A Declaration for Independence, 2019


It is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. (A Claim of Right for Scotland, 1989)


Guiding principles for a new and better Scotland

  • It is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, now and in the future. In all political deliberations, decisions and actions their interests should be paramount.
  • Scotland should be an open and democratic society in which no individual is excluded, oppressed or discriminated against on account of their race, colour, faith, origin or place of birth, physical or mental capacity, sex, sexuality, gender or language.
  • Scotland should have a written constitution which clearly lays out the rights of its citizens, the country’s system of government and the relationships that exist between government, its instruments and powers and the rights of individual citizens.
  • Scotland should take its place as an independent country on the world stage, free to join international organisations and alliances for purposes of trade and commerce, and for the protection and care of the planet’s natural environment, without which the human race cannot survive.
  • Scotland should uphold internationally acknowledged values of non-aggression and self-defence, and should refuse to maintain, stock or use, for itself or on behalf of any other power or government, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction.
  • There should be clear separation of the powers of the Scottish parliament and government (the executive). The judiciary should be completely independent of government.
  • Independence will provide an opportunity to review and, where necessary, change the systems of both national and local government, in order to make them more accountable to the people and more beneficial to their needs.
  • Ownership of land, property and natural resources should be subject to open and democratic scrutiny. The ability of communities, both rural and urban, to own the land in and on which they exist should be enhanced and extended. There should be total transparency in the way property in Scotland is bought, sold or possessed.
  • Freedom of speech and action, and the freedom to work, create, buy, sell and do business should adhere to principles of environmental and communal sustainability and responsibility. Profit and economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of the wellbeing of the people or their habitat or that of other people or nations.
  • We affirm the values of care, kindness, neighbourliness and generosity of spirit in all our dealings. Such values are the foundation stones of a fair, free and open society where all citizens have the opportunities to lead the best, most fulfilling lives they can.
  • It is our belief that the best option now open to the Scottish people is for Scotland to become an independent country.
  • The alternative is to accept that Scotland’s fate would remain in the hands of others and that the Scottish people would relinquish their right to decide their own destiny.



Iain Anderson, broadcaster
Penny Anderson, writer, journalist and artist
Andy Arthur, graphic artist

Peter Arnott, playwright
Neal Ascherson, journalist and writer
Aly Bain, musician
Nerea Bello, singer
Margaret Bennett, folklorist and singer
Stewart Bremner, visual artist
Alan Bissett, novelist and playwright
Norman Bissell, writer
Robert Black QC, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law
Christine Borland, visual artist
Alex Boyd, photographer
Stuart Braithwaite, musician
Thomas Clark, writer
Calum Colvin, visual artist
Roddy Buchanan, visual artist
Stuart Cosgrove, writer and broadcaster
Brian Cox, actor
Robert Crawford, writer
Jessica Danz, composer
Sir Tom Devine, Professor Emeritus of Scottish History
Lari Don, writer
Jenni Fagan, writer
Angus Farquhar, artist and musician
Malcolm Fraser, architect
Brian Gibb, animateur
John Gray, film-maker
Stephen Greenhorn, playwright
George Gunn, writer
Joy Hendry, Chapman editor
Rt. Rev. Richard Holloway, writer and broadcaster
Robert Hodgens, musician
Kirstin Innes, writer
Kathleen Jamie, poet and writer
Jamie Jauncey, writer
Pat Kane, musician
A.L. Kennedy, writer
Liz Lochhead, poet, playwright, former Makar
Val McDermid, writer
Cameron McNeish, writer, climber
Jamie MacDougall, singer and broadcaster
Lorraine Mackintosh, actor and singer
Jim Macintosh, poet
Fiona MacInnes, writer and artist
Dr. Dolina Maclennan, writer and broadcaster
Aonghas MacNeacail, poet and broadcaster
Michael Marten, academic/photographer
Claire McDougall, writer
Mairi McFadyen, writer
Darren McGarvey, writer

Alastair McIntosh, writer
Helen McClory, writer
Dr. Ann Matheson, literary historian
Karen Matheson, singer
Alexander Moffat, artist
Momus, musician
Eleanor Morton, writer/comedian
Jemma Neville, author
Andrew O’Hagan, writer
Aidan O’Rourke, musician and composer
Don Paterson, poet
Michael Pedersen, poet
Karine Polwart, musician and writer
Eddi Reader, singer
Tony Reekie, performing arts producer
Prof. Alan Riach, poet and academic
Elizabeth Rimmer, poet
James Robertson, writer
Donald Shaw, musician, composer and producer
Ross Sinclair, visual artist
Chris Silver, writer
Donald Smith, storyteller
Elaine C. Smith, actor
Alan Spence, writer
Will Storrar, minister and academic
Em Strang, poet
Dougie Strang, writer
Gerda Stevenson, writer and actor
Chris Swan, photographer
May Miles Thomas, film director
Jamie Wardrop, artist
Sheena Wellington, singer
Prof. Gary West, musician and broadcaster
Alan J Willy, film producer
Douglas Stuart Wilson, writer and translator
Rebecca Wallace, singer-songwriter
Ruth Wishart, journalist and broadcaster
James Yorkston, musician



In the 2014 independence referendum, 55% of the Scottish people rejected the proposition that Scotland should be an independent country.

Since then, especially since the 2016 referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, the negative consequences of the 2014 result have become stark. (62% of Scots voted to Remain in the EU.)

Brexit demonstrated that while Scotland remains in the UK, its people’s right to determine their own political future can always be overruled by another country with a population ten times greater.

It is abundantly clear that the UK Government considers the desire of a majority of the Scottish people to remain citizens of the EU as irrelevant.

In these circumstances, it is completely reasonable that the Scottish people should revisit the question of independence.

And, given the predicted social and economic damage of Brexit in any form, the Scottish people should be able to vote again as a matter of urgency.

To deny that right is to deny the fundamental democratic principle of the Claim of Right for Scotland (1989) subsequently endorsed by the Scottish Parliament (in 2012) and by the House of Commons (in 2018).

The Scottish people’s right to determine their future should not be frustrated or denied by the UK Government or any other body.

Image credit: Momus

Comments (79)

Join the Discussion

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

  1. Mary MacCallum Sullivan says:

    This is terrific. Can we sign up to it? See how many signatures we can get?

    So now let’s promulgate this – take it into Westminster. Explicitly hold others to these standards and these values, and show that if they don’t meet them, we must separate, and be allowed to pursue this better path.

    Have a big event on 6th April next year. 700th anniversary of Declaration of Arbroath.

    Don’t keep it to ourselves!

    1. bringiton says:

      If we aspire to be an egalitarian society then this declaration should not just be for the great and the good but all Scots.
      Had enough of being ruled by an elite in London where it is only the favoured who get a say.

  2. Dougie Blackwood says:

    We hold these truths to be self evident.

    Are we to make it into a signed petition?


    If we can get 200,000 on a march, we should, hopefully, get 500, 000 to sign this. The sooner it is made available for signatures the better.

  4. Clara Hayes says:

    My name is Clara Hayes I am a political artist in Re-Action

  5. Iain Miller says:

    It’s comin’ yet for a’ that, for a’ that an’ a’ that
    That man tae man the world o’er
    Shall brothers be for a’ that!

  6. Daniel Raphael says:

    From today’s CounterPunch:

    “Like a misguided effort at summoning demons, Brexit conjured up creatures that are proving impossible to contain. The forces of history are finding their unruly way; the disaffected are starting to tear and itch. The EU bogeyman is becoming less real than the kingdom’s internal conflict. Hail, the Disunited Kingdom!”

  7. Squigglypen says:

    How lovely…but what about deceitful politicians..purring royals…self serving Scottish? landowners who send their offspring to Eton…a corrupt media. ..ad infinitum…
    ….and you want to take the latest idea to Westminister for their approval!….don’t make me laugh…UDI….we don’t need anybody’s permission to be a free nation… we only need the Scots to think for themselves for a change…

    You don’t sign up to an organisation without a get out clause…do we really think we have to get the permission of the rest of the UK in order to leave…
    (and oh whit a panic wid be in their breastie)….then the love bombs would start again…

    1. Bill says:

      Sqiggly, there is no need for UDI. A majority government, elected on an independence platform, could with legitimacy resile from the treaty of union 1707, which we entered as a free and sovereign nation. As was done by the parliament in Ghana and other states we declare ourselves quite literally free of the union. We could then go back to the Treaty if Arbroath and indicate, as was stated there, that as the house of windsor did not meet our requirements we would elect our own head of state. All of this carried out legitimately and would be recognised by the UN and others.

      If this declaration is what the majority of Scots want, and the marches in various locations would seem to indicate that it has traction, then it could be the stepping stone, adopted by the SNP on our road to independence


      1. squigglypen says:

        ..an’ then we could do this ..an’ then that….an we’d be legitimate…..meantime the opposition will sit calmly watching and purring ..I think not…but dream on….

  8. RICHARD GUNN says:


  9. Brian Morrison says:

    I agree that it is long past time that Scotland becomes an independent nation. I’m just an American with Scottish roots, but this must happen NOW! Continuing to be tied to the UK with it’s current government will only damage Scotland more with each passing year.

  10. Derek Henry says:


    By being at the heart of Europe this is nothing more than a pipe dream controlled by Brussels with no independence at all.

    So in short a declaration to be trapped with no fiscal or monetary policies.

    Stephanie Kelton Bernie Sanders economic advisor


  11. Derek Henry says:

    The fundamental design flaw of the Eurozone.


    The common Weal has spent years coming up with fiscal policies and monetary policies that would transform an Indy Scotland. They have listened to MMT’rs and now support a job guarantee and are now coming up with ideas of what to do with the commercial banks.

    None of their library and I mean zero , zilch , not one idea will be allowed never mind all of them under current EU rules.

  12. Derek Henry says:

    The Euro crises and permanent austerity.

    Every name that signed this declaration should be made to watch this presentation in Helsinki.


    Then the will change the declaration and finally start teaching Scottish voters the real dangers of the EU.

    1. Fraser Smith says:

      What your saying does not ring true Derek. Let’s look at what has happened since Brexit. Scotland voted decisively to remain, but has had our will entirely ignored as Westminster forces brexit upon us. Meanwhile, the biggest thorn in the side of those trying and failing to implement brexit is the ongoing protection which Brussels has shown Ireland, a small member country, by refusing any deal that goes against the Good Friday agreement. There may be many things wrong with the EU, but they are fixable if working from the inside, and pale in comparison to the complete afront to democracy that has played out in Westminster over the last 3 years which just demonstrates that the entire, ermine-clad, Oxbridge old boys club is well past its prime and no longer fit for purpose. I’d take an independent Scotland in Europe over continued Westminster rule any day and would sign up to this declaration in a heartbeat.

      1. James Gow says:

        And so say ALL OF US.

  13. Eddie Cairney says:

    Could also be described as a covenant, a very Scottish thing!

  14. Angus says:

    ‘Scotland should uphold internationally acknowledged values of non-aggression and self-defence, and should refuse to maintain, stock or use, for itself or on behalf of any other power or government, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction.’

    I have a question! (puts hand up). 1)If we get rid of Trident are we still going to remain under the US nuclear umbrella and in NATO? 2) If we leave and get rid of Trident aren’t the Poles, Swedes, Lats, Liths, Ests, going to be mighty pissed off with us given Putin has ballistic missiles parked in Kalliningrad and has rearmed the whole of the North Eastern frontier? (the Swedish Navy has headed underground again! 3) What do we do about the 52% of the world who are totalitarian and want to make the world 100% totalitarian? Looking at Russia and Turkey mostly but also China, Hungary, Philippines, Indonesia, Syria… wave this declaration at them?

    I love poets!

    1. Angus says:

      Okay, so that post was a bit glib. But the underlying point remains. One of the weaknesses of the Indy movement with regards to moderate voters is the lack of a realistic foreign policy given the shifting power structures of the world. It’s all very well virtue signalling about Trident and pointing at the UK as Neocon. But most folk actually understand the nuance that things aren’t black and white. For example, New Labour’s liberal intervention in Kosovo and Sierra Leone was highly successful (especially in the latter given that Rewanda was the other option had Britain not used military force. Iraq was a mistake, but there were (some) legitimate motives including redressing the earlier betrayal of the Marsh Arabs who were encouraged to rise against Saddam in Gulf 1 and then abandoned to their fate – their Marsh homelands were poisoned destroying a centuries old way of life. The other group of course were the Kurds who were also abandoned after Gulf 1. (by the Americans but not the UK albeit unofficial – hence the influx of Kurds into the UK and the turning a blind eye to cartels – Kebab shops, cafes etc for obvious means. Those means defeat ISIS.

      Conversely there was inaction in Syria.

      The point being. What will an independent Scotland’s foreign policy be? At the moment it is just Britain Bad, virtue signalling pacifism.

      Genuinely interested in people’s view point.

      1. May says:

        Surely the point is that Scotland’s foreign policy will be defined and evolved by the people of Scotland, through the elected and accountable parliament of Scotland.

      2. Jo says:

        “Genuinely interested in people’s viewpoint.”

        Having just read your own, I’d rather not debate with you.

        1. Angus says:

          Why not. Which part is untrue? New Labour came to power on a manifesto pledge to Liberal Interventionism. Blair laid out his conditions (5 tests) in Chicago – he renaged on his own test with Iraq.

          But the question still remains. Given the events with Turkey, people (moderate no voters) are seeking reassurance. The whole ‘nowt to do wi us’ won’t win anyone over. What is a prospective reasonable foreign policy?

          1. Angus says:

            I should add that the motivation for the New Labs Lib Interventionism was born of the failure of the international community (western dem) to prevent Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia/ Croatia – Srebrenica and genocide in Rewanda.

            We now live in a world where the liberalism is being threatened and is under attack – And the authoritarians are winning. Russia, China, Turkey, Iran.

            What do we do about it?

  15. andrew gryf paterson says:

    Please can this declaration be opened up for addition persons to sign?

  16. Douglas Wilson says:

    This is an intelligent, well-crafted statement, with a tone light years away from the toxic politics we are seeing down south, one which I am sure millions of Scotland’s citizens would like to sign their names to.

    The poster further up the page may have a point that it could possibly serve as a basis for a new Covenant which could provide another rallying point for a civic campaign which can now be declared to be well and truly off the ground…

    1. Jo says:

      I don’t agree that the political debate is toxic only in the south. It’s equally toxic here in Scotland. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

      1. Maxwell macleod says:


  17. Angus says:

    I’ve posted this a number of times but it hasn’t been allowed. (which in itself is discriminatory – silence the messenger!)

    This section reads: ‘Scotland should be an open and democratic society in which no individual is excluded, oppressed or discriminated against on account of their race, colour, faith, origin or place of birth, physical or mental capacity, sex, sexuality, gender or language.’

    Yet every single one of the fifty signatories (or the vast majority as far as I can tell) are all White, Scottish born (or blood) and wealthy middle class. Is this the ‘diverse and inclusive’ forward looking Scotland we can expect after independence? Why are there no people of colour, Jewish, Muslim, English, Polish, Latvian, Irish (insert any immigrant/ migrant)? Would be interested to know why they didn’t consider this and how it looks from outside the Indy bubble.

    1. Angus says:

      After all, it looks very ethnocultural and not very ‘civic’!

  18. Raymond Davidson says:

    I believe that the First Minister has lost the confidence of the Scottish Independence movement…all praise for the A.U.O.B . marches for keeping the momentum of independence alive….Nicola is sleep walking into an election disaster if she does not give real leadership not political bluster…leave that to Westminster…freedom is never given.

  19. Richard Easson says:

    55% of “The Scottish People” did not reject the proposition. Scots and those who just happen to live here with no ties and less understanding are two different things inhabiting the same space but with the same right to vote because of nothing more than residence on one hand and National asspirations on the other.
    We do not know after the referendum how Scots feel or voted.

    1. Jo says:

      The fact is that without major changes to electoral rules, nothing will change the situation which you, and so many others, complain about. Why don’t you start a campaign for change and see how that goes?

      1. Angus says:

        Are you seriously advocating that only white Scots (on an ethnic basis) should be eligible to vote? Welcome to Belgrade circa 1992.

        1. Angus says:

          Actually, I’ve noticed a few posts like this on Bella and they are increasing. Is it Bella’s policy to turn a blind eye and allow allusions to ethnic repression (in terms of civil rights?) The ‘civic’ thing over is it?

          1. Me Bungo Pony says:

            The numbers indicated in Mr Easson’s post refer to the 55% of people actually born and living in Scotland who voted YES in the indyref. It includes people of all colours, creeds and ethnic backgrounds. I find it strange you believe only white people of strictly Scottish descent (if such a thing even exists) are born in Scotland.

          2. I’ll treat this with the derision it deserves

          3. Me Bungo Pony says:

            Having looked at Mr Easson’s post again, I believe he was referring to the actual 55% NO result rather than the majority of “people born in Scotland” who voted YES. Apologies.

        2. Jo says:

          “Are you seriously advocating that only white Scots (on an ethnic basis) should be eligible to vote.”

          Are you seriously addressing that question to me? Please READ what I said before you hurl abuse at the wrong person. I was responding to a post. I wasn’t agreeing with it.

          1. Angus says:

            I was referring to thread in general. Not specifically you. Although I assumed you were tacitly agreement given you didn’t criticise the notion. Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it, the whole civic thing was only ever contingent to the deeper objective. Everyone knew that.

          2. Jo says:

            “Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it.”

            I’m not worried. I just felt it was important to make it clear to you that I wasn’t agreeing with the post and that I absolutely don’t advocate votes for only white Scots. (For what it’s worth, I don’t believe the original post was advocating that either.)

            I pointed out that electoral law dictates voting rights for people who are resident in Scotland, or elsewhere in the UK for that matter.

            You are right that the subject has come up here before but it wasn’t about colour. It was concerning people from other parts of the UK who, it was suggested, were now living in Scotland and contributing to the anti-independence vote. I don’t know the figures for Scotland but I saw an interesting article in the Guardian recently about the Leave vote in Wales. It was interesting reading.


          3. Angus says:

            All this is very speculative. The problem is it says ‘English’ when there is no corrolation with ‘the English’ as a group voting for Brexit anymore than there were ‘Scots’ voting to Remain when you include the abstentions. E.g. The ‘English’ voted remain in higher volume in Leeds, Manchester, London, Bristol and many other places than they did in Glasgow or Dundee or Cardiff. So to assume the ‘English’ were to blame for the Wales vote is to miss the point. All you can extrapolate is that it is more about the retirement age vote who happen to be from England and move to that area, But the Welsh retirement vote also probably counted as they retire in the same areas etc.

            I don’t think this kind of thing is helpful as a friend of mine (who is from Sheffield pointed out). The lowest turn out/ highest abstention in the UK was in Glasgow (Yes voting area.) So you could equally argue that it was Glaswegians who are to blame for Brexit unlike English in Sheffield (which I don’t) but there is a point.

            And it leads in a pernicious direction as it assumes you can tell a persons voting intent by who they are which as far as Brexit is concerned given the closeness of the vote is simply impossible. Scot indy is different. English are ‘probably’ going to be more attached to the UK but again there is no telling. Besides if you go down that route then you are entering Balkan territory, which is why I called it out. 400 thousand English live here and 1 million Scots in England and if it a truly civic nationalism (which it isn’t as no nationalism ever is) then this kind of talk should be met with zero tolerance.

            Apologies if I included you. I see you were just responding.

          4. Angus says:

            I mean take a look at the turnout map. All the dark blue (highest turnout areas) are in England where the highest leave vote was. As with the lowest areas in Central Scotland the highest remain areas are lower. What this means is that given the 52% (2% victory margin) is that (if we assume that abstention is ambivalence) remain in England was potentially bigger. Just like Scotland, it never turned up on the day.

        3. Richard Easson says:

          Hi Angus
          I wasn’t really thinking in terms of ethnicity as you seem to think, but then again what are we talking about? A Scottish Referendum on Scottish Independence. Those are the paramiters. Was an English retiree friend (who voted no) right in being shocked that everyone in Britain didn,t have the vote in the referendum? My son and daughter who are Scottish could not vote on their country’s future because they live in London, …Fair? maybe , but is this ethnic exclusion? probably not but it is exclusion on some basis. If not much more than the same number who voted Johnson as PM had voted Yes instead of No the referendum would have been carried (about 140,000) it was actually that close.

          1. Angus says:

            Fair enough.

  20. SleepingDog says:

    Perhaps the wording could be improved here and there (I think *unfairly* discriminated against gives a better sense), and I am wary of the celebritization of the endorsement list, but I do not want to quibble, and this seems to be a generally sound effort with many exemplary ambitions that I could get behind.

    However, and here I find myself reluctantly quibbling, there are potentially contradictions within the set of statements. The “paramount” interest of the Scottish people is a little too close to America First, and it contradicts some of the other statements, such as protection and regeneration of the environment, if the popular will was to burn all the coal (or the forests) for example.

    Logically, there should be superordinate and subordinate clauses, like the Asimovian Laws of Robotics. My belief is that in this day and age we should be trying to make such statements as machine-compatible as possible (this may be how a future Scottish constitution-based legal system is produced), and perhaps the lack of scientists, philosophers, political theorists, technologists of all stripes in the celeb-list is indicative of a bias in consultation and creation. Although I also understand that a little fuzziness and pluralism will be required for broad-church approval. Secularism and republicanism are implied rather than stated, for example, and we can only assume that Constitution will be written in prose.

    So my position is that I am broadly supportive without actually wanting to commit my signature.

  21. Linda Bell says:

    I am proud to sign up to this.

  22. Derek Henry says:

    Ha Hilarious!

    And very bitter sweet.

    After watching Andrew Marr this morning from Aberdeen.

    I am going to be right and all of those idiots in Indy think tanks are going to be wrong. I warned each and every one of them that the SNP are going to take an Indy Scotland into the heart of Europe. Thus trapped in a faux independence for eternity.

    They are going to steam roll right over the top of everybody and sell out our souls to Brussels. Nobody can stop them. I warned Robin and Craig at the common weal and they wouldn’t listen. They think they are powerful enough to stop them when the Europen debate begins.

    Delusional !

    Indy media are to blame. Giving them a free pass when it comes to Europe.

    Neoliberal globalism here we come. Scottish voters should be terrified of this prospect. No control over anything.

    1. Eddie Cairney says:

      I don’t know if you know this or not but Scotland has always been a European country. Scotland does and never has had a problem with Europe. The Scots are nice people and are mainly devoid of any delusions of grandeur. After resumption of full self determination, Scotland and only Scotland will decide if they want to enter into unions with whoever so don’t worry your head, Scotland will be absolutely fine.

      1. Angus says:

        But Derek has a point with regards the definition of independence. Indy/ complete sovereignty = control over tax and spend/ fiscal levers (including corp tax). If we join E.U. we no longer have this due to fiscal compact/ 3% GDP deficit. E.g.) Ireland for the last decade has had it’s fiscal policy dictate not in Dublin but in Frankfurt/ IMF/ Troika – hence austerity more severe than in UK imposed upon it’s people. Also its main econ structure is low corp tax (as neolib as it comes) 12.5% is the lowest in developed world -UK 20%. This means the Irish economy (90 of exported GDP is foreign owned – only 10% are Irish owned companies and fully domiciled – much of that GDP isn’t actually created in Ireland but shifted there n the books to avoid tax!) is governed not by the Irish but by overseas multinational companies who can threaten at any point to move away. It should be called the Republic of Amazon, not Ireland.

        The result of this situation is a neolib system worse than UK plc where everything is up for sale. Lets not even go to Greece.

        And besides if the purpose of Indy is to avoid centre right ‘Tory’ governments, the E.U. is very centre right. German who hold sway CDU party = fiscally conservative centre right. They put the Tory into Tory.

        Varadkar has a picture of Thatcher in his office!

        One of the main left complaints of leaning soft no voting friends was the White Paper and the fact that this ‘arc of prosperity’ model was being touted. A case of out of the frying pan and into the fire and better the devil you know.

        1. Eddie Cairney says:

          You are way too clever for me. All I can say is “nothing in life needs to be complicated, only if you want it to be”

  23. Derek Henry says:

    This is the reality…..

    Where Nicola and her merry band of liberals are taking us.


    A faux independence with no independence at all.

    1. Me Bungo Pony says:

      There are few things more off putting than an arrogant zealot who believes everyone who doesn’t whole-heartedly agree with them is an idiot.

  24. Derek Henry says:


    Straight to the point !

    Scotland sleep walks to the inevitable.


  25. Scott Hare says:

    Ellitest fuckwits. You arseholes, that have got the least to lose, don’t live in the real word.
    What’s your beloved SNP doing about education, health care, non existent public transport and crumbling roads?
    Fuck off back to yer fancy West End bubble and give us all peace.

    1. Me Bungo Pony says:

      That was the considered and reasoned view of the Unionist fringe. Thanks for your input.

  26. Neil says:

    Angus, Britain never ever helped any but their own few. Bombing Serbia was purely strategical

    1. Angus says:

      Yeah well, tell that to the entire generation of Kosovars called Tony. (In the year after NATO intervention it was one of the most common names for newborns.)

  27. Lorna Campbell says:

    “…English are ‘probably’ going to be more attached to the UK but again there is no telling. Besides if you go down that route then you are entering Balkan territory, which is why I called it out. 400 thousand English live here and 1 million Scots in England and if it a truly civic nationalism (which it isn’t as no nationalism ever is) then this kind of talk should be met with zero tolerance…”

    The correct figures are reckoned to be 400-500,000 rUK residents in Scotland now in a population of 5+ million, with approx. 800,000 Scots in England in a population of 55 million+.

    The rUK vote in 2014 was an ethnic vote if you apply the standard of percentages or numbers voting for and against independence. Almost three-quarters of all rUK-born voters in Scotland in 2014 voted NO: that is 3:1 against. If 3:1 white Scots voted against having Asian, for example, MSPs, we would call that an ethnic vote – and we would be right – and it would not be tolerated. Same if it was the other way round. So why do we tolerate this type of vote from just one group? It is less that rUK voters voted against independence than that they felt they had some right to do so, that some higher authority had bestowed upon them the right to vote against a perfectly legitimate and legal aspiration that is enshrined in international law. It matters not a jot that they might have felt an attachment to the UK that born-Scots do not to the same extent, but even then, I think it was an attachment to England rather than the UK, in the main, the fact is that voting down a perfectly legal and legitimate aspiration that is sanctioned by the UN Charter as being against internationally-accepted tenets of decency and which echoes loudly of colonial attitudes, is morally reprehensible. I have never read anywhere, or heard, that the Scots in England have ever voted as an ethnic group. I absolutely agree that we cannot take away anyone’s vote. What we should have done, post indyref and what we should still be doing is not trying to persuade rUK voters to vote YES in a second indyref because it would be ever so nice and decent of them to think about it if they have the inclination, but to hammer home to them that what they did in 2014 was, indeed, morally bereft and reprehensible, and contrary to international legal mores.

    If the study done on Brexit in Wales is correct, we are seeing yet again, an adverse influence on the indigenous population exerted by an incoming English demographic. This situation will become intolerable if it continues. The Scots and English settlers in Ireland changed the demographics in Northern Ireland and they brought misery and division in their wake. The imposition of alien mores is never a good thing; immigration and migration, if those doing the migrating are willing to integrate and respect the mores, culture and aspirations of those already there, can be a very good thing, bringing fresh blood and new ideas, and a new kind of society over time. It is the imposition that is counter-productive and divisive, not to mention bringing deep resentments. Rarely is it the pursuit of independence that is the problem, but, rather the pursuit of the status quo by those whose arrogance leads them to believe that they have some God-given right to crush the aspirations of the very people who have hosted their migration and welcomed them. It is this disrespect for the rights of others that leads to Balkanization, the situation in the Balkans arising from the disintegration of the old Yugoslavia, followed by the immediate imposition of Serbian nationalism on the other parts, where Serbian migrants had gone, Serbia being the biggest of the former Yugoslav Republics. This is a warning we should heed because Serbian nationalism bears a very real similarity to the present English nationalism that has come to the fore, albeit England has not shown its teeth – yet – in that it concerned a mythical Serbia that never actually existed and which was aggressive and intolerant. I note that even John Le Carrie has stated today that he is worried by the false mythology of an England that never existed. It is not racist or anti English to point out that we are in worrying territory with Brexit and the rise of English nationalism.

    1. Angus says:

      Hard to know where to start with this. Welcome to the Fash.

    2. Angus says:

      Do you really think 400 English people are all wealthy pensioners or colonists as you call them? Do you really think you know their motivations? Or are they perhaps, doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, social workers, unemployed, shop workers, bar men, students, lecturers, waitresses, trade union members, activists, charity workers, public sector employees, housing officers, wildlife conservationists, mechanics, plumbers, footballers, oil riggers, RAF, Army, husbands, wives, …

      The vast majority of ‘morally reprehensible’ English in Scotland come from the North (not that it should matter). Last time I went to Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesborough, Nottingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol… they are not ‘wealthy pensioners as in that Guardian article’.

      It is onus of is on Scottish nationalists to pursuade (that’s democracy) them that it is in their interests… which isn’t going to happen if you present a completely ethnocentric face like the names on the list above!

      1. Lorna Campbell says:

        Angus: do you understand the concept of colonialism that the UN Charter specifically abhors? Apparently not. I do not pretend to know what was in the mind of anyone who voted. You make assumptions about something I never said. It was not individual voting that concerned me, but, rather, that three-quarters of one group should vote a certain way – in itself indicative of a common purpose or common attitude. Isn’t it fairly safe to say that those who voted YES did so because they wanted to see an independent Scotland? Yes? So, why is it anathema to suggest that the rUK voters who voted NO so homogeneously did so for the opposite reason – that is, to see Scotland remain part of the UK? What are you arguing? That they had every right to do so? I have not stated otherwise. I have always maintained that people have the right to vote how they please. What they do not have a right to is a free pass on that vote. The born-Scots voted 52%+ as against 47%+ for independence, so we can safely say that, had only born-Scots voted, we would now have independence. Yes? You see the logic? Now, EU residents voted NO, too, but by approx. 57%, which did not scupper independence had the born-Scots voted alone. Still following me? Ergo, the rUK vote was the vote that brought NO over the line and on to 55%. Now, you may say, but, wait, 47%+ of born-Scots voted NO. The point is that the born-Scots supplemented the rUK vote and vice versa to keep the Scots in the Union. Having spoken with EU nationals, they were afraid of being repatriated because Better Together was telling them that they would be sent home because Scotland would be booted out of the EU if it voted for independence. They had a very understandable reason for voting NO, but, even in those circumstances, they voted by a far lower percentage against independence than did rUK residents who had no such threat hanging over them. Now, you say that they would have had a greater attachment to the UK, but, even there, I suspect the real attachment was to England for most of them. That’s fine. However, in order to vote for their greater attachment to the UK or England to continue unhindered, they had to have decided that their attachment to the UK or England from their new home in Scotland was of greater importance than independence supporting Scots’ attachment to their native soil and its future development as an independent nation. Do you see? That is the colonialism that the UN Charter abhors because it specifically seeks to undermine and overwhelm legitimate aspirations to independence in the host people. It would be like an immigrant to New Zealand or Australia calling for these former colonies to be brought back into the fold. I am not blaming rUK voters or want them to be punished or to have their vote taken away. I am a democrat and a human rights supporter. However, I believe what rUK voters did in 2014 was utterly selfish and self-seeking at the expense of the Scots, and I will continue to say that because it is a fact borne out by that large homogenous, ethnic vote. I have not the slightest wish, as a Scot, to prevent England from Brexiting if that is what England wants in order to fulfil its own destiny. I have no desire to press my particular sentiments and desires upon an unwilling English population or on any other people in the world. None whatsoever. That is because I have no huge sense of my own self-importance or the self-importance of the Scots as a whole. That kind of mentality is alien to me, and I think, to most Scots who support independence. Neither do I have any negative feelings about anyone in Scotland who has come here to make it their home. It is always interesting to see how people react to any criticism of that large, ethnic, homogenous rUK vote but do not take the time to examine it themselves. Knee jerk reactions are profoundly disturbing and can lead to outcomes that the knee jerker never foresaw. I also read about the study done on the Welsh Brexit that Jo highlights, and like the 2014 rUK NO vote, it gives an insight into supposed anti Englishness in reverse. You need to think a bit harder about what you are giving unthinking and unqualified support to, my friend. Quite why you are so incensed at what is a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and logical viewpoint grounded in fact is quite beyond me. Being a minority in a country should never qualify you for a political free pass. Never heard of the Raj?

        1. Angus says:

          I defer you to my other post on the UN and it’s policy on Scotland and Catalonia. In short there is no colonialism. Try living in genuinely repressive state for a while you’ll notice the difference. You wouldn’t be posting on here for a start and Mike would be in prison.

          1. Lorna Campbell says:

            There are different types of colonialism, Angus. It is not all overtly oppressive. I bet you haven’t lived under a truly repressive regime either, though you act and speak as if you have. As I said before, less of the patronizing guff and more utilizing the brain cells.

    3. Angus says:

      And if you struggle with someone from Hull being ‘Alien’ god help you when the 200 thousand (in the white paper) immigrants from Bangladesh or Jamaica or Romania (insert immigrant origin), turn up so that they (along with all the English) taxes for your retirement.

      1. Lorna Campbell says:

        May I reassure you, Angus, that I probably have more family members from across Europe and the world, including England, than you have. So, less of the patronizing s***e, eh, and a bit more of the using of the brain cells?

        1. Angus says:

          You wrote… ‘The imposition of alien mores is never a good thing; immigration and migration, if those doing the migrating are willing to integrate and respect the mores, culture and aspirations of those already there, can be a very good thing, bringing fresh blood and new ideas, and a new kind of society over time. It is the imposition that is counter-productive and divisive, not to mention bringing deep resentments.’

          Could be Farage.

          And as I’ve pointed out, ‘the English’ are not a single homogenous group and are so well integrated that you hardly notice them and aren’t even overtly political. That could also be because there is bugger all difference. Your prejudice is so deep that you implicitly assume ‘English’ means ‘counter productive’ and ‘divisive.’

          During the ref there were calls for a social audit on ‘English people’ in the arts. Perhaps we should have a social audit on the English who are in other professions social workers, nurses, bin men, road sweepers, homeless (plenty northern accents around Edinburgh in doorways), charity workers, scout leaders, library volunteers… etc etc. And then give them a big thank you, a hearty slap on the back and let them vote any which way they choose. Stop picking on the English!

          And if you feel culturally colonised them maybe you should look to the Americans given their cultural influence over Scotland has been far greater over the last half century. I bet you’re wearing jeans! Also check the land register and you’ll probably find more wealthy folk from Dubai and China owning the land int he Highlands than English.


          1. Lorna Campbell says:

            Did Farage say that, or are you putting words into his mouth, too? I rarely listen to Farage. You evidently do. I did not claim that the English have one brain between them all that dictates what they will do. Everyone is an individual…what a revelation. I’m so glad you pointed that out to me because I’d never have known otherwise. I’m sure, by the same token, that all Scots are individuals, no? Yet, in 2014, born-Scots voted for independence, so, presumably, they voted as one homogeneous group to that end, no? Your refusal to even engage with the facts is indicative of a closed mind. Nowhere have I said that we must blame the English in Scotland; nowhere have I said that they are not welcome here, in Scotland, or that they would be unwelcome in an independent Scotland. You don’t have to be overtly political to be repressive; you just have to think that your particular attachments and desires are more important than those of the independists who support the ruling party, which, incidentally, was in power long before some arrived in Scotland. Fine. Think that, but you are not going to get away with thinking like that unchallenged. That is what I am saying. If seeking independence is legitimate, legal and recognized under international law, and the thwarting of said independence is to be abhorred under the UN Charter, then crushing the aspirations of independence seeking Scots must be at best morally questionable and, at worst, downright repressive by your own logic? No? rUK voters in Scotland are free to indulge their morally-dubious mores, but they are not free to have them pass unchallenged. That is what I am saying. That vote should not go unchallenged. My vote, and the votes of hundreds of thousands of others, New Scots and Old Scots, is challenged every single day – every day. Do you jump up and state that we are being treated in an anti Scottish manner or that we are being subjected to racism? It has nothing to do with their Englishness, but, rather, to do with the fact that they scuppered the referendum for the majority of born-Scots and welded them into a UK that is tearing itself apart on the altar of English nationalism – which you fail to recognize at all – and also dragging us out of the EU against our express wish to remain inside the EU, however one might feel about that particular institution. And please don’t give me all that nonsense about its being a UK-wide vote, blah, blah, because I agree with you. Scotland was a co-signatory to the international treaty that created the UK, man. To be treated in this fashion and to have our aspirations crushed like this is intolerable in a democracy. The sooner we resile the Treaty the better, and if the rUK residents in Scotland don’t like it, that’s sad, but hey ho. The 2014 NO vote was sad. I’m sure they’ll get over it and be great citizens in a future independent Scotland.

  28. Alan J (Willy) Wands Film Producer says:

    please tell me how to add my name to the list , where do I sign

  29. Chris Stewart says:

    Excellent stuff – full support from me. Shetland needs to appear on the logo, though.

    1. Thanks Chris. Its not the logo (or a map) its just an illustration

  30. James Gow says:

    I would sign up to this in a heartbeat. We should have the right to self determination without the lies, fear mongering & spin of Westminster in a referendum. Simply allow the people to read this declaration of independence & decide for themselves. Let’s rise and BE A NATION AGAIN.

  31. Derek Riddick says:

    All very noble, but how is all this to be funded and who will run an independent Scotland as so far (1) we are unable to fund the current arrangements and depend on the rest of the UK (primarily southern England) to subsidise and (2) the current SNP Scottish Government cannot even manage the powers they have nor take control of all powers currently available to them under current devolution settlement!!

  32. Fiona MacInnes says:

    Happy to sign
    Writer and arist

  33. Andy Law says:

    Can this be opened for the nation to sign?

  34. Derek Henry says:

    Today is the day the Indy movement will finally realise the strategy they used was the wrong strategy to gain independence.

    It will be known in the future as the HUGE mistake similar to that of the currency question was in the first referendum.

    The” double out ” was the only true path to Scottish independence. Out of the UK and out of the EU single market rules and that of the stability and growth pact, 2 pack, 6 pack, excessive debt procedure and corrective arm.

    Why ?

    Because all the parties the SNP hugged and kissed as they sung their praise for the neoliberal globalist EU will turn against them with a vengeance. These parties will now turn everything the liberals within the SNP have said whilst they have supported the EU against Scotland.

    When talking about the EU the liberals of the SNP have said

    We are better together – Oops

    Power sharing is far better than being cut adrift- Oops

    Climate change is dealt with by being together – Oops

    No borders – Oops now there has to be a border between England.

    Free trade, Free trade, Free trade – oops fishing and everything else the EU want to get their hands on

    We support our financial services in the EU- Oops no regulation and major changes then due to one of the 4 prisons – Free movement of Capital. No point common weal writing a paper on it.The

    I could go on and on and on how SNP words used during the brexit debate will be used against Scotland over the next 18 months. The national media who have embraced or should have said used the ignorance of the SNP for their own agenda. Will now turn on Scotland big time.

    The national newspaper will be all that is left. Even that will sound pathetic now after what they have said about Brexit. Instead of supporting the double out.

    The sad thing is you could see this coming a mile off. The fact the SNP couldn’t hell bent on Indy at all costs strategy speaks volumes.

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.


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

Bella Caledonia