A forum for discussion of Scottish independence and a second independence referendum.

If you have difficulty using the forum check out https://www.asgaros.de/docs/users-guide/
When posting, just type – you do not have to use the formatting buttons if you don’t want to

You need to log in to create posts and topics.

Referendum or UDI?

Now here's the thing, the last time I looked it appeared that the sovereign people of Scotland had expressed clearly their desire to remain in a Union with England and to be a "valued partner" in the greatest Union since whenever.

It's all a bit closer now but by no stretch of the imagination is support for Independence overwhelming, in fact even right now support for the Union and Independence appears to be split right down the middle. It is quite simply a ridiculous notion to believe that in a situation like that the Scottish government could simply declare that the Union has been dissolved and Scotland is once again an Independent country.

I'm surprised though by the number of prominent Independence supporters who think along these lines, talk about sovereignty all you want but that sovereignty applies to all the people of Scotland, including those that support the Union and not just those that support Independence.

There's only one way Independence will be won and that's when enough sovereign Scots decide that they do want to be Independent and let the world know that. Imagine getting this close and then throwing away all the good work done in recent years that have almost destroyed Labour's core support. A strategy that has pushed the Tories to become more extreme in their opposition in that they openly encourage sectarianism. We are winning and support will continue to grow provided we don't blow it all up by becoming hot headed through impatience.

How pathetic would that be, there will be no UDI in Scotland, we take the people with us and become an Independent country when the majority that live here are good and ready for that, then we tell that to Westminster and the wider world in a democratic vote. It is our job to convince the small number that are needing to be convinced to get us over the line.

I'm afraid that any other approach will undoubtedly fail, at least in the short term and the prospects for Independence will recede far into the future accompanied by a lot of pain before we get there.

The world is watching.

Busy during night and asleep so only started looking at the responses around, which from doommongers and positive people are predictable.

The good news is that BoJo didn't just ignore the letter. Sturgeon's didn't specify a date to reply by and it couldn't really as it's the first in the line of actions so had to be "friendly" while firm. With no reply it could have delayed things a month of more "I'm busy with Brexit" says BoJo. "Now is not the time". Well he didn't use that escape route, so one path LESS to calculate.

And I think BoJo should have said "Yes, of course, anything I can do to help just call on me, and we'll rush this through both houses as an emergency bill". I think that may well  have resulted in a lost referendum "Aww, isn't he nice, the Union is so patient and kind to us Scots". So that's another path LESS to worry about too.

So it's gloves off, and the intervention by McHarg (a known Indy supporter) and McCorkindale who I think is neutral, is curious. And yet they didn't say much different from Gavin Anderson et al in 2012:


just a bit updated that's all.

Anyways, I did post a few times that BoJo had 28 days to reply, till 16th January, and he met my deadline. 😎 Quite right too.

Now listen up Bozo, here's what happens next ...

Spot on Thepnr. I do not understand why Craig Murray and people of similar intellectual calibre tout UDI as in any way a practical solution to the current stalemate. If the SNP polled over 50% of the vote in the 2021 Holyrood election on a single issue campaign, then maybe. If 'recognised' opinion polls showed consistently 60%+ for Indy for a year, maybe.

Otherwise, I wish Craig would just STFU as there is no way the international community will recognise a declaration of UDI outwith (as a bare minimum) the above circumstances.





BoJo is like "Apres moi le deluge". Here's what Sim and McHarg have to say:

Further down: "My point is that denying a referendum doesn't make the issue go away. If the experience of the 1980s and devolution is anything to go by, it's likely to increase support for independence."

and note that in 1979 11 SNP MPs out of 72 went down to 2, and Devolution got delayed 18 years. Nothing to put pressure on Westminster and Thatcher and Co. This time around there's this:

  1. A Scottish Parliament with the SNP and Greens in the majority
  2. 47/48 SNP MPs out of 59

BoJo's gonna need more earplugs.


"If 'recognised' opinion polls showed consistently 60%+ for Indy for a year, maybe" - Just as well James Kelly's crowdfunder may well accomplish the first...


Nice to see you back posting, I thought you might really like a read of this article from 2017. For me it sums up the whole constitutional argument rather nicely, it's an excellent piece of work and one we might be hearing more of after today. It is quite long but I promise none of it is in any way boring.

I'd appreciate yours and any others views on it.

Ewan Smith and Alison Young: “That’s how it worked in 2014, and how it would have to work again”

It opens with a corker of a paragraph:

"On the 9th of March, writing for the BBC, Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor of the BBC said “it’s up to the Westminster government to permit another [Scottish] referendum.” Six days earlier, Sarah Smith, the Scotland editor of the BBC said:

“The Prime Minister knows she could easily prevent another referendum by simply refusing to allow it.  The Scottish government has to ask the UK government to devolve the power to hold another vote before it can go ahead. That’s how it worked in 2014 and how it would have to work again.”

These are legal claims and they are controversial. Last June, the BBC would not have said, with such confidence, that the UK government could withdraw from the Treaty of the European Union without consulting Parliament. We should not allow this claim to become a fact without testing it."

Yes, after the scare end of April last year I took all of the festive season off, just the odd posting - and I do mean odd!

And curiously I do mean "odd", taking advantage elsewhere of the upticks I get and maybe doing a number, throwing out fishing lines. I don't think I'm the only one, but I can't tell who's doing the same, and who is genuinely critical / optimistic / secretly knows what's going on. As I said above, "curious" with the timing. The possibility is that BoJo has fallen very neatly into a very nasty trap. Or of course it could all be bad news, an uphill struggle for Indy Ref 2. And it wouldn't be too surprising, Westminster as a whole really doesn't have a clue about Scotland - or Scottish politics. Or Scottish constitutional LAw - whatever that is.

That's an interesting article, and neither of their names were on the list of powerful names for the Gavin Anderson et al 2012 article. In fact they're both of Oxford Uni - hardly a hotbed of Scottish Nationalists! I like the point about Government v Parliament. Like Miller etc. BoJo writing from Downing Street is an exercise of executive powers, but not legislative. Well found Thepnr.

A rest does us all some good, always better to take it easy once in a while.

As to the article I thought it finished as well as it started with this:

"Like Northern Ireland, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom because a majority of its people consent to be. The same is also true for England and Wales. Even if the legal power to grant independence lies with Westminster, it does not follow that Westminster is best placed to establish what Scottish people think about the Union. By any account of subsidiarity, the exercise of consulting people should be made as close to the people as possible. If both governments cannot reach consensus on how to manage a future referendum, the power of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish government to consult Scottish people, as devolved by the Scotland Act, is undisturbed by the Edinburgh Agreement, and undiminished by its newfound importance."

Consent no longer applies after today, Boris Johnson has claimed Scotland as a possession of Westminster and we are no longer to be given a choice on how we choose to be governed. Johnson sees Scotland as a colony belonging to greater England, I think he will be getting a rude awakening of the reality of the situation he has chosen to create for himself.

The Union is toast and Johnson is the head Chef who has burnt the last two slices that were left 🙂

@ Thepnr


Good post and a lot for folk to have a real think about. Mainly because they should. 

There are two main schools of thought dependent on the nature of those affected. They are essentially a disagreement on how to proceed, but not on the desired end destination. My own thoughts on the current stooshie? My conclusions are reasonably close to your own tbh, but that is my nature. 

After 2014, I didn't think we'd be anywhere near close to a second referendum. I honestly thought it'd be another 10yrs at least (from 2014). That it'd take more gradual, patient persuasion. Building a consensus in Scotland's new population that we can achieve and deserve better than the howf on the Thames could, (or would), ever deliver.

Never dreamt that the parliamentary morons in their arrogance and their rush to punish, would screw up their win (and our lives) so thoroughly and so quickly.

But I guess that is their nature.

I do so agree with these view points and those calling for instant action forget that to carry any contentious issue through Holyrood  the SNP need to take at least the Greens with them.

I'm in the middle of a short break in Krakow just now and as I do the tourist bit I keep reading of the story of how the Poles struggled to regain there independence over the last 300 years. The striking difference, to me, is the conviction ingrained into their national story that the only state of being is to be independent!  How I wish that the Scottish population where more like the Polish people.



Enjoy your holiday in Krakow, a beautiful city even at this time of year when it's generally freezing 🙂 If you get the time I'd recommend taking a tour of both the Salt mines and Auschwitz. The former is amazing, the latter has no words to describe it adequately.

''There's only one way that Independence will be won and that's when enough sovereign Scots decide that they do want to be independent and let the world know.''

Absolutely spot on Thepnr. I sometimes despair at the nonsense that's being spouted on some sites to the point that I wonder what some people, blog owners and so-called independence supporters, are playing at now. What country would even consider Scotland becoming independent if it could be proven that 50%, or more, of the population still wants to remain tied to England? Do the individuals who promote this idea really think that Scottish BritNats will just say ''Ok, that's fine by me, carry on''? Aye right! UDI would be an absolute recipe for disaster which could, probably would, lead to rioting on the streets of Scotland and the millionaire/billionaire (Westminster and dark money) BritNats suing the Scottish Government (and individuals) to kingdom come. 

Another proposition that's being repeated on social media is resiling (or even tearing up, lol) the 1707 Treaty of the Union. Definition of resile being to ''pull out'' of something, such as an agreement or contract. So how do we, more so Nicola Sturgeon, go about doing just that? Are they looking for Nicola Sturgeon to stand in Bute House in front of the cameras and say, ''I've now decided to resile the Treaty of the Union.'' Better still stand with a copy of the Treaty in her hand and do a Glenn Campbell act? 

Taking it that most sensible people realise that we need a majority of Scots to support Independence to actually acquire it and that the only political party capable of doing so is the SNP I just find it totally bizarre (well not really. I reckon I know what's going on) that a number of supposedly pro-Independence sites aren't doing their utmost to promote the party and it's leader. Worse still are actually doing their level best to undermine them and of course in undermining them, imo, must be sabotaging support. 



Thanks for your comments Thepnr, it's my fifth visit and would recommend Krakow to any discriminating visitor. I think it has much in common with Edinburgh and feels strangely familiar despite knowing very little of the language.  My son married a lovely girl from Krakow and we had a fantastic Scots-Polish wedding. 

Yes Petra your points are very well put. On the one hand I'm dismayed that we still have approximately 50% of people to convince that independence is the natural state of being for Scotland, but on the other I see the progress we have made in my 40 odd years in the SNP.

Margo MacDonald had it right when send said, that we all need to get one other person to change their mind and we shall have achieved our goal. 

On the general point of all the different voices  calling for all sorts of action by the SNP, I don't think this is such a bad thing as it allows our movement to appeal to a broader cross section of people.  The more diverse groups pushing their vision of an independent Scotland the more appealing the movement will be to the general, mostly apathetic and low information, population. Of course headbangers advocating violent actions needed to be treated as pariahs and explicitly disassociated from the movement. We don't need everyone to support  SNP as such we just need them to vote yes in the referendum I believe will happen or at the the next Holyrood election to vote for Independence supporting parties.



Forum for discussion of Scottish independence and a second independence referendum.