Dominic Raab's comments on Scotland on the Andrew Marr programme yesterday gave a real insight into his thinking. As Politics Home reported about c0mments Raab made on Donald Tusks comments that Scotland would be heard empathically by Europe if it ever wished to join:
That provoked outrage from Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab - who branded the intervention as "un-European".
"I think it was frankly un-European and rather irresponsible given the succession sepratist tendencies in Spain, in France, in Italy," the senior Tory told the programme.
I will ignore the rest of what Raab said as it was the usual Tory blather about the SNP. This comment was, instead new. What it did was two things.
First, it showed a willingness to tell the EU what it should think.
Second, it tried to play a game of saying the EU must not view Scotland as having a claim to be a nation, when in many arenas that is already recognised to be the case, including (not least) within the UK itself.
With regard to the first of these issues, I rather suspect the EU will be somewhat indifferent to the UK's views right now. Their willingness to side with Spain over Gibraltar is some indication of that. The second issue is, though, much more interesting. I am relying on the work of Craig Murray when making comment. As he has noted:
In its judgement on Kosovo, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) specifically confirmed that the agreement of the state being seceded from was not necessary for Independence. That is the position in law, whatever any UK court may say. Indeed it was the UK government itself that put this argument most clearly to the ICJ in the Kosovo case.
5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor State's law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.
5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in which the secession is occurring.
5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond the scope of already conferred power.
That is a commendably concise and accurate description of the legal position. It is the legal opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, as submitted to the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case. The International Court of Justice endorsed this view, so it is both established law and the opinion of the British Government that a state has the right to declare Independence without the agreement or permission of the original state and its political or legal authorities.
I have read the Kosovo judgement. That interpretation seems correct to me.
Now put that in the context of today's comments from Raab. What he is saying in the first instance is that the UK, at least whilst this government is in charge, will never agree to a claim from the SNP for another referendum: he says instead that they have to honour the commitment he claims the SNP gave (although of course, it did not) not to hold another for a generation.
But more than that, he is saying to other states that they should not comment even though in fact it is their absolute right to do so, and indeed their absolute right to recognise the nationhood of Scotland whether or not the rest of the UK wishes them to do so, or not. What is more, it is their recognition of Scotland, and not the rest of the UK's decision to agree to its departure, that determines whether that departure is legitimate or not given that international law recognises that the state from which another secedes is never likely to agree to it doing so.
In the Scottish context this is critical. It means that for those who think that Scotland must wait for the UK to permit another referendum of the type held in 2014 the wait is going to be very long indeed. There is, I suggest, no real prospect of that. In other words, there is no real chance of a referendum being held under UK law.
And second, what the Kosovo decision says is that this does not matter: if Scotland decides to secede - and that might be as a result of the agreement of a national convention on the issue, or an indicative referendum, for example - then secede it may, and there is nothing in international law the UK can do about it. Nor would Scotland owe the rest of the UK any compensation when doing so.
I very strongly suspect the UK government knows this. The Kosovo opinion, declared by the UK government, cannot have passed it by. No wonder Whitehall thinks that this is one of the issues that has greatest potential to upset the Johnson government. And for precisely that reason I think Craig Murray is right to say that:
There will never again be a route to Scottish Independence deemed legal by Westminster. 2014 will never be repeated. The UK will never willingly give up a third of its land, most of its fisheries, most of its mineral resources, its most marketable beef, soft fruit and whisky, most of its renewable energy potential, a vital part of its military including its primary nuclear base, its best universities in a number of key fields including life sciences, its ready pool of intellectual and professional talent. Johnson is for once honest when he says keeping the Union together is his top priority. It is the top priority of the entire British establishment.
That was what Raab was saying yesterday. In effect, negotiation on this point is, as far as this government is concerned, a non-issue. It is not going to happen.
And yet, the issue will not go away. I do not think that solely because of Brexit, although it is clearly a factor. Instead, I think it's because Scotland is increasingly aware that culturally it is simply nothing like the rest of the UK. Most of England does not know that. But then, most of it has never given Scotland a thought, let alone gone there. And for Whitehall, Scotland is just territory. But, like Northern Ireland, and as I suspect Wales will also make clear in time, being treated like that is unacceptable. The only thing that Brexit does is make that difference much more apparent.
So, is Whitehall right to be afraid of Scotland? I think so; very much.
But Scotland has to rise to the challenge.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
As an Englishman I support the right of the Scots to self determination and I agree with Craig Murray’s analysis based on the law as it appears to stand. One caveat though, the Kosovo case was forced through by the imperialist power of the US to meet its own geopolitical ends. Who knows what levers were pulled or extorted, including with the British government. I have no doubt that HMG firmly believe that might is right and will use any dirty tricks, including manipulation of law both UK and international, needed to subvert the will of the Scots people.
The key question is what is the will of the Scots people. Not so clear cut as some would like to believe. Without clear support of a healthy majority of the Scots and acceptance by English people, you and Craig risk leading the people of both countries down a very risky path. One which Nicola Sturgeon, in perhaps a more statesman like way than people give her credit for, seems in no rush to embark on.
The ground has to be fully prepared on all sides. Akin to the position in Northern Ireland where all sides are clear that they are in such a process but it will take years.
I prefer the CommonWeal analysis….l
Jeepers, Richard! Don’t be telling Hong Kong independence supporters, of which there are only a few, in actual fact, that they don’t need China’s approval to secede. You can imagine what President Xi would say to that, if it ever got that far. The irony is that the current vice-president of the ICJ is Chinese: http://www.icj-cij.org/en/current-members.
🙂
Surely the most plausible from pro-independence Scots in response to a British nationalist refusal to abide by the 2014 Edinburgh Agreement precedent, at least in the short to medium term, is simply to say we will regard every subsequent Holyrood and Westminster election as plebiscitary?
I agree that Johnson is never going to “permit” indyref2, which makes Sturgeon’s gradualism last Friday even more surprising. The SNP leadership appears to have surrendered the field to the unionist argument that Holyrood needs permission to hold a referendum, even though there is no legal or constitutional consensus on the matter. The First Minister even appears to have unilaterally given up any plan to mount a legal challenge on the basis that it isn’t worth mounting a challenge unless we are sure of victory. Such a pallid approach is deeply disappointing.
Proposals for Constitutional Conventions and involving civic groups are all well and good, but do they really offer a better chance of winning independence any sooner than preparing for a plebiscitary election in May 2021?
I admit I find Sturgeon’s use of language – where she seems to have played on the Unionist pitch – very strange
My thoughts exactly. I can’t understand why there has been absolutely no attempt in the 5 years since 2014 to put the legality of a “non-sanctioned” indyref beyond doubt legally; it’s a huge dereliction of duty on the part of the SNP in my view.
Even if one accepts the Gold Standard “sanctioned” referendum as the surest route to independence recognised by the international community however, surely it is worth using the threat of plebiscitary Holyrood elections in 2021 as leverage?
It’s all very well for the First Minister and her team to protest that it’s a democratic outrage for Johnson’s government to keep saying “now is not the time”, or indeed to assert that eventually the British nationalists will be overtaken by an attack of reasonableness and be constrained to honour the 2014 precedent and respect the multiple mandates, but what incentive is there for a Tory government with an 80 seat majority to comply?
Having no Plan B for indyref2 looks increasingly quixotic given the likelihood of at least a decade of “now is not the time” responses from London, however much the lumpen loyalists at the SNP conference boo calls for an alternative to the one-track Westminster sanctioned referendum.
There’s a great deal of opinion in Scotland expressing impatience with Sturgeon’s approach and construing it as lacking ambition and urgency. My view is that she’s a very canny operator and much better at playing the long game than Salmond was: she keeps her powder dry whereas, too often, he’d show his hand in pursuit of an eyecatching headline.
However I do think it would help to keep the natives quiet and remind the UK Gov that we are not a colony if we made life more difficult for Westminster by acts of Constructive Disruption. One such act was outlined by Professor Peter Lomas in The Herald of 1st February in which he suggests that the Scottish Gov pass laws keeping Scots Law in step with EU Laws and Regulations in matters relating to powers which are already the devolved responsibility of Holyrood: https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/18202945.peter-lomas-scotland-salvage-can-saved-brexit-wreck/
That would be legally intra vires, would facilitate any future accession to EU membership and niggle the UK Gov by reminding them that our values, culture and aims are different from theirs.
Johnson has also announced that he’ll spend £5m on a poster and media campaign in Scotland pointing out all that he considers wrong with SNP governance and Scottish independence while talking up the supposed benefits of Scotland being a “valued partner” in the UK (one of the supposed benefits being UK Defence policies that put most of the Scottish population in the bull’s eye of biggest nuclear target in Western Europe against our wishes). Doubtless the £5m for the campaign will come from UK taxpayers, so we get the doubtful privilege of paying to see ourselves portrayed as crap in our own land.
A counter-balancing billboard & media campaign is urgently needed to show the opposing viewpoint by showing the downside of the UK Union starting with the infamous “Vow”, which swung the 2014 referendum to a “No” majority, and how the promises it contained were ignored and never implemented. This might be viewed as ultra-vires for the Scottish Gov, but, if so, why is it OK for the UK Gov to do it and, if it is indeed ultra-vires for the Scottish government, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s ultra vires for the SNP as a political party or the wider Yes Movement?
If the Scottish Gov really wanted to get up the UK Gov’s nose it could pass a law making the transportation of radioactive nuclear materials on Scotland’s roads unlawful. Fanciful I know, given the strong military presence when road convoys are transporting nuclear materials to and from Faslane/Coulport and Aldermaston, but they are a risk to public health and it is SNP policy to ban WMDs from Scotland’s land and waters.
Clearly sooner or later something has to give and the more Johnson, Gove and Demonic Raab C Brexit behave like colonial overlords, the greater the support for independence becomes.
Such a policy of non-cooperation appears to be essential now
Regarding the point raised by Andrew Ellis and lots of others I’ve seen on social media – while I sympathise with the desire to at least test the legal waters where a consultative referendum is concerned, I would posit that there are a few significant drawbacks to such an approach that tend to be glossed over.
Most obviously it runs the very real risk of descending into a sort of media-circus fiasco with a great deal of heat but no real light.
Secondly, at a time when we’re seeing gradual movement towards yes, adopting an all-out belligerent approach and drawing a line in the sand risks a kneejerk “no” response from people who are otherwise amenable to being convinced.
Lastly – and I think most importantly – enormous effort has been expended over many years in being sensible, responsible and methodical in the approach to independence, and it’s brought us within sight of the goal. I wouldn’t presume to know how much of the support for Yes (more specifically the soft support) is contingent on the faith that it’s a sensible project being managed by adults, but if I were to guess it would be a large number. Stepping away from the ‘grown up’ approach into the Grand-Empty-Gesture of a consultative referendum might well be manna for impatient members of the Yes crowd, but I suspect it would repel many of those Soft-Yessers AND give the usual suspects actual ammunition to paint the SNP and everyone else associated with the Yes movement as frivolous cranks who can’t be trusted to act like grown-ups.
Following up on Joanna Meier’s comment above, I think for many of those opposed to the SNP leadership’s gradualist approach, a legal challenge however problematic has become absolutely essential. Whether it would turn into a media circus is debatable, but given experience with e.g. Joanna Cherry’s case last year I would suggest that putting the matter of “legality” beyond doubt is rapidly becoming a pre-requisite for any meaningful progress. In the absence of such certainty the First Minister’s softly softly approach will become the only policy, and barring political earthquakes it is not one which will result in indyref2 happening any time soon.
As to the second point, it is of course possible that a more confrontational stance on the legal position may turn off some “soft No” voters. That is probably a risk worth taking however. Given the polling evidence that 2/3 of Scots believe only Holyrood should be deciding when and how often we have referendums, many other people, including some currently opposed to independence, may well be so outraged at the perceived lack of fairness that they decide to switch to Yes, particularly if they prioritise re-joining the EU.
In relation to the last point, it seems to me rather a “de haut en bas” message to get back in our boxes? I don’t think (most of?) those dismayed at Sturgeon’s thin gruel are in fact advocating Grand Empty Gestures, still less pushing for consultative referendums to be held. We want the issue legally settled: if the courts find in our favour, all well and good. We can then proceed with a legal vote on the 2014 precedent. If the courts find against us, at least we know that the choice then is very much between waiting an indeterminate number of years until Westminster “allows” us a vote, or coming up with a Plan B which rejects the concept that our self determination is in the gift of English voters.
The idea that those advocating such a course of action could reasonably be described as frivolous cranks, or that those making the accusation in the UK government, mainstream media or “soft Yes” independence movement are the responsible adults, has to be seen as a stretch given recent history!
I regret if I gave the impression of telling people to muzzle themselves or get back in their box, perhaps I just suffer from an overabundance of caution.
For clarity, I’m not extolling the important of the Soft-Yes *movement,* but rather the Soft-Yes *voters.* The people who are **not** deeply committed to the idea of Independence but have been (or are on the cusp of being) persuaded to support Yes without any particular animus either way. It would of course be wonderful if we could get everyone enthusiastically on board, but I suspect a large number will make their decision based on a pragmatic analysis of the situation as it pertains, and my worry – which I accept may be disproportionate – is that those people will go along with measured and, yes, incrementalist approach but will balk at lines drawn in the sand.
There actually IS a case coming up in Court. The Pre-Communication papers have already been sent to the UK Govt. It is being brought about by Martin Keatings, and backed by Scotgov. It was paid for by crowdfunding so no ‘public’ funds have been used. And because it has not being brought about by Scotgov, should it fail it will not harm any other avenues that Scotgov wish to pursue. Mr Keatings’s Council is Aidan O’Neill, who has already stated he sees no reason why the case SHOULD fail. That isn’t a guarantee, of course…
However, Martin has a good thread about it on his timeline, should you wish to check it out.
https://twitter.com/MartinJKeatings/status/1223189711361118208
This ignores though that if he wins Westminster will just change the law…
Perhaps Westminster changing the law is the desired outcome. It won’t be a good look, and will probably be constitutionally maladroit. Another straw on the back of the Scottish Unionist camel which will have no real delaying effect on the process of independence. It will effectively be a game of legislative whack-a-mole, and an additional burden for a parliament already preoccupied with Brexit.
Distilling the essence from all this, it appears that Scotland, so long portrayed by the south as being small, poor and stupid, is in fact quite big, richly endowed with human and natural resources and intellectually up there with the best of nations. That it is in a captive situation is illustrated by the fact that its democratically stated wishes are ignored at will in Westminster based only on the population asymmetry between it and England.
All the wealth of Scotland is freely accessible to the rest of the UK under the present political system – indeed, as far as electrical energy is concerned Scots even have to pay more for the use of the national grid to send it south. In the event of Scotland’s recovery of its status as an internationally recognised sovereign state, all the resources would still be available, but now to other takers as well as England, at a fair price to be paid to the Scots nation. Is this, fundamentally, the reason for the southern opposition to independence? It does seem rather likely.
They are scared of Scotland leaving, we are theircash cow.
Dominic Raab can say this with a straight face can he ?
“I think it was frankly un-European and rather irresponsible given the succession (sic) separatist tendencies in Spain, in France, in Italy,” the senior Tory told the programme.”
To paraphrase The late and much lamented Terry Jones in his role of the Mother of Brian, “He’s not a senior Tory. He’s just a very naughty boy.”
In my opinion, and I think I’ve said this before here, the future of the EU, if it is to be successful into the 21st century, will be as a federation of small states each with a cohesive national identity, sovereignty (of their own choosing, be that monarchy, parliamentary, or ‘will of the people’-centred democracy) and as much individual control as is consistent with being in the same basic political union and trading bloc. I suspect every EU nation would like to be a free-booting Brexit UK, but have more realpolitik sense than to think it presents a coherent path in a world of major power blocs and uber wealthy lawless billionaires who will play nation against nation for their own ends. (and probably win).
It would be very, very useful to find out why the FM does not consider this? It’s not illegal, it’s not ‘wildcat’, it is recognised by the civilised world. Personally I suspect Joanna Cherry would.
I think Joanna Cherry would….
I am confident that Nicola is only too aware of her words…their implications or perceived implications . And these options…
She’s canny and she’s surrounded by canny folks who are for Indy. This is coming…and they are playing the ‘oppressed nation’ part beautifully..because of course, we are…and in that resonates the truth.
And with the truth more folks look up From their Sun newspapers and go..here haud on a minute….and then like the matrix…once the veil drops and You can see the code….it’s clear..
More folks turn and see through the BS on the daily.. and the Dominic Raab and ilks harangued crys are super tasty to a nation who knows her rights and is playing it with aplomb.
In view of other democratic paths to leaving the Union being blocked and in view of the threat of closure of Holyrood. Should the SNP call a National Assembly of all Scottish MP’s in Holyrood and Westminster, for the purpose of claiming independence?
As I understand it the Old Scottish Parliament was only put into abeyance 300 odd years ago, and could be reconvened with full powers by a National Assembly vote.
As the sovereign Scottish people elected these MP’s to represent them and their interests, it should be considered a democratic result by all international bodies.
I think Nicola Sturgeon is thinking on these lines…
Not ‘claiming independence’ Declaring independence’.
🙂
I think someone referenced Craig Murray’s blog of 2/2/20 and you referenced it above. He seems to think that a Convention of elected members could break through the deadlock: ” an assembly of Scotland’s MPs, MSPs, MEPs and council leaders will have a clear Independence majority numerically and a massive Independence majority intellectually. It will have an extremely strong claim to be a properly representative assembly whose members each have a democratic mandate.” and that “The dynamic of a new constitutional body whose members feel they command legitimacy, should not be underestimated. The convening of this body will be a real constitutional innovation. We need to make sure, that like that French National Assembly, they can clearly hear a huge mob outside their windows, demanding radical and speedy change.”
I have always thought that a referendum is a highly unsatisfactory way of deciding complex issues (as events have shown) and that it should be a matter for elected representatives. Especially since MSP’s, ex-MEP’s and Councillors are all elected by PR. The fact that MP’s are elected by an entirely unfair system is not their fault.
Thank you Richard, I read Craig Murray’s comments when he posted them. I’m not at all sure that the National Convention will behave as Craig describes what it could.
The most recent YouGov poll gave us 51% Yes to 49% No (DK’s excepted) and this from the pollster who has been the lowest level of that question.
Survation says it is 50-50 and we have not yet begun to campaign in earnest because ScotGov will not call a formal campaign so folk will not open their doors to us if we did (my experience from last time until time was short). My wife, initially willing to consider Yes after the Brexit result will no longer engage and did not bother voting in the GE. I suspect this attitude is common.
When the last indyref was initially called the polls had Yes at 28% and look where we ended up, 52% with 2 weeks to go which precipitated the panic No believing the lie that a Yes vote would catapult us out of the EU.
Remain and No are no longer compatible positions. There is no longer a status quo to vote for, all is flux so the question is which change is preferable and I will put it thus to folk on the doorsteps and in the street when we are allowed to campaign.
Last time it was sometimes hard to sufficiently malign the ConDem coalition govt in Wastemonster. This time with Boris and his large majority and the spectre of Thatcherism Mark II it will be MUCH easier. I will invoke the shade of Thatcher in our own Project Fear and that will play well in Scotland, especially in the older generations. I may have to explain it to the younger folk, tell them to listen to Letter from America by The Proclaimers and think about the names of places in the second half of that song.
I did not live it, I was growing up in New Zealand at the time but we watched it aghast on the news and read it in the newspapers. I was a precocious newspaper reader. About the only Thatcher policy I applauded was the end of school milk, I hated that when a wean in Scotland. I’m lactose intolerant and it made me feel bad but I was forced to drink the lukewarm stuff. Even with cold Lactose Free milk I NEVER just drink it. Old habits die hard.
But everything else up to and including Pinochet I abhor. I can cite chapter and verse of it and will do so. Thanks to Boris we have our very own Project Fear to deploy, the spectre of Thatcher will stalk the land and the object lesson will be noted. Thanks Boris, forgive him for he knows not what he does.
The problem here, from the perspective of the SNP is not, I suspect Dominic Raab, nor the British Government. I do not say Raab and Downing Street are of no importance at all, but their significance in Scotland is a great deal less than they believe. Raab and the Government is full of ill-founded bluster. The problem, from the perspective of the SNP, is first and foremost the Scottish people; or at least the the SNP’s understanding of the expectations of the few hundred thousand voters they wish to persuade, that would propel them to the 60% support for independence that they crave.
The principal lesson the SNP appear to have taken from the 2016 Brexit referendum is that a small majority (52/48 for example) is an ugly result they wish to avoid. I have said it before, but it remains true. The Scottish people are deeply (small ‘c’) conservative. They instinctively prefer to see change arise (if change must arise, and which they know is clearly now unavoidable with Brexit), when it arises it should come in the form of ‘gradualist evolution’. The Scottish people haven’t collectively been moved to shake-up the order of things on the grand, popular scale since the National Covenant (1638). This is just how it is. The SNP approach is, I hypothesise, driven by feeling the weight of that resistant fact on their shoulders. I doubt if the British Government attitiude would matter a great deal or indeed at all, if the SNP were not a great deal more afraid of upsetting the Scottish people’s conventional expectations, than they were of a British Government a little too crudely trying to look tough with a S.30 Order; metaphorically waving their little piece of paper in the air. It is ultimately the Scottish people who matter here, and who will decide.
The Scottish people, or at least the voters who will ‘swing’ it, I suspect are far more interested currently to see how Brexit actually unfolds before taking the final step to independence. Once again, the British Government is not of no importance in this, but it is of less importance than it probably imagines; for Britain is now the prisoner of its own fateful decision on Brexit; and must live with the consequences it has set in motion, whatever they are. Britain took back control of leaving the EU, but it is not in control of the outcome; for the Government has no idea what it will be, or what it looks like; and least of all, how to deliver it. The rhetoric of Downing Street is all bluff.
I am sceptical that the Scottish people, however conservative, will wait very long for a positive picture of Brexit to emerge; certainly not for a “generation”, or anything like it. Bad news, in trade and economics is difficult to hide in the modern world and will be destructive, and sudden for Downing Street in Scotland. Nor will whittling away the powers of Holyrood, by supposedly unnoticed Westminster sleight-of-hand, cut the mustard either. Life is too short, and the standard Brexiteer’s ‘taking back control’ as the abstract, contentless; but a mere slogan, as ultimately the only public, concrete reward of Brexit may be sufficient for the ERG ideologues of English Nationalism, but it will butter no parsnips in Scotland; and any more of that kind of guff will not stand long – and nor will the Union.
John, your posts are always illuminating and a pleasure to read. This one in particular. The thought has vaguely occurred to me that convincing the Scots to vote for independence by a wide margin is going to be the independence movements greatest challenge, especially with the use of the kind of micro-targeted propaganda delivered to peoples smartphones by the unscrupulous and ruthless campaigners of the right like Cummings.
What you seem to be saying in your last paragraph though is that, deeply small ‘c’ conservative as the Scots are, they aren’t going to be conned by the Brexiters lies and bullshit in the way too many people here were, and are, alas. And also that the UK government is far less important in this than one might think. Especially given that this is a government composed of incompetent charlatans and led by, as you Scots so correctly put it, a ‘lying arsehole’.
If this is true, then the Union is doomed.
sickoftaxdodgers I hope you will be heartened by the recent launch of ‘Scotland the brief’ a non party political campaign supported by Business for Scotland. It includes resources and training which will vigorously combat the ‘unscrupulous and ruthless’ campaigners against indy. Depending how much time/interest you have the whole launch was recorded and can been seen on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nl9-fFZk5Y&feature=youtu.be or if that is too much then peruse the website ( do take the quiz! ) https://www.businessforscotland.com/scotland-the-brief/
Thank you for the over-generous, kind words; in particular I am so glad you could understand my last sentence; because – jings – it has completely lost me (!); I am a fumble fingers and fluffed it, or as I like to think of it, I committed a “Richard” (after our esteemed host, who I understand both invented the fast fluff and has authorised its fast forgiveness).
I think it should read: “Life is too short, and the standard Brexiteer’s ‘taking back control’ as the abstract, contentless, mere sloganising as ultimately the only public, concrete reward of Brexit may be sufficient for the ERG ideologues of English Nationalism, but it will butter no parsnips in Scotland; and any more of that kind of guff will not stand long — and nor will the Union.”
The Scots are conservative, but push the guff to the point they are clearly being conned wholesale, or ripped-off, or both and they will become very, very unforgiving. I do not think the Government has the slightest idea what it has done, or the can of worms that could now inadvertently, open and spew out. Britian couldn’t have the history it has, or arrive where it is today without acquiring a very, very large can of worms, and rot in its train.
🙂
May I add that I agree with your remarks on “micro-targeted propaganda”. I have no doubt that Scotland is certainly going to be hit with a lavishly funded, ruthless, cynical, dirty campaign in order do or say whatever it takes to hang on to the Union.
It will be nasty, but a hostage to fortune; and speaking to the Unionist gerontocracy in Scotland is easy for the condervative Government to do but of limited electoral value, and now has fast diminishing demographic returns. The Scottish Conservative Party, meanwhile has sunk under Davidson and Carlaw to the level of a loud, crude, blustering, intellectual vacuum; so the Government will find little useful advice there (although I doubt if Dominic Cummings would even consider it worth asking). Finally, if the propaganda strategy in Scotland goes wrong, as is quite possible; they are finished.
I read with interest, the 45 page Legal Opinion which was drafted by the QC, to initiate legal challenge to the Crown position. It’s also worth mentioning that the 2016 Act requires a supporting Scottish referendum to initiate the dissolution of Holyrood. That is now enshrined in law. The legal challenge to the Crown hinges upon whether a referendum obligates the consequences or merely informs, leaving politicians to determine the next steps and it is their actions which are then intra or ultra vires, not the referendum itself. It is highly likely (in my view) the Courts will side with the latter position, as the arguments are well researched and founded and to date, our judiciary have demonstrated no inclination to fall in line with Tory Party policy. The next few weeks should prove very interesting……
[…] were 29,822 reads yesterday. Most were on freeports and Boris Johnson. But the future of Scotland also got a good look in. That was the site’s ninth best day, […]
An interesting view of international law, and Barnier’s comment about welcoming Scotland into the EU fold. A couple of positions could follow from that. A statement welcoming Catalonia into the EU if it were to cede from Spain, and not supporting Spain’s claim to Gibraltar. If Spain we’re to take over Gibraltar with EU support against Gibraltar’s wishes, then the Gibraltar could legally cede from Spain with the support of the EU.
You miss the whole point
The EU can only welcome Scotland because the UK is not in the EU
When the UK was in the EU Scotland had to have a UK approved referendum to leave
Now it need not have one
Catalonia still does because the EU is pledged to uphold its member states
But the UK is no longer a member state so it can treat Scotland differently
As a member the UK had a veto on countries (such as Scotland) joining the EU.
In other words, its a bit of control we’ve given up, rather than taken back.