I know this article is from former Tory seat warming MSP Adam Tomkins but to be honest is says a lot about the Tory mindset but also I suspect the mindset of too many people in Scotland, the established order, and sadly the Courts that I no longer trust, if I ever really did, to make a fair judgement, and I actually I find it a bit chilling to be honest.
Tompkins talks of three reasons why Nicola Sturgeon will not get her preferred choice of a referendum anytime soon.
Reason 1 – it is not what Scots want. They want their economy fixed, their health service repaired, and their schools improved. For sure, they do not want to be told by a patrician government in London that they can never have another independence referendum. But they don’t want one any time soon. They want it on the horizon, but no closer than that, thank you very much.
I would tend to agree that he is correct, just now, on this one. Other than die hard yes supporters most people I know, who favour a referendum, are sadly thinking that it should be held between the next 3 to 5 years. I do suspect that might narrow if Boris Johnson calls an early General Election (which I think he will), and the Tories win that election with or without Johnson as Prime Minister as I also believe he is on his way out now. Either way though, no matter who is Prime Minister Westminster is never going to agree to another referendum anytime soon, they are too afraid even though if were them I would be going for one soon as the sooner it is the more likely the union wins.
Reason 2 – there is no political consensus that the independence question should be put once again to the people of Scotland. Before the 2014 referendum, all parties agreed that the question should be asked. The “settled will of the Scottish people” matters in Scotland, where that phrase is well-worn and widely understood.
While it is clear the unionists are afraid to ask the question, Should Scotland be an independent country? it is also clear that there is a mandate to hold another referendum and Scottish voters have said that they believe a second referendum should take place at some point, with 31% saying it should be within the next two years. (The Week) I find the continued denial of the mandate and of democracy chilling, this is the type of attitude that will lead to unrest in the longer term and in accepting this state of affairs Scotland would be accepting that it is a colony and not a country, that can never be allowed to happen in any shape or form.
Reason 3 – The UK Supreme Court (now presided over by a Scottish judge, Lord Reed) has gone out of its way to make clear that it will have no hesitation in holding the Scottish Parliament within the limits of its legislative competence. Any attempt to trigger a second referendum using Holyrood legislation would face two insurmountable legal obstacles. Not only is the Union and constitutional powers the preserve of Westminster, but the Scotland Act separately insists that nothing in it changes the UK Government’s ability to make laws for the people of Scotland.
In other words, devolution is with us to stay and even the Supreme Court is in the mood to flex whatever legal muscle it needs to ensure that neither Holyrood, Nicola Sturgeon, nor anyone else damages or dilutes Westminster’s reach across the country. Without Westminster’s consent, prospects for a second independence referendum in Scotland are all but dead, no matter how much Nicola Sturgeon may puff and posture in front of her party faithful.
The Supreme Court should not be allowed to ride rough shot on the democratic aspirations of the Scottish people based on a treaty, that allegedly is voluntary, from 1706 irrespective of what that treaty says allowing basically the English Government and English Voters to decide the fate of Scotland and it’s people, that would in my opinion be a crime. Tompkins implies that the Court will deny the wishes of the Scottish Parliament, and even if they didn’t, Westminster would just change the law anyway to ensure that Scotland remains trapped in the corrupt and disgusting thing called the United Kingdom and perpetual English Tory Rule.
That people makes us a colony and trapped for all time, that cannot and must not be allowed to be the outcome, we cannot allow this state of affairs to come about and if the SNP and Sturgeon do not make plans very soon we have got to remove them from power and put in place people who will fight for Scotland’s independence. I also remain convinced that a referendum is the worst possible outcome for Scotland, Sturgeon (maybe knowingly) made her biggest mistake tying Scotland to a Section 30 agreement with Westmonster , no, when Johnson calls an early General Election that election needs to be a plebiscite election in Scotland with a single manifesto pledge from all pro yes parties –
If you return a pro yes Member of Parliament to Westminster, and if a majority of pro yes MPS are returned, then a constitutional convention will be held in Scotland, the Treaty of Union will be revoked at Holyrood, and immediate negotiations will be held with the UK Government on the division of assets.
Tomkins the turncoat , he help write a book on how we should rule ourselves . Power and money really changes folk huh ? Can’t stand the man .
I can’t stomach him either, always thought he was the worst kind of house jock. These people while really annoying the crap out of me also get my pity, imagine having so little faith in your country, it must be crap to be them. You can have all the money in the world but it doesn’t make you happy, we know that every time super wealthy folk or on the tv etc, they might have trappings of influence and power but look at them, none of them are really happy.
Thanks for commenting.
Your article, grumpy, shows why we will never get independence domestically now without some approach to the UN and international court after a plebiscitary election. So long as the SNP (and, indeed, any of the other independence parties) insists on a second referendum, we are going nowhere. The reason is not because Westminster would withhold consent (of course it will, forever and a day, if we keep complying) or that not enough people want independence or that people don’t want independence now (actually, any country trying to gain its independence, as the facts prove, is better to do so when the larger state is in a process of collapse or dire straits) but because nothing has been attempted. It is inertia that is destroying independence, and that can be laid squarely at the feet of the allied pseudo ‘wokerati’ and the foot-draggers within the political party at Holyrood and Westminster.
The people are almost incidental to this determination to collaborate with the English establishment. It is entirely an intellectual stance decided upon by the few at the top, and the sheeple loyalists bleat and baaa their approval without even a modicum of understanding that they are being had, and the noise they hear in the background is the slaughter house truck, not applause. In France, during WW II, the people of Vichy (at least many of them, including the various organs of state, such as civil servants, police, etc.) were led by their leaders to believe that their best bet was to collaborate and avoid occupation and military rule from the German High Command, and all that that would entail. In the end, they were occupied, many, many thousands died as partisans or as picked examples to be shot, not to mention the many who died at the hands of their own compatriots for collaborating.
Chamberlain tried appeasement before the war started, and Norwegian, Quisling, was eventually shot for his collaboration. Oddly, both the Danish and Norwegian royal families (related) eschewed collaboration in favour of passive resistance, proving that not all establishment figures go along with the establishment line. The SNP might even believe that, by collaborating, they are doing the best for their people (I’m afraid I no longer believe that) but it will end badly for them, and their names will go down in history as among those who were less than honest about the actualite. They have thrown away opportunity after opportunity, mandate after mandate, so one can conclude only that they are collaborators with the England-as-the-UK establishment, and things are not getting better for us, but worse and worse as time passes. They have made the wrong decision, and hell mend them for that and for their reasons for doing that.
Can’t disagree with anything you have said, we are in a place right now that relies on the SNP to make the moves and then the wider yes community can step up but the SNP are appeasers of the union right now as you imply. All we can do is keep the pressure on them as best we can and ultimately remove our vote if they don’t deliver by 2023, although they lost my vote some time ago anyway. I hope they get the finger out, I hope they prove me wrong, but I just don’t think they will to be honest. Sturgeon is a coward as far as I am concerned, Brexit was the time to get moving and start updating the answers to the various questions, nothing, that is a crime and should not be forgiven if or when it all goes pear shaped. I don’t think I will see independence in my lifetime but I won’t give up trying to get it as best I can in my own small ways.
Thanks for commenting.
He advocated for Independence many years ago , he even contributed to writing a book , how we should govern ourselves . I wonder what changed him 🤔 money and power and being a Tory l guess .
Money and power, that is what the English Government do to the Scots we elect, live in the big smoke, get a good salary, all expenses paid, nice pension, seat in the Lords if you are good, give up your principles and what is going to happen wither way. Sad but true.
Thanks for commenting.
‘If you return a pro yes Member of Parliament to Westminster, and if a majority of pro yes MPS are returned, then a constitutional convention will be held in Scotland, the Treaty of Union will be revoked at Holyrood, and immediate negotiations will be held with the UK Government on the division of assets.’ your last para.
We have majority of Scottish pro Independence MPs (45 out of 59) in HoC and in Holyrood it is 64 each for Indy/Union – excluding Presiding Officer and assuming Greens technically Unionist.
if we presume Greens are Indy minded that gives us the majority there also.
So can we get everyone on board and convene the Grand Committee?
I think we would at least need to campaign in the premise I outlined so it is clear with no doubt in anyones mi d what they are voting for but yes the mandate is there from what you have outlined
Thanks for commenting.
“the Treaty of Union will be revoked at Holyrood, and immediate negotiations will be held with the UK Government on the division of assets.”
This is not an entirely ‘safe’ route as Holyrood is given its power by Westminster. If Holyrood revokes the Treaty of Union it would be challenged as being beyond the limits of its legislative competence and therefore illegal.
However, within the terms of the Treaty of Union Scotland’s sovereignty is vested in its Scottish MPs at Westminster, not the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish MPs need to walk out of Westminster having used their legitimate powers under the Claim of Right to collectively revoke the Treaty of Union. The MPs acting as a Scottish Convention could then empower the Holyrood Parliament to govern on an interim basis with full powers whilst the Convention and members of the Scottish Parliament negotiate Scotland’s position with our immediate neighbours (England Wales and Ireland) and other members of the international community.
There is historic precedence and a growing view that if the Scottish MPs are not prepared to protect our sovereign rights as outlined above then a Convention of the people of Scotland (The three Estates) could be established to democratically & legally force the issue with our MPs (and MSPs) through popular sovereignty.
Anyway would be enough for me, I was thinking out of the box and your idea sounds far more plausible indeed. Anything that gets us out of the UK as a referendum for myself is just a non starter now to be honest.
Thanks for commenting.
Cheers. Further information is available at https://www.scottishsovereigntyresearchgroup.org/
broonpot: it is a moot point that the Treaty cannot simply be set aside by one party to it without international input and legal force. The Treaty is the foundation document of the UK itself and cannot be resiled in domestic law, only in international law. Also, its efficacy will be tested when it comes to negotiating the assets because Scotland cannot afford to allow England-as-the-UK to dictate terms – which it will try to do – and make off with the lion’s share. I’m not talking about joint and moveable assets which will have to be negotiated as they are situated and where compensation will come into play (unless we leave with no liabilities when most assets of this nature will accrue to England-as-the-UK); I’m talking about Scotland’s land and all that is on the land, Scotland’s seas and all that is under the seas, Scotland’s air and all that flies in that air, etc. We entered the Treaty intact, and we should leave intact. All territory that we entered the Union with is still ours, and so on. Any part of Scotland that thinks to depart before the resiling of the Treaty and independence needs to understand that it must negotiate with Scotland and not England-as-the-UK. The Treaty is the sole area in which we have the same rights as England and in which England cannot interfere, but must also seek international judgement. Westminster knows this and has always known it. England-as-the-UK will try to usurp our rights under international law. Of that, be under no illusion.
I agree, particularly with your statement that “We entered the Treaty intact, and we should leave intact. All territory that we entered the Union with is still ours, and so on. Any part of Scotland that thinks to depart before the resiling of the Treaty and independence needs to understand that it must negotiate with Scotland and not England-as-the-UK.”
However, my view is that if necessary and as constitutional and political expedients to protect our assets & our future Scotland should be prepared to leave the Union without a settlement – ie a clean break, rather than negotiate terms with a lying cheating and totally unreliable pariah.
broonpot: yes, I am of that mind, too, but it’s not the shared assets that I worry about – we can forego them, I think for a clean slate – but there is much on our land and in our seas that England-as-the-UK might not wish to relinquish, and these can be dealt with only under international law. I am thinking of the nuclear facilities and the oil and gas facilities. Everything recently has been geared to south of the border: oil and gas pipelines; electricity terminals, and so on. I just can’t see England-as-the-UK ever being happy about a potentially successful Scotland being next door. Nothing has changed in over 300 years to make our individual situations different. Indeed, nothing has changed really in a thousand years: England has always wanted to ensure that its political and strategic ‘back door’ (us) is securely locked against potential threats; it has always wanted to ensure that we do not have trade routes that pose a threat to its own; and it has always wanted to interfere in our relations with other nations in order to secure its own future, never ours.