Trying to figure out WTF is going on The Scottish Government has just published what The National calls “a new paper setting out the case for Scottish independence“. It is a curious document. A strange mix of asserting and beseeching. The overall impression, however, is of John Swinney - in the fawning, obsequious manner of Uriah Heep - imploring the UK Government to let the people of Scotland exercise our fundamental and inalienable right of self-determination. As the paper, Your Right to Decide, says, however:
I would go further and say that for the right of self-determination to be meaningful, those in whom that right is vested must have sole authority over the manner and timing, and conduct of its exercise. It is no right at all if any part of its exercise is subject to the control or direct influence of any agency external to the body of people holding the right. It is a sovereign right. Sovereignty is absolute and indivisible. A sovereign right is wholly and irrevocably owned, or it is but the illusion of a right. John Swinney would appear to agree with me. And he seems to disagree. It depends on which part of the paper you read. For example:
That appears to be very much in line with what I maintain is the minimum requirement for a right of self-determination. But the passage ends thus [emphasis added]:
There is the grating contradiction in John Swinney’s position. The declaratory tone of the statement descends into deference before reaching the end of the sentence. That which was unconditional, has conditions attached. What was all about the people of Scotland ultimately becomes a matter for the UK Government. The document is riddled with this contradiction.
But!
John Swinney even seems to understand why the powers he says should lie with the Scottish Parliament not only will not but cannot be transferred. [emphasis added]
That is precisely right! The UK Government cannot transfer powers for a referendum which would stand as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination because the full and proper exercise of our right of self-determination would necessarily imply that the people had the final say in the matter. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty makes it impossible for Westminster to devolve power which supersedes its own. Westminster not only won’t transfer the powers John Swinney says the Scottish Parliament is entitled to, but it also can’t! The inevitable corollary of which is that any powers which are transferred will not be powers such as would make a referendum determinative and self-executing, as a proper constitutional referendum must be. The passage above indicates that even while John Swinney states that a vote for the SNP in 2026 is a vote for yet another request for a Section 30 order, he knows full well that even if that request were granted the resulting referendum would have no legal or constitutional effect. It would be meaningless. If it were anything more than a glorified opinion poll, it would not be allowed. John Swinney also seems to be aware that legislative competence is key to the whole constitutional issue.
Add to this the fact that he correctly maintains, in the final sentence above, that mandates for quasi-constitutional powers can be conferred in elections. He recognises, however, that the matter of legislative competence precludes an election being a de facto referendum on the restoration of independence. Which is why he proposes instead to make it a de facto referendum on the lesser matter of submitting yet another plea for a Section 30 order. Are we to believe that John Swinney - an MSP for more than a quarter of a century - is oblivious to this possibility? Likewise, his entire entourage? Is it believable that the professional politicians and their advisers failed to identify this approach to the constitutional issue when ‘ordinary’ party members were able to work it out? The Newington & Southside branch of the SNP submitted a resolution to the party’s October conference which proposes precisely this strategy.
We can only assume that John Swinney and the rest of the leadership clique know about this strategy but have opted to ignore it. The basic concept of addressing the question of legislative competence first has been on the table since well before the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. Had the SNP leadership not been actively working to suppress dissenting voices and stifle fresh thinking, the approach outlined in the Newington Resolution would surely have been discussed within the party, as well as being by now part of the mainstream discourse on the constitutional issue. Given the critical importance of the 2026 election to Scotland’s cause, it is appalling that none of the nominally pro-independence parties has shown any sign of even considering a different way of going about the fight to restore Scotland’s independence. It is doubly appalling that the SNP - the self-styled ‘party of independence’ is eschewing a credible plan for restoring independence and choosing instead to take a route which cannot possibly lead to realisation of this most urgent objective. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Thursday, 4 September 2025
The great wheedling
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whistler’s Mother is in Paris and here’s why
… the painting that became an icon … ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
thealchemistspottery posted: " "I shall pass through this world but once.If therefore, there be any kindness I can sho...
-
The power pose of personal peace - with psychological benefits ... ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
petrini1 posted: " For Week 7, the theme of genealogist Amy Johnson Crow...
No comments:
Post a Comment