͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Trying to figure out WTF is going on

Action first

Peter A Bell

Jul 30

READ IN APP

The following is 'borrowed' from a comment by James Murphy on The National's report of John Swinney's call for an 'immediate' constitional convention. In his comment, James compared Swinney’s 'strategy' to real-world independence movements. I think readers will find it interesting and I know not everyone has access to these comments, so I'm reproducing the comment here. I suspect James won't object.

John Swinney’s current strategy for Scottish independence is built around:

Requesting permission from Westminster via a second referendum
Tying action to electoral success - specifically, an SNP-only majority in 2026
Emphasising legal, democratic, constitutional means only
Proposing a civic constitutional convention to marshal support before acting
Avoiding any direct state-building or institutional confrontation

It’s a strategy of waiting - not asserting power. It relies on polite pressure, hopeful diplomacy, and repeated mandates that are never acted on without UK approval.

Ireland (1918-1922) - Used the System, Then Withdrew

Won the 1918 UK General Election (46.9% of vote, 73 out of 105 seats)
Withdrew from Westminster and set up their own Parliament (the First Dil)
Created functioning government structures: civil service, courts, taxation
Declared independence without a referendum
Recognition came after control, not before

Lesson: Ireland didn’t ask twice. They won once - and acted.

Baltic States (1990-1991) - Legal Assertion Inside the System

Used Soviet elections and legal rights to pass declarations of independence
Created national councils, took control of lawmaking and government
Held referenda to confirm, not request, independence
Recognition followed assertion of authority

Lesson: Assert sovereignty through domestic control. International recognition follows.

Slovenia (1990-1991) - Strategic Preparation + Decisive Action

Held a plebiscite with 88% Yes on 93% turnout
Declared independence six months later
Built up institutions and control over key sectors in advance
Handled internal functions and foreign policy independently
Recognition came swiftly after action

Lesson: Use mandate as a trigger, not a talking point. Prepare, then move.

Norway (1905) - Legal Exit, Then Negotiation

In a union with Sweden under a shared monarchy
Norwegian parliament unilaterally dissolved the union over a legal dispute
Took control of foreign affairs and domestic governance
Held a plebiscite after asserting control - not before
Sweden recognised independence after negotiation

Lesson: Act first, negotiate second. Legitimacy comes from action.

Montenegro (2006) - Institutional Control First, Then Referendum

Slowly built up domestic control over taxation, laws, and administration
Only held a referendum once international observers were satisfied the transition could be managed
Cleared the EU-imposed 55% threshold
Declared independence immediately after

Lesson: Preparation comes first - referenda ratify control, not request it.

Czech & Slovak Republics (1992-1993) - Parliamentary Sovereignty

No referendum - both republics passed independence votes in their parliaments
Agreed transition terms and dissolved Czechoslovakia peacefully
Built independent state systems in advance

Lesson: Sovereignty was exercised domestically through political will, not external validation.

What All These Have in Common:

They used the existing legal or political system - but didn’t let it limit them
They took direct control over institutions and law
They acted after winning mandates - not after permission
They gained recognition by asserting sovereignty.

What’s Missing from Swinney’s Strategy:

No parallel or transitional institutions
No withdrawal from UK state functions
No credible transition plan (on currency, law, foreign affairs, taxation, etc.)
No intent to act on a mandate without UK consent

Instead, we have symbolic conventions, motions, and delays. There’s no timeline. No decisive point of action. No institutional shift.

The Real Lesson for Scotland

Every one of these countries showed the same thing:

Independence doesn’t come from waiting. It comes from acting.

You don’t need violence. You don’t need collapse. You need political will, institutional control, and the courage to use the authority the people have already given you.

Swinney’s plan avoids that step. And that’s why it’s failing.

Sign the M4I Petition

You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

Comment

Restack