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and again in Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under the Scotland Act 1998. So there is no unilateral legal mechanism for Scotland to “dissolve” the Union from within.
That’s exactly why building a sustained democratic mandate matters. International recognition of self determination claims is not automatic, it rests on evidence. Repeated, clear electoral mandates create a record that Scotland’s will is settled and being consistently denied.
There is also a pragmatic constitutional point often overlooked. The Claim of Right 1989 affirms that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, and that principle has since been echoed through elections, referendums and parliamentary votes. It doesn’t override parliamentary sovereignty in strict doctrine, but it does strengthen the argument that any durable settlement has to reflect the clearly expressed will of the people.
So this is not about treating Scotland as a colony, nor about “asking permission”. It is about constructing the legitimacy that makes a constitutional resolution, whether negotiated or ultimately recognised externally, increasingly unavoidable.
Dissolution isn’t just declared, it’s justified. That justification has to be built.
I have a pin and there are 2.75 angels on the pointy end. Would you like to buy it?
The Scottish Government did not appeal the November 2022 Supreme Court ruling. The court unanimously decided that the Scottish Parliament lacks the power to legislate for a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent, which the Scottish Government accepted and respected.
1. How long might it take? I’m in for 60 years so far.
2. What if the 2014 referendum had gone 55 for and 45 against independence? Would that have been enough to deliver it?
3. Talking about “imposes outcomes” – Westminster does this all the time against the wishes of the majority of people in Scotland.
4. “can’t be so easily set aside”. Really? These days, it seems that those in power have little difficulty in setting aside democratically determined issues.
5. There is already a long-running record that “Scotland’s will is being consistently expressed and consistently denied”. How much longer is needed?
6. “consistency, clarity and continuity…”. Really?
Raymond Rose, can you provide some examples of how what you propose has worked and achieved its aims, in this case independence?
You’re asking for a timeline and a template in a situation where neither exists in a neat, repeatable form.
On timing, putting a fixed number on independence would be foolhardy given the current obstruction from Westminster. If it moves into legal territory, including potential routes through international jurisdiction, that process could take years. It could be quicker, it could be slower. There is no honest “date”. What matters is building the conditions step by step.
On mandates, 55–45 in 2014 would likely have been decisive because it was a single, clear referendum outcome agreed in advance. That’s the difference. Clarity and recognition matter as much as the number itself.
On Westminster overriding Scotland, that’s exactly why the strategy has to focus on building a mandate that is harder to dismiss, not easier. A fragmented signal helps them. A consistent one constrains them.
You’re right that mandates can be ignored, but not indefinitely and not without cost. That’s where repetition, consistency, and escalation matter. One-off signals are easy to set aside. Sustained democratic pressure is not.
As for examples, there isn’t a perfect like-for-like case, but look at Kosovo. Independence didn’t come from a single vote or moment. It was built through a combination of internal mandate, political pressure, and ultimately international legal and diplomatic processes, including engagement with international courts. Different context, yes, but it shows the pattern: political mandate first, legal and international recognition following.
That’s the point. There’s no shortcut, no single event that “does it”. It’s cumulative. Build the mandate, reinforce it, and then use it, politically and legally.
Step by step. There can be no storming the gates of independence, we must walk through them ensuring the position is legally water tight and that it leads to reconciliation and healing of our divided nation after the fact. A nation whereby we jointly move forward, together as one cosmopolitan body without strife.
The answer is this: Building a sustained overwhelming majority in favour. Not in Holyrood – in real life. Good luck with that seeing as Scottish political independence isn’t exactly the most interesting subject among people in Scotland.
I’d say that currently the ground swell of opinion is there. And the forthcoming election will hopeflly make that clear. I doubt, there’s any doubt about, what the SNP are running on, first and foremost, this time round… it’s definitely Independence.
We’ll see.
Good piece, I agree.
I also think we need to break free of the “everything depends on the SNP/if only the SNP did this” mentality. The purpose of the SNP is to win elections and to make a success of government in defence of Scottish interests. Which is good.
But we also need a broader movement – maybe similar to the Assemblea Nacional Catalana (ANC) – which challenges the legitimacy of continued UK rule. We need more legal actions against UK government decisions – such as the block on Chinese investment in the Highlands. We need a more organised challenge to the bias of the BBC – this will be controversial but we need to de-legitimise the BBC (and the right wing print media owned by non resident tax dodgers). We need popular mobilisation against nuclear or against pylons to take our cheap electricity South. These are not roles well suited to the SNP, we waste too much time lamenting they are not a civil activist movement – we need to build one.
Which is not to say the SNP could not be bolder in governmnt too – land reform is a good example. But we need something in parallel that has the space to be more provocative in a positive sense. We need to stimulate engagement in the discussion of self government and the better choices we can make.
All the best,
Andrew
Andrew – I think your analysis is correct. There is only about 1/3rd of population who believe in independence as a fundamental principle. The remainder of current support comes from people who either think it would benefit themselves and Scotland and/or are completely disenchanted by Westminster.
There is also no more than 1/3rd (probably less and shrinking) of population who are fundamentally opposed to independence as a matter of principle. The secret to persuading those yet to be convinced about independence is to demonstrate how it would improve their own lives and Scottish society. Many of these people are. distrustful of professional politicians and are more likely to be motivated to get involved with causes that are relevant to themselves or their community. This type of action can empower individuals which in itself can lead to them becoming more engaged in other activities. The challenge is for independence movement to engage with these people and thus help demonstrate how independence would be beneficial to them and their community in their everyday lives.
This may also help independence movement counter the disillusionment that has developed with SNP due to the length of time they have been in government, lack of vision and an implacably hostile media.
You need to read article 2A of the Constitution of Scottish National Party.
Hi Andrew, actually, I think what I have described above, is exactly the game plan that the SNP will implement, if the forcast majority is forthcoming.
I’m an advocate for both votes SNP, precisely because it presents continuity, consistency, clarity and the strongest unified message to Westminster what the will of the Scottish electorate is at this point in time.
Apparently there was an ancient Greek self-curse along the lines of “if I break faith, let me win by just one vote”, obviously such a blood-curdlingly horrific outcome that anyone would wish to avoid it. Yet, here we are, evidently having learnt nothing.
Ethno centric films, litrature, music (unless its Palestinian). Wowe. Churn it out.
Last year I commented that the Eberdien Nigg Bay industrail expansion unfortunately didn’t involve the demolition of the Balnagensk council chicken hutches. A couple of months later the Council evacuated all of them to places unknown. No comment here. SNP council. SNP blog. #Indy. #Government. #Phonezombie.
“There is also a practical reality. Independence must be legally robust. If it is not watertight in terms of domestic and international law”
It has to be legal in terms of international law. As self-determination i.e. the right to choose is a human right of peoples recognised by the United Nations then so choosing is automatically legal in the eyes of the rest of the World.
As regards “domestic law”, I presume you mean ‘British law’. Which is to say, the law as laid down by the British Parliament at Westminster. If you wait for that parliament to ‘ok’ the democratic choice of the people of Scotland you will wait for ever. If you as them to sanction the popular will of the people of Scotland then why would they acquiesce? What would they gain by doing that?
A scrupulously democratic process overseen by the Scottish parliament (and its agencies) and where there is no interference with, influence over, or involvement in, for example, a proper constitutional referendum by the British parliament is the route to restoring Scotland’s full self government. If the people opt by a majority for nation-state status then Independence should be declared by the Parliament.
That declaration will, by necessity, be unilateral. That is, it does not require any agreement by the British parliament. Requesting the blessing of the British serves to undermine the decision of the people. It would be granting the British state a veto.
In Scotland it is the people who are sovereign, not the British parliament.
Duncanio – the big problem with Holyrood organising its own referendum is that Westminster parties will in all likelihood not only not recognise it but campaign for No voters to boycott it. In these circumstances what is an acceptable mandate to the Scottish electorate?
If there’s a ‘boycott’ so what?
A referendum organised by the Scottish Parliament and its agencies would be a democratic event. As long, as I said, it’s scrupulously democratic then nobody can rationally argue against that.
Just because people don’t participate doesn’t negate the event. If that were the case all elections would be declared null and void (as turnout is generally only around 65% in British ones and 55% in Scottish ones).
If you bow to non-participation then that is the same as bowing to a Westminster veto. There is no difference.
No, you set up a proper constitutional plebiscite, scrutinised possibly by neutral observers from the UN or some other objective agency, and stand by the result.
What a terrible site this is, you cannot read a comment through as it keeps putting you back to the start of the coments, and asking you to post your comment and hit the I’m not a robot always
I am having issue with posting replies too. Some are not loading, and like yourself after attempting it simply return to the top of page.
To be fair its not Bella Caledonia to blame here, the issue is one that rests solely with WordPress the providers of the service, who seem to be experiencing technical issue and that periodically happens to most sites over time.
Dincanio – I am a supporter of an independent Scotland and a democrat. Much as I want to see Scotland being an independent country I would only accept it when I am sure it is the will of the majority of the people in Scotland.
If Westminster continues to refuse Holyrood request for another referendum I would be happy to have a referendum carried out, without Westminster agreement, with international observers to ensure it was fair and transparent and recognised internationally. If the No side participate then a simple majority is sufficient but if they boycott it, which is a real possibility if they think they may lose it, there will need to be a different criteria than a simple majority to indicate that the people of Scotland are in favour of independence.
Is thst criteria a higher Yes vote than in 2014?
Is that criteria a higher Yes vote than No vote in 2014? The opponents of independence will claim that anything less than 2,000,000 votes in favour doesn’t signify a change of heart.
IMO it would be difficult to convince people within and outside Scotland that the country was behind independence if the Yes vote is not higher than it was in 2014.
These are some simple practicalities of holding such a referendum and we need to be crystal clear about what constitutes the will of the people before embarking on such a route.
John,
You do not have a monopoly on being a democrat. I am too – that is why Independence can only be declared once the proposition is BACKED BY THE PEOPLE (DEMOS). That is why I said:
“If the people opt by a majority for nation-state status” only then should Independence be declared.
As to your points about boycott of the ‘No population’:
How do you even measure that if, as you say, they don’t participate?
That is, how would you determine within the non-participating population of registered voters what proportion supported the Union?
What would be an acceptable turnout? 55% as per Scottish elections? 65% as per British elections? A minimum of 85% as in 2014?
Who would decide?
None of your points are practical.
But they would guarantee a victory for the status quo.
Duncanio- it will be fairly obvious if there is an organised boycott. If there is and turnout is below 50% the Yes vote will need to be greater than the 2014 Yes vote to credibly claim it is the settled will of Scottish electorate in my opinion and more importantly in all probability in opinion of my fellow countrymen and international opinion.
John,
You are advocating for something like the George Cunningham 40% rule from the 1979 devolution campaign. Only this time it’s undefined.
All you are doing is granting a veto to those that support the Union.
Duncanio- you are wilfully failing to understand what I am writing. I was disgusted with the 40% trap in 1979 referendum- interestingly the Yes vote in 1979 and 2014 was 37% of total electorate.
I would suggest that if there is a boycott by No voters (as happened in Catalonia) there will need to be an acceptable threshold. You cannot wish the 2014 referendum result away regardless how much we didn’t like outcome. If less than 50% of electorate engage in a referendum of such magnitude (when previous engagement was 85%) there has to be question marks as to how well it represents the wishes of electorate. I am saying that if Yes side increase vote from 2014 that will render this question invalid. It is an important question because acceptance of result by Scottish electorate as well as other countries will be important in the early years of an independent Scotland.
Following your logic that any Yes majority is acceptable then you could hold a referendum where only you vote and you would claim that is an acceptable majority.
If we can persuade the majority of Scottish electorate that independence is the best way forward for Scotland then all these questions of what is a mandate become irrelevant. Holyrood can then hold a referendum without Westminster approval in full knowledge that the majority of electorate in Scotland will support independence.
“I was disgusted with the 40% trap in 1979 referendum- interestingly the Yes vote in 1979 and 2014 was 37% of total electorate.”
That statement is incorrect. At the 1979 devolution referendum. Yes represented 51.62% of votes cast. With turnout at 63.72% that represents 32.88% of registered voters (not 37%). It was 37.8% of registered voters in 2014.
“I would suggest that if there is a boycott by No voters (as happened in Catalonia) there will need to be an acceptable threshold.”
And I am asking you to define what that might be? And who would decide? You haven’t answered either of these questions.
“If we can persuade the majority of Scottish electorate that independence is the best way forward for Scotland then all these questions of what is a mandate become irrelevant. Holyrood can then hold a referendum without Westminster approval in full knowledge that the majority of electorate in Scotland will support independence.”
How do you decide that a majority of the Scottish electorate is in favour? Opinion polls? If so, which opinion polls? Would you include undecideds and refusals? What about likelihood to vote – do you factor that in?
Also you are suggesting that it’s only valid for Holyrood to call a referendum once the result is a foregone conclusion. But that is what a referendum campaign is for … to put forward the argument for your position on the proposal and win the debate amongst the electorate.
This comment is on behalf of Raymond Rose. In reply to the matter of Sovereignty raised above by duncanio.
With respect and in the interest of recognising perhaps different understandings on the matter of Sovereignty.
If the discussion is specifically about the sovereignty of the people in Scotland, then only one “Claim of Right” is directly relevant in modern constitutional argument, and that is the Claim of Right for Scotland 1989.
The older Claim of Right Act 1689 is sometimes invoked rhetorically, but its purpose was to settle the Crown after the Revolution of 1688 to 1689 and to define limits on monarchical power. It forms part of the historic constitutional settlement later preserved under the Acts of Union 1707. It is statute law, but it does not articulate a modern doctrine of popular sovereignty in the democratic sense now being argued. It addressed royal legitimacy and constitutional grievance, not a contemporary right of national self determination.
When people today refer to the sovereignty of the Scottish people, they are almost always referring to the 1989 Claim of Right. That document explicitly states that “the sovereign right of the Scottish people” is to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. It was a political declaration issued by the Scottish Constitutional Convention and signed by a broad range of elected representatives and civic actors. Its authority is democratic and political rather than statutory.
The significance of that declaration lies in the contrast it draws with orthodox UK constitutional doctrine. Under traditional Diceyan theory, sovereignty rests with the Westminster Parliament. Under the popular sovereignty tradition articulated in 1989, ultimate authority derives from the people themselves. That distinction is constitutional theory, not enacted law.
Subsequent democratic events strengthened the political weight of the 1989 declaration. The 1997 devolution referendum demonstrated popular consent for a Scottish Parliament. The 2014 independence referendum confirmed that the constitutional future of Scotland is treated, in practice, as a matter requiring direct popular endorsement. Westminster’s agreement to a Section 30 Order in 2014 reflected political recognition of that principle, even though it did not concede any permanent legal right.
Legally, however, the position remains unchanged. The UK Supreme Court confirmed in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament does not possess unilateral competence to legislate for an independence referendum. That judgment reaffirmed parliamentary sovereignty within the existing constitutional framework. The doctrine of popular sovereignty asserted in 1989 has persuasive political force, but it has not displaced the legal supremacy of Westminster.
So when discussing sovereignty of the people in Scotland, precision matters. The 1689 statute is part of historic constitutional law but is not the source of a modern democratic sovereignty claim. The 1989 declaration articulates the principle clearly, but it operates as political and moral authority rather than binding constitutional law. The argument for popular sovereignty is therefore powerful in democratic theory and political legitimacy, but it does not currently amount to an enforceable legal right within the UK constitutional order.
Although the Claim of Right for Scotland 1989 is not legally binding within the UK constitutional framework, it carries substantial normative force that could shape any future legal dispute concerning independence. Courts do not operate in a political vacuum. In constitutional adjudication, especially where questions of democratic legitimacy and self determination arise, judges frequently consider constitutional principle, historical context and expressions of democratic will. The 1989 declaration explicitly affirms that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, and that principle has since been echoed by electoral mandates, referendums and parliamentary resolutions. While it does not override parliamentary sovereignty in strict doctrine, it strengthens the argument that any durable constitutional settlement must reflect the expressed will of the people. In that sense, it provides a coherent jurisprudential foundation upon which future litigation could argue that popular sovereignty in Scotland is not merely rhetorical, but a constitutional principle with persuasive authority that courts may be compelled to weigh seriously if the issue of independence returns to judicial scrutiny.
Apologies for the length of response, but it’s important to have a full understanding of what is at stake.
Thank you to the editor for posting my reply, on my behalf, when the system was not functioning properly.
Hopefully, the glitch will be sort out over time.
Raymond Rose/Bella Caledonia Editor
Your arguments all pertain to the legality under domestic ‘British law’.
Of course ‘British law’ denies the right of the Scottish people to exercise their human right (in international law) of self-determination. The one that is protected under the UN Charter since 1945.
I agree that the authority of the Claim of Right 1989 is “democratic and political rather than statutory”.
But that’s the point. Any plan which facilitates the exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination must necessarily be
1. Democratic i.e. involves the people in a proper, fair, free, no (British) strings attached process
2. Political i.e. argues for (and against) a proposal to return Scotland to Independent statehood
3. Unilateral i.e. does not require, and should not request, the consent of the British parliament
(Note: Independence can only be declared if there is majority backing for the proposal).
Granting the British a veto based on (domestic) ‘British law’, as your argument effectively does, undermines democracy and Scottish sovereignty.
You either believe that the Scottish people are sovereign i.e. the boss or you do believe that Westminster is sovereign in Scotland.
You clearly believe it is the latter.
With respect, I have stated clearly what I think above. I can’t speak for the editor, he posted my comment on my behalf only because of a technical glitch. He may well agree with my interpretation, he may not.
Yes I believe that people of Scotland are sovereign here is what I stand and by what the claim actually says.
Claim of Right 1989
” We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.
We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:
To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland;
To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and
To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.”
That claim when discussed in the parliament at Westminster drew this conclusion…
” Question agreed to.
“Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.”
That is written into Hansard for the record. See link.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-04/debates/18070455000001/ClaimOfRightForScotland
The Claim of Right 1989 is a political declaration asserting the sovereignty of the Scottish people, but it does not have legal force in the sense of overriding UK constitutional law. However, as I set out in article it can still carry weight. I’ll not repeat it here just read the article again.
It really is that simple.
It is indeed really simple.
You make it complicated by placing additional legal hurdles from domestic ‘British law’ in the way. Hurdles that can never be straddled as I ‘ve pointed out previously.
It is necessary to break British law whilst remaining within international law if we are to exercise our right of self-determination and, ultimately, to choose to return to independent statehood.
Only those with colonised minds believe that we should and could ever satisfy British terms and conditions for exercising our internationally recognised human right to choose.
With respect, Im afraid you’re missing the point entirely.
Nobody is “placing hurdles” in the way. I am describing the actual constitutional and legal terrain on which this question is fought. Pretending those hurdles do not exist does not make them disappear, it simply leaves you with assertion instead of strategy. If your argument is that Scottish self-determination ultimately rests in international law, then those so called hurdles are precisely the ground on which the case would have to be tested.
Domestic constitutional barriers are not an argument against sovereignty, they are the very points that can be challenged through evolving jurisprudence, democratic mandate and, where relevant, international legal forums. International law overwhelmingly prefers self-determination to be realised internally within existing states, with external secession generally treated as a last resort in extreme cases.
That is exactly why the constitutional record, the 1989 Claim of Right, the 2018 Westminster recognition in Hansard, and repeated democratic mandates matter so much.
So I have to ask directly: what exactly is your proposed mechanism? “Break British law” is not a constitutional pathway, it is a slogan. Are you advocating unilateral declaration, civil disobedience, institutional noncompliance, or some extra legal rupture? Because if so, you need to explain by what means, under whose authority, and with what route to recognition by states and courts. International law does not simply reward law breaking because someone invokes selfdetermination. Recognition, legitimacy and legality still matter.
The whole point I have made is that the jurisprudential foundation is already there to jump the hurdles you dismiss, by forcing courts to confront the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and the clearly expressed sovereign will of the Scottish people. That is a serious constitutional strategy. Your position, as stated, sounds less like a route to independence and more like frustration dressed up as theory.
For some reason I cannot respond here.
My reply is @ 30th March 2026 at 3:39 pm (below)
Yes there is a glitch in the system. It seems intermittent. Hopefully it will be sorted somehow. It’s a tad frustrating. But it’s not Bella Caledonia’s fault it the platform they sit on. I’ve talked to the editor about it, so they are aware.
Computer/phone says no!
Based on 2024–2025 data, the EU countries with the shortest medical care waiting times and lowest unmet needs are Cyprus, Malta, Germany, and the Netherlands. These nations, along with Denmark, frequently report the lowest percentages of patients facing delays for appointments and elective surgeries.
SNP strives to have long waiting times for healthcare sometimes people have to suffer in pain and poor health for up to 10 years in Scotland
The SNP has bankrupted Scotland, destroyed the NHS as it is no longer fit for purpose, people cannot get a GP appointment, Ambulances are taking up to 30 hours to attend urgent calls to them, sick people are dying before the Ambulances arrive like one of my neighbours did, But if you call an Undertaker they will be with you within on hour 24/7 365 days a year. 750.000 people on NHS waiting lists in Scotland, some dying before they get treatment as the NHS in Scotland is just the PHS Private Health Service, people are on waiting lists for years, but if you pay you can see a Consultant in days, get an operation in weeks, So these Hospital Doctors and Consultants get an NHS Salary and only do private work for those that can pay The PHS in Scotland gets 17 Billion a year to treat people and we have 750.000 on waiting lists, The PHS gets £3500.00 per year for every person in Scotland, give that money to every person in Scotland into a Bank Account that can only be used for medical care or travelling to get medical care like going overseas, so people can take charge of their own health and look after themselves, as the PHS is not capable of that, The present system is just a massive fraud on the people of Scotland, they have no medical care but the PHS gets £3500.00 per year to look after them. And this is all under a SNP Government, If Scotland ever gets Independence it will become a BANANA REPUBLIC As Scotland is already Bankrupt. PHS Grampian has built a new £30 million Mortuary to deal with the rising amount of corpses of people dying because they have not got medical care, but they have not spent £30 million on improving care for sick people. But people need to remember if they become critically sick in a private Hospital they do not have any critical care facilities and are transferred to the PHS for treatment, so those that pay can get quick access to the PHS is the Private Hospitals fail them and the need critical care and are transferred to the PHS Critical Care Departments.
I acknowledge there is a lot of frustration and perhaps anger in your reply, but with respect the core claim, that the SNP have “bankrupted Scotland” and uniquely destroyed public services, doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
First, the basic point on “bankruptcy”. Scotland cannot be bankrupt in the way suggested because it is not fiscally autonomous. The Scottish Government operates under a fixed budget determined largely by the UK Treasury via the Barnett formula. By law, it must balance that budget every year. There is no mechanism for it to run persistent deficits or rack up sovereign debt in the way implied. So the premise collapses immediately. What you’re really looking at is how a devolved administration manages a constrained block grant in an era of austerity and inflation driven by decisions taken at Westminster.
That constraint matters. Since 2010, UK-wide austerity, Brexit-related economic drag, and recent inflation shocks have all reduced the real terms value of the Scottish budget. Yet within that, the SNP has chosen to prioritise health spending, social security mitigation, and public services over cuts elsewhere. You can criticise outcomes, but not pretend they’re operating with full fiscal freedom.
On the NHS, the situation is serious, but again, not uniquely Scottish and not evidence of collapse caused by one government. Every UK system is under pressure. If you compare performance with NHS England, Scotland often performs as well as or better on key metrics like A&E waiting times and staffing per capita, while spending more per head on healthcare. The pressures people are experiencing, difficulty getting GP appointments, long waits, ambulance delays, are mirrored across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. That points to systemic strain, not a Scotland only failure.
The “750,000 on waiting lists” figure sounds dramatic but needs context. Waiting lists across the UK ballooned after COVID due to paused procedures and backlog. England’s list is far larger in absolute and per capita terms. The idea that Scotland has somehow uniquely turned the NHS into a “private health service” ignores that private provision exists across the entire UK system and always has. The key question is whether access is still primarily based on need, and in Scotland, the NHS remains overwhelmingly publicly delivered and free at the point of use.
The anecdote about ambulances and undertakers is emotive, but anecdote is not analysis. Ambulance delays are a real issue, tied to hospital flow, delayed discharge, and social care capacity. Those are structural issues affecting the whole UK, not evidence of deliberate neglect or misallocation like building a mortuary “instead of care”. Infrastructure decisions like mortuaries are part of baseline service provision, not a trade off against frontline care in the simplistic way it’s presented.
The suggestion to replace the NHS with individual £3,500 accounts is essentially a shift to an insurance based or voucher system. That would fragment risk pooling, penalise those with complex or chronic conditions, and likely increase inequality in access. It’s not a fix, it’s a fundamentally different model.
Finally, the “banana republic” claim is rhetorical, not economic. Small independent countries across Europe operate stable, high performing public services with similar or smaller resource bases than Scotland. The question of independence is about governance choices, not an inevitable collapse.
I agree you can absolutely argue the SNP should be doing better in areas like NHS recovery, workforce planning, or GP access. But saying Scotland is bankrupt, the NHS is uniquely destroyed, and this proves inherent failure doesn’t stand up when you factor in legal budget constraints, UK-wide pressures, and comparative performance.
The SNP are the first to say they must do better and given independence, they or any subsequent government will.
The SNP had the Independence vote in 2014 and lost the vote, if Salmond had his finger on the electorates pulse he would have know that, If the SNP had won that vote would they now be going back to the electorates again asking them if they still wanted to stay independent, NO THEY WOULD NOT BEING DOING THAT. Do the prople of Scotland realise if they vote for Independence Scotland will be a BANKRUPT BANANA REPUBLIC, Remember England had to bail Scotland out after its failed veture into South America that Bankrupted Scotlland over 200 years ago.
Dylan you are some joker. The irony of contrasting your fevered imagining claiming that if the electorate of Scotland had voted for independence in 2014 they would be clamouring to rejoin the UK with the reality that since 2014 the Scottish electorate have returned a pro independence majority parliament on every occasion and Westminster has refused Holyrood’s request to hold another referendum is staggering.
The vitriol and desperation in your comments is typical of a section of opponents of independence who cannot contemplate an independent Scotland and who assumed that support for independence and political parties supporting it would diminish and ultimately disappear after 2014 referendum. I am sorry to tell you Dougal that far from what you hoped for support for independence has not diminished and even more worryingly for you it is higher in younger people and lowest in over 60’s. The independence movement and independence issue is not going away regardless how much you wish it were so.
And Independence is never going to happen, the Scottish people are never going to vote for that, Scotland only survives because of the Billions of pounds they get from Westminster, when that money disappears then Scotland will be Bankrupt, You are so confident of Independence bet all your assets on Independence in the next 2 years and see where that gets you, put your money where your mouth is, I put a bet on in 2014 that the Scottish people would not vote for independence and I won my bet, And if Salmond had a brain he would not have gone for an Independence Referendum on the results of the polls about Independence, BUT HE SELF DESTRUCTED, and after that he was a Nobody in Scottish Politice, he formed the ALBA party and it was like him a total failure. Just like he failed Scotland, Even his own Advocate knew what a waster he was.
Shortly after the trial, video footage emerged apparently showing Gordon Jackson on a crowded train making negative comments about Salmond and naming two of the alleged victims in the case. Jackson described Salmond as “an objectionable bully”, “a nasty person to work for… a nightmare to work for”, and “a sex pest but he’s not charged with that”. Jackson named two of the complainants despite a strict anonymity order still being in place. In a statement, Jackson declared his intention to resign as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Rape Crisis Scotland called for a full investigation of the video footage
Dyla – not sure what comes through stronger in your posts, your almost paranoid fear of independence or your if, you are actually Scottish, your self loathing of your country.
The other thing that does come through loud and clear from your ranting is confirmation that the Scottish government isn’t spending enough on mental healthcare.
Nothing constructive or coherent to say about the SNP NHS failings, just your usual attacks on the person detailing the truth facts and evidence you cannot deal with that, all you can do is attack and abuse people because you do not have the education and inelligence or the grasp of reality, keep living in your fiction and fantasy world of a new Scottish Banana Republic in May 2026. We have 15% of the Scottish population on NHS waiting lists,
According to Scotland’s Census 2022, 21.4% of the population reported a long-term illness, disease, or condition, with 1.3 million people having a condition limiting day-to-day activities, notes Transport Scotland. Disability is more common in deprived areas and among women (34%) compared to men (29%), as reported by NACWG. The disability employment rate was 51.4% in 2024,
1.3 million people disabled and unemployed 834.000 that is over 2 million people in Scotland not productive well where is the money going to come from to look after this 2 million people, perhaps the Tooth Failry or Santa Claus has the answer, because the SNP does not have the answer
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader and health spokesperson Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP has today said the SNP are disastrous for your health after figures showed that 834,073 are on NHS waiting lists.
New figures from Public Health Scotland show that as at 30th November 2025:
532,279 were on an outpatient waiting list.
155,789 were on an inpatient waiting list.
When these figures are combined with the latest figures for the total waiting list size for eight key diagnostic tests (146,005), the number of Scots on a waiting list is 834,073.
The suggestion to replace the NHS with individual £3,500 accounts is essentially a shift to an insurance based or voucher system.
If people in Scotland got the £3500.00 each year then they could get the best Medical Insurance for £1500.00 a year, and still have £2000.00 left,
Close the NHS down as it is not working, Doctors and Consultants are doing private work, but they get an NHS salary and treat people who are unable to pay with total contempt, if these Doctors and Consultants work for the NHS then it should be a criminal offence for them to do private treatment when they are employed by the NHS. Can a Bus Driver get paid by a company for driving a bus when he is not driving a bus for that company and is working and driving a bus for another company and being paid by that another company also.
‘The SNP are the first to say they must do better and, given independence they or any subsequent government will.’
There is absolutely no reason to assume that the SNP would do better after Scotland became independent. Their record of failures is depressingly long. To take an important example – one the SNP asked to be judged on – their record on schooling is abysmal.
One significant reason for this is the mediocrity of those put in charge of education. This reached its apotheosis when John Swinney, having failed to successfully reform schooling, ended up as First Minister. Others who failed in the same job were shuffled sideways.
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader and health spokesperson Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP has today said the SNP are disastrous for your health after figures showed that 834,073 are on NHS waiting lists.
New figures from Public Health Scotland show that as at 30th November 2025:
532,279 were on an outpatient waiting list.
155,789 were on an inpatient waiting list.
When these figures are combined with the latest figures for the total waiting list size for eight key diagnostic tests (146,005), the number of Scots on a waiting list is 834,073.
15% of Scotlands population is stuck on NHS waiting lists, many unable to work until they are treated, some have been on that list for over 10 years, a lady I know needed a hip operation, she was unable to work, was unable to leave her house because of the pain and discomfort, she had to wait just over 10 year for the operation, she needed a few months to recover, now she was very lucky that the company she used to work for gave her back her job, she was lucky that they were still in business. So for 10 years she was on benefits, not paying tax or National Insurance and sitting in pain for 10 years, That is the SNPs Scotland for you.
The Darien scheme was an ambitious, failed attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to establish a colony, named “New Caledonia,” on the Isthmus of Panama in the late 1690s. The plan aimed to make Scotland a world trading power by creating a land route linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The venture was a catastrophic failure that resulted in massive loss of life and capital, ultimately contributing to the Act of Union with England in 1707.
Faculty of Advocate Investigation: ‘boys club’ accused of closing ranks to protect their own
Posted on December 4 2020 at 11:02
Timeline:
March 29th 2020: Video released of Jackson seen to be discussing case details, calling Alex Salmond a ‘bully’ and a ‘sex pest’ and naming complainers in high profile sexual offences trial. Jackson is recorded stating that “all I need to do is put a smell on her” in relation to one of the complainers.
March 30th 2020: Jackson refers himself to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) following the publication of the footage
April 2nd 2020: Rape Crisis Scotland make complaint on behalf of complainers to the SLCC
April 3rd 2020: Jackson announces that he will resign as Dean of the Faculty with effect from the 30thJune, and earlier if the SLCC refers the complaint about him to the Faculty
August 10th 2020: SLCC (after four months) assess that there was sufficient merit to the complaint for it to be referred for investigation by the Faculty of Advocates on two of the three complaints
August 20th 2020 Rape Crisis Scotland write to SLCC to express disappointment at length of time taken to reach decision and decision not to uphold assertion that Jackson saying “all I need to do is put a smell on her” undermines confidence in the Faculty of Advocates
September 2nd 2020: Faculty confirms correspondence from SLCC received and gives Rape Crisis Scotland 14 days to submit additional material
September 4th 2020: Faculty communicate that Jackson has requested an extension, new deadline of 2nd October 2020
September 25th 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson has requested another extension, new deadline of 30th October 2020.
October 16th 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson’s request for extension, new deadline of 27th November 2020.
24th November 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson has requested yet another extension, deadline new deadline 18th December 2020.
Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland said:
“It’s hard to see this latest move by the Faculty as anything other than a boy’s club closing ranks to protect one of their own. Gordon Jackson’s behaviour in the aftermath of the Salmond trial was completely inappropriate and unprofessional. At the time he made these comments, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. It is unacceptable that over 8 months later he has still faced absolutely no sanction for recklessly and publicly naming two complainers, whose anonymity was protected by a court order, and talking about details of the case on public transport.
Gordon Jackson is a powerful public figure, he is a QC, the former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and has a legal team representing him in this process. The ten women from the case have no legal representation, with representations being made by Rape Crisis Scotland. This feels like an imbalance that Jackson is using to his advantage to delay the process.
The Faculty of Advocates have a huge role to play in upholding law in Scotland but they are not above it. Like all of us, Jackson must be held accountable for his actions. You’d be forgiven for thinking that Jackson is being allowed to pull the strings in his own investigation, fobbing it off until he is able to retire in peace. This is unacceptable, and in our view undermines public confidence in the Faculty of Advocates.”
Salmond helping an Illegal Immigrant and Drug Dealer stay in Scotland, this is what the SNP do to Scotland
In late 2009 and early 2010, then-First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond faced criticism for lobbying on behalf of a Chinese illegal immigrant, Zheng Bin, who was later arrested on drug-related offences.
Here are the key details of the incident:
The Intervention: On December 21, 2009, Alex Salmond wrote to the then-Home Secretary Alan Johnson, urging “favourable consideration” for Zheng Bin to remain in Scotland. Bin was a chef employed in a restaurant near Salmond’s Peterhead constituency office.
The Charges: At the time Salmond lobbied for him, Bin was an illegal immigrant. Shortly after the letter was written, Bin was arrested on an outstanding warrant in connection with the cultivation, supply, and possession of cannabis.
Context: Restaurant owner David Yau, who employed Bin, claimed he was unaware of the outstanding drug warrants.
And this is the type of people you want to run an Independent Scotland.
Former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell is facing a charge of embezzling £459,000 from the party over a period of more than 12 years, it has emerged.
Details of the case against Murrell, the estranged husband of former first minister Nicola Sturgeon, are contained in a copy of an indictment seen by BBC News.
According to the document, Murrell is accused of embezzling the funds between August 2010 and January 2023.
He is accused of illicitly purchasing items including luxury goods, jewellery, cosmetics, two cars and a motorhome.
Details of the indictment were first published in the Scottish Sun, external.
Murrell had originally been due to appear in court next Friday for a preliminary hearing in the case, but this will now take place at the High Court in Edinburgh on 25 May.
He made no plea during an initial appearance at Edinburgh Sheriff Court last year after which he was granted bail.
And the SNP did nothing about this when it was in government, Willie was MURDERED, No Postmortem, he is the only man in the world that allegedly shot himself in the head, then threw the gum 20 feet from his car without opening the window of his car, SNP allow Assassinations in Scotland
Willie McRae Forty Years On – 3000 Trees
ASSASSINATION: FORTY YEARS ON – From The Province Of The Cat by George Gunn
The dictionary definition of “assassination” is, “to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons”. So it was with the death of Willie McRae in 1985.
Willie McRae, a former Vice-Chairman of the Scottish National Party, was a Glasgow lawyer of Highland descent and he met his death on a lonely stretch of road, a short distance from the junction of the A887 and A87 roads in Glenmoriston, Inverness-shire, on 7th April, 1985. It was later discovered he had a bullet in the back of his head. He was 62 years old.
Willie McRae was an active nationalist and civil rights campaigner and prominent in the anti-nuclear movement. He was allegedly a homosexual and this was used against him as a slur. That he had a drink problem was common knowledge and like most people suffering from alcoholism was prone to depression and mental highs – possibly bipolar, but undiagnosed. After his death ,the British state used these aspects of his complex personality to discredit the life and work of Willie McRae in an attempt to destroy his reputation. I wrote my play, “Three Thousand Trees”, which was staged at the Edinburgh Festival in 2014 (along with Andy Paterson’s similarly titled and splendidly different show) to put the empathetic case for Willie and showcase the cause he ultimately gave his life for – Scottish independence.
There’s a lot bundled in there, but very little of it actually engages with the point under discussion, which was about current governance, public services, and how Scotland is run today.
On the only part that does touch your original argument, the claim that 2014 “settled it”, that’s not how democratic mandates work. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum was a vote at a point in time, on the basis of circumstances then. Since that vote, Scotland has repeatedly returned pro-independence majorities to Scottish Parliament elections. In any other context, that would be recognised as a continuing democratic question, not something frozen permanently.
The rest of the post moves away from that entirely.
The Darien scheme is a 17th century colonial failure. It has no bearing on the fiscal position, institutional capacity, or economic structure of a modern 21st century country. By that logic, no nation with a difficult historical episode would be considered viable today.
The references to Alex Salmond, Peter Murrell, or individual legal controversies are likewise not arguments about whether Scotland can govern itself or whether current policy choices are effective. They are either allegations, ongoing legal matters, or historical disputes. They don’t constitute evidence that “Scotland is bankrupt” or that public services are uniquely failing.
The point about Willie McRae moves even further away, into contested historical interpretation and speculation. That’s a serious topic in its own right, but it’s not connected to NHS performance, public finances, or the operation of devolved government today.
So if we bring it back to the substance: none of those points actually refute the argument that Scotland operates under a legally balanced budget, within UK-imposed fiscal constraints, and faces pressures that are broadly shared across the UK rather than uniquely caused by one party.
If he wants to make a case about modern governance, budgets, or service outcomes, that’s a focused discussion worth having. But what’s been presented here is a mix of centuries-old history, unrelated allegations, and wider grievances.
It would be more productive, and fairer to everyone reading, if those were separated out. If he feels strongly about those issues, he’d be better setting them out in a dedicated piece where each claim can be examined properly on its own terms, rather than trying to use them as a catch-all rebuttal to a different argument.
Raymond – I have moved from being sceptical about independence to being in favour in recent years. I have always been in favour of more self control for Scotland but for many years had reservations about whether it would be economically and socially beneficial to Scottish populace.
I informed myself about Scotland’s resources- generating >100%. of electricity requirements annually. In 2024 Scotland exported 21TWatts to rest of UK and imported 2TWatts. There are still significant oil and gas reserves in North Sea despite being told these were finished in 2014. Scotland has 77% of all inland water in UK and nearly 50% of tidal water.
Looking around Europe at other countries with similar population size to Scotland and often less natural resources they all seemed to be doing fine as independent nations.
All of the above led me to think why was I opposed to independence? This led me to question the answer I was constantly told ie that Scotland was not economically rich enough to adequately support its population. I then asked myself why if Scotland had all these resources wasn’t economically able to afford independence? This was the light bulb moment when I realised it was not being Scottish that was the problem but Scotland being part of UK that was holding Scotland, more importantly the Scottish people, back. Allied to the fact that Scotland votes differently from other countries in UK eg against Brexit, Tories have not won an election for 70 years in Scotland and too often gets a Westminster government that doesn’t reflect the electorate’s wishes in Scotland.
I am not naive and understand that an independent Scotland will not be a land of milk and honey and it will have many of the problems that bedevil it just now. It will however better represent the wishes of the Scottish electorate and will be able to fully concentrate on the issues important and relevant to the residents of Scotland.
People like Dougal who, for whatever reason, are opposed to independence are worried – hence the wild rants with Donald Trump use of capital letters! Many countries have become independent from UK and virtually all have been told how poor and unhappy they would be. It is very strange that not one of them has ever decided it was a bad move and tried to reverse the decision. Perhaps Dougal could reflect on this history rather than harp on about the Darien scheme – which was more about the wealthy in Scotland looking to get rich quick and letting down the ordinary people of Scotland. Plus ca change!
Your right, realistically it won’t be easy! There will be many challenges transitioning into independence and beyond, when it comes a reality, both financial and social. But I have the feeling that what ever those nature of those challenges are, it will be have been simply the right thing to do and something we can build a better future from. Step by step.
I get the frustrations and dare I say anger of some of the folk in this thread and beyond. But we must stay focused and pragmatic moving forward from this point in time. Questions of sovereignty and law must be recognised in real terms, not how folks would like them to be in wishful thinking.
Scottish Government failure.
The construction of the Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood is a major example of cost escalation, with the final bill reaching £414 million by 2004, over 10 times the original £40–£50 million estimate. Completed three years late, the project was plagued by design changes, management failures, and complex construction methods.
Another Scottish Failure
The Edinburgh tram project (Phase 1a) suffered a major overspend, with final costs reaching over £1 billion against an original £545 million estimate. Delayed by five years, the project was plagued by poor management from TIE (Transport Initiatives Edinburgh) and the city council. A 2023 inquiry cited “avoidable failures” including mishandled utility works and contract disputes
Another Scottish Disaster, because the SNP are FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE, The SNP could not run a bath without overflowing it
The Scottish ferry fiasco involves the construction of two dual-fuel ferries, MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa, which are years late and significantly over budget, with costs now approaching £460 million, over four times the original £97 million contract. Total costs linked to the Ferguson Marine shipyard issues have reached up to £1 billion, including repairs to an aging fleet.
Dylan, I gather your not a fan of SNP as it happens I support them. But honestly perhaps address your outrage and grievance in a stand alone post. This thread is not the best place to have it all out since it was neutral on party support.
Please let’s just stick to topic. There’s plenty of opportunities elsewhere to discuss the feelings and views of regards SNP negatively and positively elsewhere.
Let’s talk about the mechanics of independence here.
Raymond – I think Dylan is, in the words of Steve Bannon, flooding the zone. He throws out all sorts of statistics with no context- Holyrood is a devolved government within UK. The last 5 years in Scotland wrt to NHS etc have been disappointing but needs to be placed in context against performance elsewhere in UK. (I am very aware of this as I recently lived and worked in NHS in Wales). This probably explains that, while electorate are not enthused by SNP, they are even more sceptical of other parties based on how they assess successive Westminster governments. The SNP also benefit from a substantial number of independence supporters willing to continue to support party as best vehicle to achieve independence. I would suggest from reading Dougal’s increasingly hysterical posts that he is rabidly anti independence and SNP and the fact that polling for independence is ~50%+ and the SNP appear likely to retain power at Holyrood for an unprecedented 20 years is proving hard for him to process let allow acknowledge.
Lastly while I am happy to debate and respect people who don’t support independence I cannot respect the tone of Dougal’s comments such as banana republic etc. There are plenty other European countries of similar size and resources that have become independent and been successful. Dougal’s suggestion that Scotland, and more importantly the Scottish population, is somehow uniquely different and unable to govern themselves (à la Johan Lamont) is IMO insulting, implies a deep level of self loathing and frankly borderline racist in its nature.
The last 5 years in Scotland wrt to NHS etc have been disappointing but needs to be placed in context against performance elsewhere in UK
So again you are allowing Scotland to align itself with other failing states as if that makes it alright, why does Scotland not try and align itself with countries that have excellent health services and strive to keep up with them, Scotland lives down to the low expectations of itself and other countries, I am not against Independence if the SNP had shown professionalism financial competence in the last 19 years, Would any company in the World employ any of these Ministers to look after the financial interests of their company, you employ people of their employment History of Competence and Financial Probity, not any financial probity among these bunch of financial illiterate fools, Even Salmond was Bankrupt, If Salmond was still alive and he was made Bankrupt do you think Financial Institutions all over the world would be falling over themselves to seeking him to be a CEO of any ot their companies, only is they to were Financially Illiterate.
The best health services in the EU are consistently found in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. These countries offer universal, high-quality, and accessible care, with the Netherlands frequently topping European rankings, followed by Scandinavian nations. Key strengths include strong primary care, patient satisfaction, and excellent medical outcomes
Why does the SNP not try and align itself with these countries, but it wants to align itself with failing Health Services that makes them more comfortable
This comment shows the incompetence of the Scottish Governments and the totaly corrupt people that have been running Scotland, Fraudsters, Sex Pests, an assasssination of a highly honest and competent person and nothing done, Contracts going over budget, contracts delayed for years, NHS totally failing the people of Scotland, who in their right minds would believe that these incompetent and corrupt fools could suddenly become honest, competent and professional and make Scotland better for its citizens, They would make it better for themselves only, It is a bit like going into a Hospital and a Consultant botched up you operation, would you go back and allow the same Consultant to have another go at operating on you, if you was a fool then you would give him another chance to make things worse. Track record is what counts and the SNPs track record is Incompetence, failure, lies and blaming everyone else for their failure, Even if they got Independence they would be blaming Westminster or someone else for the next 60 years for all the SNPs failures, they refuse to take responsibility for anything, NHS a prime example of its massive failures. But again that is someones elses fault and allignes itself with other health failures in England and Wales, it is never going to be a beacon of competence, professionalism and success.
@Dylan Dougal, the SNP’s raison d’être (reason for existence) expires on Independence. The SNP will surely not be left to write Scotland’s political constitution, and the surest way to get rid of the SNP would be to achieve Independence. There will be nothing to hold the party together then. There will be no ‘track record’ for the government of an Independent Scotland.
A timely reminder that we must avoid a storming of the barricades. Just as Trump is rubbishing his country we should be very wary of very similar signs from Starmer & Co.
I was disappointed to hear Swinney inferring in his speech on Calton Hill that we all should be voting SNP 1 & 2.
I have changed my mind so many times and haven’t yet decided!
Tommy Shepherd makes great play of doing SNP 1 & 2 – I think I will trust him, as any analysis by “experts” blows my brains!
My view on D’Hondt and the case for SNP 1+2 is not something I’ve come up with on my own. It reflects the same assessment being made by John Swinney and by the SNP’s internal electoral and data specialists. They are analysing constituency-level returns, turnout projections, demographic trends, and regional swing patterns using data far more detailed than anything available to outside observers.
I place weight on that analysis for a simple reason. A professional campaign team has no incentive to promote a voting approach that harms its own prospects. Their objective is to secure as many seats as possible, so their modelling is built around what they believe achieves that outcome.
That is enough to guide my own choice.
Everyone should ultimately vote in line with their own judgement and conscience.
For my part, I vote with both logic and conviction. I am all in for the SNP. I sleep perfectly well knowing I have acted honestly and in good faith, and that whatever the outcome may be, good or bad, I made the decision I believed was right.
SNP 1+2
If you are you are as you indicate contemplating giving one of yer votes to a party or individuals that most likely will lose their deposits in constituency seats and not make the 5-6% level of percentage thresholds necessary to secure list seats. Then ask yourself how that would proactively support independence?
And before you pivot to SNP 1 + Greens 2, that only works if the Scottish Greens hit seat winning levels in each region under the D’Hondt method in the Scottish Parliament. In some places they might, in others they won’t. Where they don’t, those votes don’t convert and the seat goes elsewhere.
You’d still assuming uniform success across regions. That’s the gamble.
If you cast your ballots for the SNP in the constituency and/or region you are ratifying John Swinney’s manifesto to ask for a referendum from Westminster … a request that has been rebuffed preemptively … on a number of occasions. You are endorsing his
Split your votes between ‘pro-Independence’ parties is similarly pointless as none of them have a process that can lead to the return of Scotland’s independent statehood.
The vagaries of the Additional Member System of voting will be irrelevant to Scotland’s Cause until such time as there are parties that have ability to conceive of and adopt a process that can restore Scotland’s nation-state status and have the guts and guile to follow it through.
The D’Hondt electoral system is designed to reward parties on the ‘List’ voting who were punished on the ‘Constituency’ first-past-the-post system.
Thus, in 1999, Labour got 53 seats from Constituency voting but only 3 from List voting.
In 2021, D’Hondt similarly punished the SNP; 62 elected from consituencies but only 2 from the lists.
Voting SNP one and two is likely to lead to fewer pro-independence MSPs being elected.
It does however, prevent the emergence of an alternative pro-independence party which might, in the future, topple the SNP from its perch.
You think that the British will buckle if there is some undefined “repeated mandates”. It seems to have escaped your notice that there has been repeated mandates in UK general elections in Scotland (2015, 2017, 2019) and Scottish general elections (2011, 2016 and 2021).
You play by British rules … you lose.
A proper democratic and political process is available. It’s called the Manifesto For Indepdence:
1.
Repudiate the Section 30 process as an illegitimate constraint on Scotland’s right of self-determination.
2.
Declare one or all future Scottish Parliament or UK Parliament elections to be a plebiscite on the question of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to facilitate the exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination.
3.
Assert the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament on the basis of its democratic legitimacy and the sovereignty of Scotland’s people, citing the fact this is the only way the people of Scotland can be enabled to exercise our human right of self-determination.
4.
Recall Scotland’s Members of Parliament from Westminster to sit on a National Convention convened by the Scottish Parliament, with Members of the Scottish Parliament and such representatives of civic society as are deemed appropriate by the Scottish Parliament for the purpose of overseeing the drafting of a Constitution for Scotland.
5.
Propose dissolution of the Union with England subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament and ratification by the people of Scotland in a confirmatory referendum that stands as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our inalienable right of self-determination.
6.
Hold a referendum on the question of the Union under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament and subject to oversight and management by the National Convention and such bodies as may be appointed by the Scottish Parliament.
(https://manifestoforindependence.scot/manifesto/)
Due to commitments I don’t have time to respond well, but I think the article is well written and seems a reasonable approach to gaining independence. However, the problem is that being reasonable and emphasising taking only the legal route is acceptance of a prison sentence, they’ve been telling us that for years, just seems we’re not listening. Why a legal route? Accepting a legal position as defined by your overlord? I have to ask how much you actually want independence? If you want independence all routes must be up for grabs (and before you go there I’m not referring to violence). The purpose of independence minded people is to gain that independent state. it is for the other interests to decide how to deal with the way that has been achieved. Consequences? There will be consequences, no matter the route we take legal or not.
Raymond, how do you know WM will honour any legal show of public support? You seem to think that this will all be hammered out in some gentlemen’s club full of leather Chesterfield armchairs, cigar smoke in the air and brandy glasses in hands as the British government representative says “very well then.” It’s not going to happen. Independence is revolutionary and if you don’t see that that is the way they view it, we’ll never get it. Asking permission to fulfill your mandate is not democracy. Talk of constitutional legality in a state with no written constitution is madness. The supreme court’s decision left Scotland with a constitutional conundrum, as Mike called it in a previous article The Hotel California problem. But there is only a problem if you don’t just check out. We’re going to have to wake up at some point and take action or we have to accept our position as being but a region of the UK albeit with tartan institutions. I don’t want that, do you?
The above was in reference to Raymond Rose’s article. I agree with much of Duncanio’s approach.
@WT, which is why it makes so much sense that anyone pushing for Scottish Independence should also get behind British campaigns driving at constitutional reform/codification, including the abolition of the monarchy, of the Privy Council, of the House of Lords, of electoral reform, of working with international bodies to allow more radical constitutions for members, decolonisation of remaining imperial territories, putting the military, foreign policy, diplomatic service, security and espionage under democratic control, replacing Crown powers and the royal prerogative, ending secret treaties with other imperial powers and ethnostates, and so on.
At the very least, a new codified British constitution must make membership of the British Empire and UK optional. Which of course is the main reason it hasn’t happened yet. As an ethical principle, liberation struggles (if you see it that way) should be broadened.