I have news for Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp. Brexit is not the only thing happening in the world. It’s not even the only thing happening in Scotland. Were he but able to tear his attention away from Brexit for a second he might notice a few other things going on. Things that might just throw his nice tidy independence timeline into disarray.
Scour that timeline as you may, you will find no mention of the steps the British government will be taking in order to make a new independence referendum impossible or unwinnable of both. Which is odd given that Gordon otherwise seems to suppose the British government to be the only effective actor in all of politics. His timeline is almost entirely a tale of what the British elite does, and how the Scottish Government might react.
No account is taken of the fact that the British state has already started to strip powers from the Scottish Parliament and explicitly signalled its intention to further undermine Scotland’s democratic institutions. The timeline totally ignores the unelected and unaccountable shadow administration under David Mundell which is being readied to take over powers stripped from Holyrood. It blithely disregards things like the transfer to the ‘UK Government in Scotland’ of powers over the franchise. Simply by excluding 16 and 17-year olds Mundell could deal a crippling blow to any new independence referendum. And that’s just one example. Spend a few moments reflecting, in a way Gordon signally fails to do, on the myriad ways the British government might seek to thwart the democratic process.
It seems that the whole Brexit bourach looms so large in Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s view that he seems oblivious to the British Nationalist ‘One Nation’ project that is running in parallel with it. A project which, more importantly, would be proceeding regardless of Brexit. Concern for the economic impact of Brexit is understandable. But it should not blind us to the fundamental constitutional issue and the threat to Scotland’s democracy.
While the casual disregard for this real and imminent constitutional threat is perplexing, the stuff about asking for a Section 30 Order is just bloody annoying. I know that Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp is fully aware of the importance of reframing the arguments for the new referendum. He knows what reframing means. He is well aware of how it works. He appreciates that it involves altering perceptions by changing the way an issue is presented. So why is he still mired in the now outmoded mindset of the 2014 referendum? Why is he still thinking in terms of independence being something that is in the gift of the British state, rather than something that is Scotland’s natural right?
Why does he continue to maintain that Scotland’s constitutional status has to be negotiated with the British government as if it required their agreement, rather than simply the expressed will of Scotland’s people?
Why does he so readily accept the notion that the British political elite might have the legitimate authority to veto the right of self-determination that is vested wholly in the people of Scotland?
We do not need Westminster’s permission to exercise our right of self-determination. We don’t need the British political elite’s approval to end a political union in which we are equal partners. The British has neither the right nor the authority to demand that we pass some contrived test in order to qualify for independence. Unless, of course, we afford them that authority. Unless we choose to concede that right.
The approach outlined by Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp is demeaning. The time for asking is past. This is the time for taking.
More and more people in the Yes movement are coming to this conclusion. The idea of Scotland as a supplicant petitioning a superior power for the granting of a constitutional boon is being rejected as inappropriate, offensive and politically ill-judged.
Which brings us to the final flaw in Gordon’s independence timeline. As well as neglecting to have due regard for the British Nationalist ‘One Nation’ project and woefully failing to reframe the issue, no account is taken of the momentum building in the Yes movement. Across Scotland, thousands of individuals and groups are poised, ready for a new referendum campaign. How long does Gordon imagine the enthusiasm and energy can be kept on hold? The reserves are not infinite. At some point, either the dam bursts or the reserves begin to deplete faster than they can be replenished.
People will weary of waiting. They need to act. They will tire of marching. They need to get somewhere. They will only endure so much. They need to see an end to it.
It is time for bold, decisive, assertive action. It is time to do, rather than be done to. It is time for defiance, not compliance. It is time to assert the sovereignty of Scotland’s people. It is time to dissolve the Union and dare the British political elite to stand in Scotland’s way.
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.
Peter A Bell 
I agree Peter.
Talk of waiting until autumn 19 is just crazy. I suspect we are either heading for a hard Brexit or a no deal. We know this already. There will be no customs union ,there will be no freedom of movement. Red lines for the SNP!
We need to call Indy ref 2 this autumn and have it in March 2019 before Brexit day. The holding period might not even happen if its a no deal crash and burn. If we crash and burn we could be out on our arses by March 2020.
I have been in the SNP for 30 years and I for one want some action. Our troops need a date and we need that date to be announced in the next few months.
LikeLike
Even March 2019 leaves a dangerous opportunity for the British state to implement measures which will, at the very least, make the democratic path to independence more problematic. We have to appreciate just how determined they are to lock Scotland into a political union on their terms. It is one of the principal imperatives driving British policy.
LikeLike
Peter
Agree.
To be safe, Scotland must act before Westminster can activate its legislative/political agenda.
Westminster only looks incompetent on physical Brexit….but it has been very astute at using Brexit to centralise phenomenal power in the Executive (even potentially sweeping away the GFA). Hollysmokes Batman…its like Westminster has finally found away for England to fully colonise the UK in a single greater England.
I can not believe that so many “YES” trust the formal Brexit timetable. With all that has happened and all the false promises, who you trust this government. Heck – it even signed the backstop agreement with the EU only to now toss it…and the EU has way more clout than Scotland. The formal process is probably the best political misdirection/ruse since the Trojan Horse. Designed to keep people looking down the road and not spook the population with what is really going on.
Scotland can not afford to wait…it can not give Westminster the chance to remove/neuter Scotland’s political apparatus. If that happens Scotland is forever caged in a Brexit England going of the cliff.
LikeLike
I meant to say March 2019!
LikeLike
I’ve taken the liberty of editing your comment so as to avoid any confusion. Not something I would normally contemplate. But I think it’s acceptable under the circumstances.
LikeLike
I have long felt Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP/Scottish Government “High Command” have been playing a blinder – giving the UK Government and the other British nationalist parties enough rope to hang themselves.
What ought to have happened is, the deal with the EU would have been done and dusted by the end of September, 2018, and had gone to the 27 national parliaments for confirmation. This assumed, the UK would have had a stable negotiating stance by now. Clearly we will still be in the dark by the end of March, 2019, so, we must have Indyrep 2 before then regardless if we know whether it will be a “soft” Brexit (highly unlikely) or a hard one.
This will allow the British nationalist media to come-up with all sorts of “chaff”, like the anti-missile defence systems on some aircraft, to deflect potentially fatal pro-independence “missiles”.
The total moger the Tories have made of things, while making independence far-more attractive to the soft “Noes” just make thngs more-difficult during the campaign, as they can come up with all sort os diversions, in a media onslaught which they will be directing.
But, I feel we must still go for having a decision before 31 March, 2019, to make staying-in all the easier. After all, if, as looks likely, there will be a two-year period of sorting-out the terms of England’s exit, then that same period can be used for making sure Scotland stays in.
LikeLike
Thanks Peter.
I just hope the SNP are aware of the plans that WM have to hold Scotland to the union after leaving the protection of the EU. We are all they have in terms of natural resources , fishing, oil , water and strategic military importance.
The other issue I have is when people constantly say :” Just wait until the full impact of Brexit hits people”. To me you don’t go for independence when you are already mortally wounded. You go before the first blow is struck.
The Scots traditionally do not always equate poverty with decisions made at WM. They have been brought up to believe that Scotland is the problem and we are just not very good. Look at the 1979 vote on devolution. It came after we had been humiliated in the world cup and when the UK was in economic crisis. The Scots were feart of change. I think we lost in 2014 in part because of the recent economic collapse.
Relying on complete failure to bring about independence is not a clever strategy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would only add that I don’t see it as any part of the Scottish Government’s role to facilitate harm being visited on the people of Scotland by the British state. I would tend to take the position that our Government’s job is to preserve us from such harm.
LikeLike
I agree Peter.
Averting disaster means getting Scotland out before the damage can be inflicted. That damage will be inflicted after March 19. The route to fascism and authoritarianism is done by stealth. You gradually take away peoples liberties by drip, drip. Little seemingly inconsequential parts of the machine are taken away over years until one day you wake up and realise the machine has been replaced and your life before is gone.
People who think the Scottish food labelling change to union flags for example is trivial. Need to stop looking at things in isolation. It’s all part of a bigger plan for “One Nation”. Take back control. In other words take the powers back off Holyrood ,and run Scotland as a colony.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is nothing in your article that I can find fault with except to add that we have a majority of MPs right now – why do we need to wait until 2022? After March next year, the gloves are off. Currently we get some protection for the Scottish parliament and government through our membership of the EU and that will change after Brexit. I have always been sceptical about our ability to hold a referendum unimpeded while we are still shackled to the English state and, frankly, I don’t think it is necessary to hold one prior to – let’s say – suspending the union as opposed to dissolving it. Thereafter, Nicola can hold her referendum during her term of office as she promised, only much later and under our terms of reference and control. The Westminster system relies on the Conservatives as the Conservatives rely on it. As their control falters, the darker, hidden parts of the system come into play. With the party in meltdown, we can expect to see a level of authoritarianism that no one can really imagine today. Somehow, most people in Scotland and in England seem to think that politics plays by the rules. They are about to find that it doesn’t and I, for one, don’t want us to be connected to this regime when the shit really hits the fan.
LikeLike
I really don’t get the thing about suspending the Union. What would that look like? How would it differ from the Union as it is now? Where would executive authority lie?
LikeLike
It’s a construct. Effectively I am saying repeal the union but we have a referendum later in which the Scottish people can have their say. Nicola did promise to hold a referendum and, in doing so, she keeps to her promise. By “suspending” as opposed to cancelling we can, at least, hold to the principle that the government here is not acting against the will of the people. Call it what you like, it is still taking all powers to the government in Scotland. I have always been very concerned about holding a referendum now because of the malign influence that outside interests can bring to bear in compromising the result and, frankly, I don’t give a stuff if we hold one or not, as long as the government here acts to protect the people and the nation of Scotland. That’s the important thing.
LikeLike
We cannot ‘suspend’ the Union. The union is built on Treaties (Act and Treaties of Union).
A treaty, once broken, is broken forever. If you want to ‘fix’ the broken treaty you need an entirely new treaty.
Hence why i say, if Scotsgov pass a motion to dissolve the Treaties of Union on grounds of illegal subjugation of either Scots Law or Scots People’s Sovereign will, then those treaties are gone, finished, broken beyond saving.
As a result, Scotland and England (the ONLY 2 union signatories) revert back to pre May 1st 1707 status. Independent Countries both.
As a caveat, to respect the Sovereignty of the Scots People, any motion to dissolve the Union must include a plebiscite to ask Scots if they want to STAY independent or ask the Scotsgov to negotiate a BRAND NEW Treaty of Union with WM.
That would be quite something huh?
Many English politicians believe the ‘scots are subsidised by the English’ nonsense, and the English have been fed this myth for centuries, so trying to justify a new Union treaty with Scotland on Scotland’s terms, would be quite the erm…”problematic” sell.
In reality, Scotland’s terms would never be acceptable to WM or the English, so the question would never arise and Scotland would naturally remain independent, especially when all revenues are flowing to Holyrood in the meantime and Scotsgov have been making great improvements to Scots lives.
This is how it will probably go.
NS. “We want a section 30 order, and we are setting the date”
TM. “Now is not the time”
NS. “Ok, next week i shall put a motion to Holyrood to dissolve the Union”
TM. When did you say you want an indyref with a Section 30 again “?
Personally i believe the ship has sailed on a Section 30 sanctioned Indyref.
Its going to be a motion to dissolve in my opinion.
LikeLike
We don’t need “grounds” to dissolve the Union.
We don’t need to go through the pantomime of a section 30 request.
LikeLike
Time to leave – the sooner the better. Delay in this will be fatal to Scotland’s right to independence – Westminster’s plan for Scotland it too clear to miss! Have long admired some of GM-K’s work but he seems to be blinded by the Brexit bourach. Great post Peter!
LikeLike
Lets not forget, after the squirming desperation of WM tories this week, we have the Supreme Court next Tuesday/Wednesday next week with all the potential for dissolving the Union on grounds of illegal subjugation of Scots Law THAT brings…and the obvious knock on effects for the Withdrawal Bill should the SC make a Law based decision rather than the suspected political one we are perhaps assuming they will make.
Let me explain it in its short version.
…..
The referendum is looking less likely as the initial cause of the union being dissolved.
Events are rapidly overtaking a referendum.
It is a founding tenet of the Act and Treaties of Union, that neither Scots Law nor the expressed Scots Sovereign will can be subjugated.
Brexit does both in different ways.
WM challenging the Continuity Bill is subjugation of Scots Law on an issue where Scots Law has legal Competence over.
THAT is a legal reason to move to dissolve the Union alone.
Brexit (and despite everything, it has not happened yet, although the final deal on Sept 29th CAN be counted as intent to subjugate) is an absolutely clear subjugation of Scotttish peoples sovereign will (62% REMAIN) and also is reason enough to dissolve the Union by Holyrood motion.
Technically, that motion should contain a caveat to hold a plebiscite of Sovereign Scots, to assauge their sovereign will on dissolution, however, the question would not be what you may expect.
A motion to dissolve, if passed (it would be as there is a pro indy majority) would, under Scots Law, return Scotland to pre May 1st 1707 status, ie: independent.
So any plebiscite would be to ask Scots if we want to STAY independent or REJOIN into Union with WM under terms negotiated by our elected Scotsgov.
That is the legal reality here and it begins at the WM appointed Supreme Court on 24/25th July….let the end game begin.
…….
Or think about this one (earlier version of above).
………
Here are my thoughts on the indy campaign.
I see no reason why the following would not apply to where we are now. (And no, i am not a lawyer, but i have done extensive research, and came up with this, based on my research).
……….
Scotland may become effectively independent on July 25th.
WM has 2 days in July (24/25th) set aside in the (NON SCOTS LAW) supreme court to try over rule the Holyrood EU Continuity Bill (passed under Scots Law).
If the SC over rule Scots law, and side with WM, the Union is effectively over.
The SC does not have legal authority to over rule Scots Law.
Why not ?
2 reasons.
1. Scots law is protected “in perpetuity” by the Act and Treaties of Union itself. Subjugation of Scots Law or Scots people’s sovereignty, which is enshrined in Scots Law, is illegal under the Act of Union.
2. The critical bit. The Continuity Bill legislates in the area of DEVOLVED POWERS using Scots Law.
And it is THAT which wins ANY legal case for Scotland.
Uk law has ONLY primacy on RESERVED matters.
Scots Law has primacy on DEVOLVED MATTERS.
Any non scots court has no legal say so on a Devolved Scots law issue.
If by an act of legal stupidity, the SC sides with WM, then SCOTS LAW HAS BEEN SUBJUGATED by the SC without legal authority.
Scotsgov would then be able to simply hold a vote at Holyrood, on a motion that the Union has been breached by subjugation of Scots Law on a Devolved matter, contrary to the terms of the Act and Treaties of Union, with the intent of the vote, to dissolve the union.
We then present our case to an international court as outlined above, and those courts have no choice but to rule in our favour for the reasons outlined earlier.
There is a growing school of thought that Scotsgov are not too concerned about holding a referendum, as the recent developments have opened the door to dissolve the union in a courtroom. That first opportunity comes on July 24/25th.
Scotsgov have brilliantly engineered events to help get us here, and WM, being the arrogant feckers they are, have completely walked into the traps set.
Independence gained by using WM breaching the Union terms against them, no referendum required…delicious irony indeed !!
…………
But wait…what if the SC rules with SCOTSGOV ??
Now THAT is a doozy.
That would, as far as my knowledge goes, would mean the devo shafting of the other day (the 15 minute ‘debate’ at WM) would be unlawful and require dropping.
Then of course, all returning powers from the EU MUST RETURN TO HOLYROOD immediately after brexit, which ruins WM’s Trade deal plans with not just America/rest of world, but also means NOTHING within those returning powers can be used to negotiate trade deals with the EU.
For example, WM could not trade Scots waters fishing rights with the EU as fishing is devolved and as a result of the SC ruling with Scotsgov on Continuity Bill, Scotsgov will have FULL CONTROL over who fishes in Scottish Waters.
If the EU wanted to fish in Scottish waters post brexit, they need to ask us, not WM.
Imagine THIS conversation.
“Hey, EU 27, want Scotland in the EU post independence”?
If no, no fishing in Scottish Waters until you say Yes.
Scots waters produce the vast majority of fish to the EU.
We could even dictate terms, protecting the Scots fishing fleet rather than WM selling them out constantly.
This SC case is MASSIVE.
However, Scotsgov CANNOT LOSE.
SC rules with WM = Not legally competent, union dissolved and referred by Scotsgov to international courts to affirm Scots Law status as unimpeachable on Devolved issues.
SC rule with Scotsgov, utter chaos, plans for WM’s future EU and wider non EU deals in tatters.
There is even the possibility that WM breached the Union terms by even ATTEMPTING to subjugate Scots Law in the SC.
Then of course, Brexit itself breaches the Sovereign will of the Sovereign Scots People because we voted REMAIN by plebiscite but our people’s sovereignty is being subjugated by English votes, which is ILLEGAL under the terms of the Act and Treaties of Union itself.
As i keep saying, you CANNOT LEGALLY have a “uk wide vote” when Scots people are SOVEREIGN.
ESPECIALLY in a plebiscite, which is the ULTIMATE expression of our Sovereign will, protected under Scots Law.
Honestly folks, a referendum is starting to look like the daft option.
WM have provided us with a number of ways to end the Union without one, certainly in regards to the wording of the question previously asked.
In short.
Prove WM has subjugated EITHER Scots Law or Scots people’s sovereignty, in a court, and we are independent.
We have an upcoming case, which, unless the WM gov fold completely on the power grab and return EVERY power to Holyrood IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY, we cannot lose it and we can dissolve the Union if we desire.
If WM does not allow Scotland to REMAIN IN the EU, we go dissolve the Union on grounds of Subjugation of the settled expressed will of the Sovereign Scots People by plebiscite, a right protected under Scots Law.
The game is up.
Its just timing now.
……….
LikeLike
As I understand it only judges versed in Scots Law can adjudicate. The others are just there to be “devil’s advocates” and do not make the decision. To adjudicate you must pass your bar exams on the relevant jurisdiction and be “admitted” to the Bar before subsequently being appointed to the Bench and on to the SC. The SC was setup to replace the outmoded House of Lords review system NOT to subjugate the Law of Scotland, or England for that matter.
Anyway we shall see in due course what happens, however the “descision” is not due until October rather than July.
Otherwise your analysis is fairly close to mine.
LikeLike
So only Lord Reed and Lord Hodge will make the decision, the others just nod in agreement. Therefore Scots Law is simply being clarified by this decision.
LikeLike
I have just finished reading the submissions for the Continuity Bill case and it is my opinion that the Supreme Court will find in favour of the Scottish Government. This was my opinion before I read the details, now I am much more confident that my assessment was correct.
So your DOOZY option is the way this will go forward.
I expect a wailing response from the UK gov.
LikeLike
I agree with you on the “Doozy” option, however, i believe WM will try present this in such a way as to avoid the sovereignty issue, like Article 50 case.
However, this in my view is not possible as the SC is being asked to over rule Scots Law on a Devolved competence. And for that Scots Law is absolutely being subjugated and THAT legal reality is a legal dead end for WM.
Apparently the ‘result’ will not be known until October, conveniently AFTER the deal or no deal is known and sent to the EU 27.
This SC case is the last kick of the can down the road for WM, unless the SC decides it needs ‘more time’…cough…until March 30th…cough…!!
Of course, that may look a clever tactic, until you study the 2nd scenario i highlighted previously about how the Continuity Bill is attempted subjugation of Scots Law, but ACTUAL brexit (and the deal sent to EU 27 is LEGAL INTENT which we can act upon legally) is illegal subjugation of the Express will of the Sovereign Scots People (62% remain vote).
Motion to dissolve the Union, no SC court to delay that one !!
The game is up for WM and the Union.
LikeLike
In response to Peter posting about not needing ‘grounds’ to dissolve the Union, nor needing a Section 30, i totally agree with both points, and i do believe i stated i believe the Indyref with a Section 30, ship, has sailed. My example was to highlight how quickly Treeza would u-turn from her now is not the time nonsense.
I certainly was not suggesting that was the way to go. It was an example to highlight the control WE have here, of the future path.
As for not requiring ‘grounds’ to dissolve the union, while legally true, in reality, people would need to know WHY we are dissolving it.
If we are to put a motion to Holyrood to dissolve the union, we will be rightly asked, Why ?
The response, “we just felt like it” is hardly a great response, is it ?
We would be putting a motion to dissolve the Union, to Holyrood, because of Illegal subjugation of Scots Law, contrary to Scots Law and contrary to the Act and treaties of Union.
Like it or not, need them or not, those are 100% cast iron LEGAL reasons to dissolve the Union as they PROVE breach of the Union terms which protect our Scots Law and Scots sovereignty of the people.
Just holding a referendum to dissolve the Union means the question is “do you want to leave the union” ? However you ask it.
Using the Law to prove a fatal breach means the plebiscite affirmation question becomes “do you wish to remain independent or do you want the Scotsgov to negotiate a new treaty of Union on Scotland’s terms” ?
“Do you want to become independent” or “do you want to STAY independent”?
I know which one i prefer.
LikeLike
I never thought I would see the day, but here we go…
Gordon McIntyre-Kemp set you a challenge, one that I guarantee to anyone reading you will NOT take up… you will bluff and bluster and pontificate, but ultimately, you will not address Gordon’s point. The ball is in your court….
“”You Say You accept that the British government has the authority to veto Scotland’s right of self-determination, I do not”. There you go again inventing stew men and knocking them down thats not what I believe and its not what I said. Post your solution for handling what happens if a section 50 is not agreed and how that would impact on the legitimacy – explain what happens if we call a referendum campaign now and the Brexit deal doesn’t past the UK Parliament and they ask the EU for more time for a General Election. Lets see if you have credible answers Peter. Or just claim I believe something else I didn’t and attack that – try posting solutions rather than promoting bluster. “
LikeLike
If we call a referendum and Brexit is delayed. It’s irrelevant. Scotland hanging on WM coat tails is not a good luck.
Taking the initiative is always better than marching to your enemies tune.
LikeLike
Treaty(s), and articles, of union 1706 and 1707 are separate distinct entities.
The “treaties” joined Scotland in political union with England. The “articles” of union documents “which” power sits where. Ie the articles of union 1707 designate powers of Westminster parliament as a single (UK) state represented by MPs of Scotland and England
…… But they at no time then,since inception, or now, delegate or abrogate power from Scotland to Westminster which can in any way diminish or nullify the Scottish peoples sovereign rights.
That’s a constitutional fact of the united kingdom….. As per the treaties AND articles of union, which PROTECTS Scotland’s people sovereign rights for all time coming via the words “pursuant to the claim of right”, please read the claim of right scotland 1698, specifically c.28…… then rebuke this constitutional fact by supplying lords/ appallete court rulings or rulings by the Scottish privy council members or even supreme court rulings which removes Scotland’s sovereignty from the people of Scotland …… You won’t find any….. But then again, the first ever challenge in any court not orbiter dictum will commence on the 27th July ….. But that’s an ultra vires UK court so It’ll STILL be an orbiter dictum 😉
LikeLike
I’ve read all the above and my contribution is going to be very simplistic in response. However here goes. I don’t agree with Gordon’s timeline because it is too reliant on WM doing things and us responding – it also assumes WM aren’t going to shaft us from all directions which we know they are.
As far I as am concerned, whatever way we do it, it has to happen before UK leaves the EU, and so we have to go for our independence before end of March 2019. The trigger for #indyref2 was the total disregard for Scotland voting to remain in the EU by 62% to 38% in 2016 and the way we have been treated since then, so no-body can say they didn’t see it coming.
And anyone who says “Ooooh but we have to see how Brext turns out” please…….just…..please. Have a wee guess at how you think it is going to turn out…..use your imagination. Did it look good to you ? Well, think of something a whole lot worse and THAT is how it is going to turn out. Happy now ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Molly’s Mum (@SNPsoosie)
That whole “Ooooh but we have to see how Brext turns out” does my head in.
It lives in the fallacy that the world will remain exactly as it is now – only with UK leaving the EU….WOW! Those people who hold that view must have some crazy rose tinted glasses. Brexit UK will not be (and can not be) the same place you are living now.
Once Brexit is activated, things will move at a speed not early seen in modern democracies (there are almost no presidents for this). Westminster already has in place several mechanism that could neuter Scotland’s routes to independence. If Scotland is foolish enough to wait for the outcome of Brexit…it will be too late as there may be no route out of the UK even if it wants to.
LikeLike
I notice some good folk still use the phrase “Scotland out the uk”.
When We become independent we do so by dissolution of the Union.
As Scotland and England are the ONLY signatories of the Act and Treaties of Union, then when the Union goes, so also goes the Uk. (United Kingdom, not country).
Small details, but important in my opinion.
Imagine we dissolve the Union (and as a result, the uk) BEFORE brexit on March 2019, as is the plan.
What then re EU membership for Scotland and brexit for uk ?
If we are independent before march, we are told we are out the EU, but how can we be, as we are constantly told, Scotland is not a member state.
Yet our people are EU Citizens, who expressed their legally Sovereign will to remain IN the EU.
So, unless someone can tell me by what EU rule/regulation or law, the EU will use to remove our EU citizenship against our express will, we are not going to be ‘out’ at all.
However, if we dissolve the Uk pre March 2019, then England is, according to unionists, also out immediately. And with their population voting leave, then leave they will.
But here is the kicker, neither Scotland nor England are the EU member, it is the Uk.
If Scots dissolve the uk before brexit, there is not a member state in existence to leave the EU, so then what?
Any agreements made are no longer relevent and an indy Scotland get EU membership as our population are already EU citizens and happy to remain as such, and England, get the hardest cliff edge brexit possible with ZERO deals as their is no longer a Uk member state in existence on the day we vote Yes.
We have more power than we sometimes think.
Scotland, supposedly too wee to poor too stupid…yet here we are, on the cusp of dissolving the union and ending the uk, then defining the terms of English brexit for all concerned.
Popcorn shares the best thing i ever invested in…!!
LikeLike
England have gone to war with Scotland and other countries for much less of a threat. They will take military action to prevent this from happening. Without our natural resources to exploit and borrow against, they can’t afford not to. The English/UK economy is on the verge of collapse as it is.
LikeLike
Sorry but that is just nonsense.
There will be no armed intervention to stop independence.
WM are devious, not stupid.
LikeLike
I tend to agree. But, given the dangerously unpredictable, erratic and irrational nature of the British government, it would be a bold individual who didn’t hedge their bets a little.
LikeLike
Gordon perhaps using the word “war” was a little strong, however it will feel like it. After a no deal Brexit (as is looking most likely), the UK economy will collapse. Desperate times will call for desperate measures by Westminster.
There is no doubt in my mind that when the full catastrophic effects of Brexit manifests itself, this right wing Tory government will react in an undemocratic and brutal manner.
Their first act will be to declare a national emergency. Then they will suspend the devolved parliament in Edinburgh and the assembly in Cardiff (on the grounds of national unity).
There is a fine line between peaceful mass protest and civil unrest. Remember the bully boys and knuckle dragger Orange Order types, almost caused riots the day after the independence referendum in George Square. So when the inevitable civil unrest begins. THAT is when the military will be used to control the populace. The national Police forces would simply be unable to cope.
History has shown time and again that UK governments are capable of horrific acts of military oppression against their own population when it suits them, or are you not old enough to remember the atrocities they committed against the miners or the military occupation of Northern Ireland.
The British/Westminster establishment will stop at nothing to protect their own interests and the interests of the wealthy corporate elite. To think otherwise is naive at best.
LikeLike
So, you begin with admitting to using a prejorative term, then go on to use OTHER hysterical language.
Trying to equate independence to Ireland or the miners strike makes you look rather foolish.
I am 52 and have in depth knowledge of the Miners strike as my old man was the Scottish organiser of the old AAEW union which later became the GMB .
I made up food parcels for miners during the strike, out my own pocket at times and spoke to hundreds of them as i helped to co ordinate support services alongside the unions.
I can absolutely state with utter clarity, those days were nothing like what you claim could happen today because we in Scotland become independent.
They are NOTHING like each other.
Not even entertaining you nonsense over Irish comparison.
You need to grow up a little it seems.
LikeLiked by 1 person