THE UNION IS IN TROUBLE NOW. MIA IS GETTING WARMED UP!

A great follow up article from Yours for Scotland regular columnist Mia.

“The constant arguments for achieving independence either without a referendum or through a non section 30 approval referendum are getting somewhat repetitive”

Far more repetitive and tiresome are the continuous goalpost moving and the inane arguments used to block Scotland from dissolving this union despite sending consistently absolute majorities of anti-union MPs for the best part of 8 years.

“There isn’t a non Section 30 route”
Yes, there is.

The Section 30 route only applies to the devolution settlement, that is, when you are trying to follow a route out of the UK utilising a devolution tool. Holyrood is the devolution tool. But using this tool means Scotland accepting to demote itself to the status of a region of Greater England. I don’t recall ever having been asked consent for that demotion.

The first question we should be asking ourselves regarding that route is if the devolution settlement is actually still intact. Because if it is not intact, then the “need” for a S30 becomes academic.

Does the devolution settlement remain intact? You tell me. Personally I think not, as I think that by butchering the Scotland Act, as collateral they also destroyed the status quo that legitimised their beloved No vote from 2014.

England MPs blinded by their greed, their rush to put their paws on Scotland’s assets and for unlawfully transferring power from our parliament onto themselves, butchered the Scotland Act. They did this unilaterally, that is, without Scotland, the rightful owner of those assets and powers, giving consent for them to do so.

Forcing someone to have sex without their consent is rape. Taking somebody’s belongings without their consent is theft. Knowingly mis-selling a product under the wrong specification is fraud. The three of them are crimes. So how do you call to the act of sabotaging devolution by savaging the mutual agreement that supported that settlement so England MPs could put their hands on Scotland’s powers and assets without Scotland’s consent, claiming it was “for our own good”? What kind of feeble constitutional law we have that does not consider such action as a crime against Scotland?

That Act was a contract between Scotland and Westminster, and what Westminster violated were some of the fundamental conditions stated in the contract. Considering that the butchering was not consented by Scotland, until what point such unilateral act of unconsented vandalism has not rendered already such mutually agreed contract null and void?

If you are thinking in the English convention mantra that Westminster is sovereign and can do as it pleases, then let me tell you it is not for many reasons. But the relevant one here is that the status quo which was presented to us during the 2014 referendum was one that had the Scotland Act intact, therefore butchering that act is an effing big change in material circumstances that changes the status quo which legitimised our 2014 vote. You destroy the status quo without both parties consent and you de-legitimise the result that rests on it.

Forcing absolute rule over Scotland is unlawful under the Claim of Right. Butchering that Act and forcing over Scotland a new status quo without Scotland’s consent is forcing absolute rule over Scotland. Had Nicola Sturgeon been a proper pro-independence leader instead of another Westminster puppet without a backbone, and she would have told Westminster to shove their butchered Act and their S30 where the sun does not shine.

After the butchering of the Act, asking for a S30 is legitimising the vandalism made by England MPs to that Act and legitimising the theft of our powers. Nicola Sturgeon hasn’t earned my respect by humiliating Scotland with such capitulation, when what she should have done is to fight for Scotland’s rights and declaring that Act void.

There is of course another dimension of devolution relevant here, which is until what point devolution was ever lawful in the context of the union in the first place. In 1707 Scotland signed a treaty with THE KINGDOM OF ENGLAND, not with Westminster or the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”. The Scotland Act is a contract between Scotland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. In the context of the Union where Scotland is an equal partner and not a region of Greater England, such contract should have been between Scotland and the Kingdom of England, not with an entity whose legitimacy to act on behalf of Scotland relies on Scotland’s continuous consent for it to do so. So, how lawful is such devolution settlement when a parallel one was never designed for England? Until what point is lawful for England MPs in the context of a bipartite union of two equally sovereign nations to claim they “own” more of Scotland’s powers than Scotland itself? 

The more you look into devolution in the context of the union, the more absurd and unlawful it looks and the more it looks like a strategy designed to transfer power from Scotland into England MP’s hands.

But I digress. Moving away from the devolution dimension, one cannot forget that since 1707 Scotland is an equal partner in a bipartite political union that stands over an international treaty. Scotland can and should exercise its legitimate right AS AN EQUAL SIGNATORY of that treaty, and not as a devolved region or a pretend region of Greater England, to terminate that treaty. It does not need any S30 for that. The only thing it needs is a majority of pro indy MPs with a backbone, with principles, with conviction and with loyalty to Scotland.

Terminating the treaty means removing the legitimacy of Westminster to continue acting on behalf of Scotland. As a matter of fact, and arguably, issuing a mandate for an independence referendum since 2016 has already removed that legitimacy from Westminster, so one wonders until what point Westminster can lawfully deny Scotland anything under such circumstances.

I am of the opinion that the situation where we find ourselves in, being first demanded to hold an S30, then denied one, then being told “now is not the time” while England MPs force absolute rule over us to take control of our assets, despite 3 absolute majorities of SNP MPs and despite mandates for indyref since 2016, is because we do not have a real pro-independence leader in charge of Bute House. 

“Sturgeon clearly intends to test this in the Supreme Court knowing she will most probably lose”
Sturgeon has no intention in delivering independence, that bit is clear. 8 years of wasting our time, the best opportunities any pro-indy leader could dream of and investing all her energy in blocking the main route for Scotland to end this union while enabling brexit, prove as much. Her announcement on Tuesday was no different.

“Then everyone will wait for a meaningless plebiscite election”
It will be only meaningless if Nicola Sturgeon is allowed to get away with blocking the route again. What we need to stop this serial timewaster is another pro-indy party willing to run on a mandate where a majority of pro indy MPs is a mandate to terminate the union. I wonder if Alba would step up to the plate and help us bypass Sturgeon’s uncommitted SNP.

“which will enable the SNP to avoid scrutiny of their actual performance in Gov”
This is nothing about the abysmal performance of Westminster’s satellite government in Holyrood. This is all about the survival of the union and ensuring England can keep its hands in our resources to survive its brexit at our expense.

” Then whatever the result nothing will happen because – wait for it – it requires a Section 30 approval”
If nothing happens it will not be because of a stupid S30 whose need has always been dubious at best. It will be because we don’t have a serious pro-independence leader leading our majority of pro indy MPs to terminate the union.

MY COMMENTS

Mia has the rights of this. Yes it highlights London’s duplicity and bullying behaviour but equally worrying it also highlights the supine behaviour of the Scottish Government who instead of standing up for Scotland makes a few ”brave” statements then leaves the field open for whatever Westminster has decided to do. Can you imagine the difference if it was Mia they were having to deal with? I can and hope one day soon it will be a whole team of Mia’s on the field. That is what we need.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some websites that claim to be pro Indy have turned out to be only Pro SNP sites and have sought to ban any websites that dare to question SNP Policy or tactics. They seek to avoid the public being aware that alternatives to waiting for Westminster to “grant” Scotland a Section 30 to hold a referendum exist. Issues like the flawed franchise, the Claim of Right route, the work of the SSRG and Salvo fill them with dread. As this blog promotes all routes, including alternatives I am banned from these sites and am therefore very grateful to my readers, who knowing about these efforts to ban and suppress go out of their way to subscribe and to share my articles far and wide. It is a good thing that attempts to restrict free speech and censor are defeated in this way.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Free subscriptions are available on this site from both the Home and Blog pages. This will ensure you will be notified every time a new article is posted. Each article already gets posted to many thousands of people, I hope you will come and join us. You will be most welcome.