My comment to an entry 'The interloper in our midst' by rock_dinosaur in scots_republic

It struck me when the Scottish Office was re-named as the UK Government in Scotland that almost anywhere else in the world there would have been an uproar about such neo-colonialism.

But in Scotland....? Nary a peep.

Perhaps Scots genuinely are just so scunnered after 300 years of unionism that they lack the self respect to even react to such a crass appellation. It could scarcely have been more offensive if they'd called it the "Generalgouvernement".

I honestly despair at the placidity of the Scots people in general and their political leaders, media and professional bodies at times.

View the entire thread this comment is a part of

Act Anent the Fundamental Rights and Prerogatives of the Scottish People.


Given recent discussions about the possible outcomes of the on-going Keatings Case on whether Holyrood has the competence to hold a referendum without Westminster's permission, I took a stab at trying to "mirror" the claims of our Quebecois friends.

This is very much a starter for ten, predicated on others more knowledgeable than I am contributing, correcting and "fettling" such a declaration for wider discussion, use and with luck adoption as the basis for asserting our right to tell Westminster what happens, not ask for their gracious permission!

"WHEREAS the Scottish people possesses specific characteristics and a deep-rooted historical continuity in a territory over which it exercises its rights through a modern national state, having a government, a national assembly and impartial and independent courts of justice; 

WHEREAS the constitutional foundation of the Common Weal of Scotland has been enriched by over a millennium of history and progress in the creation of its national community expressed through unique institutions; 

Collapse )

Perilous Plans and Chickenshit Gradualists

A response to Michael Hughes (@mhughes_law) blog post, where he attempts and fails to rubbish Plan B. Strangely, despite soliciting comments Michael saw fit to delete this from the BTL comments. Gradualists gonna gradualise, huh? 🙄

"Michael, I’m unconvinced by your reasoning and your route map set out above in your response to Bruce MacDougall. Like you, I’ve studied these issues for a long time, though coming at it from a different academic International Relations perspective rather than that of a qualified lawyer.

You are in my view stating something as a certainty which simply isn’t: i.e. that the process you outline (“What I argue is that thereafter there is a legal process and concurrent strategy that must be employed. s30>denied>legal referendum w/out s.30> WM amend to make ultra vires> Illegal referendum>Yes> UDI>application to UN> Referral to ICJ> decision> recognition by UN”) must be employed. That simply isn’t the case, either in international law or historical precedent.

Collapse )

Suspending Disbelief, the Wishart Way

The SNP’s longest serving Westminster MP Peter Wishart, known chiefly for his tenure in the Celtic rock bands Big Country and Runrig and for having an ego a mile wide and graphene thick, has recently blogged about “What Happens if Boris Says No?” in response to a request for a Section 30 Order by the Scottish Government for a second independence referendum. His thoughts, widely trailed on his twitter feed, promised that all would be revealed. At last, we were to be told what happens when Boris Johnson says – as he inevitably will – “Now is not the time!” again to the SNP’s Oliver Twist impersonation.

It won’t surprise any of those on Pete’s extensive social media block list to find out that the cunning plan detailed in the “blog that everyone is waiting for” would make Baldrick blush with embarrassment at its banality. As it turns out, Pete profoundly believes that “Johnson will agree to participate in an indyref if we prevail with a majority in May” and warns those of us who don’t share his faith-based assurance that the Tories are gearing up and assembling resources for the next referendum. Absolutely no evidence is provided for either position of course, we are simply enjoined to accept that Pete’s position is manifestly correct.

Collapse )