FREEDOM!!!! [4]

Scottish independence is a great idea for Scottish people, no wonder it is popular as the UK melts down politically. Any attempt to cast Scottish independentism as radical or lacking touch with reality in the current climate is a bit rich.
But the conservative siren call of the status quo is always very strong. Ask any Norwegian, Slovenian, Icelandic, Finnish, Estonian, Irish and so on if they'd like to go back though..

If independence for Scotland is feasible is a question in itself. Most independence movements struggle to straddle the divide between pragmatism and action. Especially with the immovable wall of a national majority, who quite naturally put their interests first. Scotland is coming up to its moment of truth. Sadly the debacle in Catalonia has done Scotland no favours. The failure of Catalan politicians to stand up for themselves I fear has done still untold damage to the aims and goals of self-determination movements around the world who face an intransigent national majority. The message from Catalonia has basically been that when a national minority face a majority that is not shy to use the powers of the existent state structure to mantain the status quo, you basically go home, there is nothing more to do.

The only ethically and morally acceptable solution in a situation where a considerable part of a historic national minority want independence is quite clearly to allow people to debate, vote on their future and decide where it lies. Any other position always rests on vicarious arguments. It is in itself corrosive, it demeans us and turn us into our neighbours oppressors. If it is so obvious that a national minority should not be independent then defend your view with arguments, debate, and let the people vote. But it seems we at the bottom are still monkeys, and tribal to go with it. And to do the obvious, fair and decent thing is ultimately not that easy.

So, there you are in a catch 22. You stay pragmatic you keep going in circles and get nowhere, you try to move forward you hit a very determined wall. In the end though, the realpolitic failure of Catalan independence in the short term might be the foremost evidence that the unilateral approach might be the most pragmatic path to independence for anyone else. Those "nutjobs who seem to spend too long on twitter" might just be the most realistic when it comes to a feasible path to Scottish independence. If indeed that is the aim.

Just a question: why is it Catalonia is so interested in breaking free rather than the Basque country?

A good, but a complex question. Here are some prominent things to consider:

(1) there is also strong independence support in the Basque country. The Basque sovereignist parties are however largely more moderate on the independence issue than their Catalan counterparts. There are some reasons for this:

(2) When you talk about the political conflict in the Basque country you do not get around the issue of terrorism. There never was political violence in Catalonia as there was in the Basque country. So while Spanish authorities have tried, it has never been able to brand the independence struggle in Catalonia in national security/terrorism terms as it has in the Basque country. The existence of the terrorist group ETA in the Basque country led Spanish authorities to quite obscene methods employ state terrorism, widespread torture of prisoners and other unseemly means as part of the conflict, that did not just target ETA, but many peaceful independence supporters. The country now lives in a watchful peace.

That is not to say tensions do not exist. As part of the parliamentary approval of the last Spanish government, the government has agreed that the Guardia Civil, a para-military police force responsible for torture and oppression of the local population, shall be entirely removed from the Basque country, sparking outrage on the Spanish right. ETA has become perhaps the only terrorist movement to lay down arms with zero reciprocity from national authorities. Spanish authorities have pretty much refused to aknowledge the dissolution of the country's most historically relevant terrorist organisation. This is all tied up with the famous "everything is ETA"-doctrine, a judicial approach that targetted Basque independentist in general with claims of evermore diffuse connections to the terrorist group, even in cases where they were diametrically opposed to ETA or the people involved actively were working for peace. This doctrine served Spanish authorities to close Basque-language newspapers, dissolve political parties, jail peace-activists and even parliamentarians. It has been a powerful weapon against any civic and peacful push for independence in the Basque country, and one Spanish authorities are want to let go of. The state of exception is very much still a real thing. Recently a group of Basque youths have been subject to a special process in a Madrid court on terrorism charges after a minor scuffle in a bar with off-duty Guardia Civil officers. This demonstrates how the ethnic conflict is still alive, and that the Spanish approach to dealing with Basque issues have not changed much. In light of all this, the need to find a common consensus in the status quo has been especially important. And any call to move beyond that is equally challenging.

(3) As opposed to Catalonia the Basque country has a fiscal pact with Madrid, collects its own taxes etc. The first demand Catalans made of Madrid after there was a consensus for change was precisely a fiscal pact. Catalonia is the region in Europe (at least that is not a capital) with the largest fiscal deficit. Catalonia sends enormous amounts of money to Madrid, and in return is systematically underprioritised when the same money is to be divided among Spain's regions. If a fiscal pact had been possible, most likely there would have been no independence process, as the major Catalan parties would not have made the turn from reforms towards federalism to straight independence. That happened as Catalans lost faith in the possibility of change within Spain. The predjudice against Catalans in Spain is very real, and there is no love for the causes of Catalans in Madrid. In a country that builds high speed trains and train stations without passengers, airports without planes, endless highways, the lack of infrastructure investment in Catalonia is very telling. As is the refusal to invest in the Mediterranian corridor (the train strech along the east coast of Spain) despite support and demand from the EU. Spain's investment is strictly radial, all roads lead to Madrid.

Of course the size of the Catalan and the Basque country matter with regard to the reaction from Madrid. Catalonia occupies 6.3% of Spain’s territory, 16% of Spain’s population, yet its "economy, larger than that of most countries in the eurozone, generates more than one-fifth of Spanish GDP, while Catalonia’s exports of €65.2bn represent more than one-quarter of the national total. At about €37bn, foreign investment in Catalonia accounts for more than one-quarter of inward investment to Spain." The Basque country is important, but this is a primary reason Catalan independence raises panic in Madrid. While Basque independence will not be entertained, it is treated more calmly.

(4) The Basque Nationalist Party, Euskadi's answer to the SNP, is not pro-independence. They have made a habit of getting major concessions out of Madrid whenever their votes are necessary, either from the left or the right. This has created the opposite atmosphere of the one in Catalonia, where the "No to everything." attitude in Madrid has played a major part in fermenting the conflict.

Very interesting and well informed!

Yes, a train connecting Barcelona to Sevilla would likely make a huge difference. At the very least connect Murcia to Granada. Even if it's not a high speed train it will sew up the local connections clear along the coast.

Further fallout in Scotland:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/rangers-fc-malicious-prosecution-clubs-administrators-may-require-lord-advocate-james-wolffes-resignation-kenny-macaskill-msp-3106961

{{ As a Rangers fan I can say that the finances were, too say the least, murky and quetionable. It will be interesting to see how the legal ramifications work out for this, though that piece seems oversimplfied, in that it doesnt mention a lot of other major parties involved such as HM tax revenue who headed the investigation and is UK wide not Scottish, and the SFA who run Scottish football and prosecuted the case.}}

Pretty explosive stuff:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/

I'm sorry, but we seem to have a battle between a salmon and a sturgeon and because of that I can't keep them straight.

{{  

The very bare bones of it Halfy-

Salmond is the former leader of the SNP, he was in charge at the last independence referendum, and after the loss resigned, making way for his Deputy Nicola Sturgeon to become party leader.

A while back allegations emerged of sexual misconduct by Salmond on various women from the time when he was party leader and Scotlands First Minister.
He of course denies all charges.

Sturgeon however upon first hearing of the claims set up in enquiry under the rules about investigating any claims of sexual harrasment in the work place. Claiming even though he was her former mentor and friend she felt she had to pursue the claims and see if there was anything to them, with the law if it proved necessary.

This all eventually led to the Crown Prosecutor putting Salmond on trial on various charges.
But the case collapsed in court, and because it collapsed on procedural grounds, that Blue I am sure knows far more about than me, the blame seemed to be on the government side. So Sturgeon set up another enquiry to investigate the govenments role.

There have been some occasions during it of 'cant remember' answers, and lawyers and crown prosecutors have been stubborn in producing documents which they say they iin some cases cant be turned over because it would reveal witnesses and sources that are not in the public domain.

But the big one they are putting on Strugeon is around a meeting that was held which was in her view not official government buisness and so was not recorded or minuted by civil servants as per the law. If the enquiry finds that it was official business then she will have broken the ministerial code, which would under normal circumstances mean she has to resign.

However at UK level, Pritti Patel Home Secretary was also found guilty of breaking the same Ministrial code just recently and she did not resign and Boris backed her to stay.

What Blue just posted goes much further, it proposes that there was an inner circle of police, lawyers, Court officals, SNP party members all headed up by Sturgeon herself who were fabricating the claims against him, setting the court case up to find him guilty of at least one of the charges and end his political career.

As to motivation the person says that Salmond could not think of one, but that it was maybe a King Lear situation. And the person whose evidence it is postulates that because Salmond was leader before, left, and then returned to be leader, he had plans to do so again, so they wanted to diestroy him for good and make a comeback impossible.

I have issues with the motivation part, it seems like bringing down a wall to kill a fly, and Sturgeon is way more popular a leader than Salmond ever was and certainly is these days. Yes there a faction thinks she is not pushing fast enough and hard enough for a second referendum but its not large enough to threaten her position, and especially not when she is the most popular leader in SNP history, and currently in the entire UK. Most folk see Salmond as he gave it his best shot with the referendum, but couldnt score the winning goal and had rightly departed the field to be subbed for a new leader to have a crack at it in extra time. There has been no sign either from public demand, or from Salmond himself that he was planning or manouevering to make a comeback.

And in general the more people at all the required levels of law enforcement, legal systems and government a conspiracy needs, the less I feel it is likely.

But then thats what the enquiry is for, to find out. Strugeon is to give her evidence soon. Salmond and his lawyers however have been dithering over when he will appear, giving various reasons for why it cannot be at the time the enquiry scheduled.

So stay tuned for more!}}

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-55786422

Seems like an unlikely motivation, and though I agree that a mass conspiracy that involves coordination among many is highly unlikely, I have to somehow contrast that with the very open conspiracy a few weeks ago where hundreds of people stormed the US Capitol, and nobody seemed to suspect a thing.

The difference I think is the first type of conspiracy requires mass competence, the second requires mass stupidity.

Craig Murray explains this all far better then I could in the link, but to add to Petty's summary there were two cases, first an enquiery, then a civil suit which the government withdrew from (conveniently a very short time before Sturgeon would have to give evidence under oath). Then the Crown prosecution service, whose leader is formally part of the Scottish government raised a criminal case, which collapsed, not on procedural grounds, but because eye-witness testimony repeatedly contradicted the allegations. The most serious allegation which was of attempted rape collapsed as an independent eye witness swore the woman in question was not even at the dinner this was supposed to have happened. There were numerous such inconcistencies raised in defence evidence, and, conviently, little mentioned by the media. Most of the allegations were far less serious, down to and including the touching of a knee, and touching of hair, a kiss on the cheek. Even these allegations largely collapsed under independent third party eye witness testimony. It wasn't a "he said, she said" kind of case, the charges didn't stand up to the evidence and Salmond was quite rightly aquitted.

What has not come out is allegedly that people high up in the Scottish government and in Sturgeons inner circle has been actively working to get Salmond prosecuted and found guilty, coaxing alleged victims, the police and the prosecutors, actively seeking evidence. Sturgeon herself has been found lying about the time and manner of which she learned of the allegations. This evidence is currently being witheld from the inquiery Petty mentioned:

The information was:

(a) A series of written communications involving Peter Murrell, Chief Executive Officer of the SNP, and Sue Ruddick, Chief Operating Officer of the SNP. They discussed inter alia a pub lunch or similar occasion between Ian McCann, a SNP staff member working for them, and redacted, one of the complainers in the HM Advocate v Salmond trial. At the lunch, Mr Murrell and Ms Ruddick expected redacted to firm up her commitment to giving evidence against Alex Salmond, and to discuss progress on bringing in others to make complaints. They expressed dissatisfaction at Mr McCann for his performance in achieving these objectives and expressed doubt as to his commitment to the cause.

(b) A communication from Ms Ruddick to Mr Murrell in which she explained to Mr Murrell that progress on the case was being delayed by Police Scotland and/or the COPFS saying there was insufficient evidence, and in which communication she expressed the sentiment that, if the police/Crown would specify the precise evidence needed, she would get it for them.

(c) Text messages from Mr Murrell to Ms Ruddick stating that it was a good time to pressure the police, and that the more fronts Alex Salmond had to fight on the better.

(d) Communications from Ms Ruddick about her visits to a number of locations, including the Glenrothes area, and including in conjunction or discussion with redacted. These communications detail their unsuccessful attempts to find witnesses who would corroborate allegations of inappropriate behaviour against Alex Salmond. They include a report of a meeting with young people who were small children at the time of the incident they were seeking to allege, who did not provide the corroboration sought.

(e) A message from redacted stating that she would not attend a meeting if redacted were also present as she felt pressured to make a complaint rather than supported.

(f) Messages in the WhatsApp group of SNP Special Advisers, particularly one saying that they would “destroy” Alex Salmond and one referring to Scotland’s ‘Harvey Weinstein moment’, employing the #MeToo hashtag.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/

The victims are all allegedly from this same circle of the higher ranks of the SNP, and despite a quite extraordinary police investigation where they allgedly interviewed over 400 people, and the at least equally extraordinary alleged independent investigation by the Chief Operating Officer of the SNP, no accusers outside this circle could be produced.

Also, despite the case collapsing in the most embarrasing manner, the accusers have been allowed to repeat the dismissed allegations prominently in the media while under court ordered anonymity. One of the very few voices defending Salmond, Murray, has been taken up on comtempt of court charges, and faces two years in jail if found guilty, for actions repeated throughout the Scottish media by voices negative to Salmond. It all smells to hell and high water of targeted persecution.

Murray might be seen as a bit of an excentric, but he has an strong background as a human rights defender, and is normally straight as an arrow on these issues.

I guess my point is very simple, it seems plain that Sturgeon's inner circle worked actively and directly to have Salmond prosecuted and convicted, they colluded, rounded up and coaxed accusers, pressured the police and the prosecutors. If you want to call it a massive conspiracy or not is rather another question.

{{ If there was some sort of conspiracy I just dont see why Strugeon would have been the one driving it. Her own position is that allegations were brought to her she had to investigate them as First Minister it was her job to. That would be true even if she was no part of any conspiracy, so if there was one it would actually make more sense for the conspirators not to involve her, as her part in it- setting up the investigations into the allegations -would happen simply as a result of the allegations being made in the first place.
And even more tricky when she doesnt appear to have any motivation to do it, he was no threat to her position, wasnt trying to be and when even the accused cant think of a solid reason why she would do it then there seems to be an issue with the big conspiracy masterminded by her idea.
But the enquiry is ongoing and taking evidence so we will find out in time. }}

The thing is Sturgeon has already been found to be untruthful about the time and manner she learned about the allegations. Some of her closest circle actively sought and pressured witnesses and the police. It all looks rather bad, which is a shame, both because of Sturgeons popularity, and the sensitivity of the moment for Scottish independence.

https://news.sky.com/story/snp-faces-fresh-claims-that-high-ranking-party-figures-conspired-against-former-leader-alex-salmond-12201748

So Scotland can't hold a referendum on independence without approval from Westminster. Was the last vote officially approved? Come to think of it, I'm rather shocked if it was.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judges-not-voters-may-decide-130556717.html

{{ yeah Westminister has to grant the right to hold a referendum- section 30 is the pertinent bit of law- without that any referndum would be illegal- similar to what hapened in Catalonia.
The SNP policy as it stands is to win the scottish parliament elections again, they are on track to, then apply political pressure to get the right granted, if that fails they will go ahead with legislation for a referendum and pass it in the scottish parliament which would set up a legal challenge- basically Sturgeon is looking to dare the UK government to challenge the will of the people in court. }}

I suppose the real question is, did Westminster allow the previous vote, and if so what compelled them to allow it?

If it were allowed Texas would probably have voted itself out of the US long ago.

{{ Reason they allowed it before is exact same reason Cameron thought was good idea to have Brexit referndum- they were sure theyd easily win it.
They won in Scotland, but only just and it didnt do anything to dampen enthusasim for independence, and they lost Brexit.

And its basically same reason in reverse why Boris wont give another referendum now- they think theyd lose this time.}}

I think it is more that you can't give everyone a referendum every 5 minutes. Once a generation and all that... unless you keep doing it should Scotland gain independence in case people don't like that either.

{{ Thing about the 'once in a generation' line is that it was just something politicians said to drum up support and get the vote out by making it seem important. Before the last general election Boris said in light of Brexit it was most important vote ever and that the election was a 'once in a lifetime opportunity'. So should we not have any more general elections for an average human lifespan/ Or is it only if an SNP politician says it somehow becomes law?
Nowhere in the devoloved settlement, nowhere in the agreement for the last referendum, no where in the Sewel Convention does it once mention a time limit of any sort. It has no legal basis at all.

However the SNP pledge at the time that they would only hold a 2nd referendum if there was a 'material change' has held true. Brexit is a major material change to the reasons people voted to remain in the UK. }}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ yeah Westminister has to grant the right to hold a referendum- section 30 is the pertinent bit of law- without that any referndum would be illegal- similar to what hapened in Catalonia.
The SNP policy as it stands is to win the scottish parliament elections again, they are on track to, then apply political pressure to get the right granted, if that fails they will go ahead with legislation for a referendum and pass it in the scottish parliament which would set up a legal challenge- basically Sturgeon is looking to dare the UK government to challenge the will of the people in court. }}

This is not obvious at all. Yes, a referendum could be illegal under UK law, and the UK constitutional system, but what the Scottish would be attempting to do would be to constitute themselves as an independent nation. This is an action beyond the scope of the UK constitutional order, and therefore not a matter where UK law necessarily has the last word. To illustrate this very simply, a unilateral declaration of independence establishes duelling constitutional legitimacies. To claim the one decides the legitimacy of the other is rather bizarre. Rather, to my mind it is a matter of international law. And as the example of Kosovo proves, the path to recognition as an independent state can be long and arduous, but it is undeniably viable.

But let's first look at the issue from an ethical angle. If a clear majority of a national minority would like to constitute itself as an independent nation, do they have to rely on the consent of the national majority to do so? Ethically the answer to that question should be no, as the outcome of such a claim is perverse: a national majority would have the right to rule a national minority without its consent and could by majority refuse all requests for change. This creates fertile ground for a tyranny of the majority, and the worst sides of the human condition. If you accept this logic as given and valid you also place all the responsibility to establish the circumstances for change on the minority, which conviniently has none of the power to do so. Sadly people often muddle what is actually under discussion in cases like this, and embrace positions that are not ethically wholly unacceptable, but that without the tribalism of nationality I do not think most would be seen dead defending. The support of a divine right to rule a national minority by historical circumstance and simple majority makes yourself the oppressor of your fellow citizens. It degrades you as a human being, as at every turn you must deny the right of your fellow man the very basest of human rights, that to determine themselves. Now look at what the other approach has to offer. Unilaterality, violence and oppression? No. The people arguing for a national debate and a referendum offer quite the opposite, debate, deliberation, democracy and voting. To support the right of a national minority to determine their future is not the support for a particular position (independence yes/no), but the support of a democratic, peaceful and dignified way to deal with disagreements on the path forward. The call to find a democratic and dignified way to deal with these is ultimately a way to save people from themselves. To keep them from the degrading spiral of "you cannot, because I say so", which ultimately leads to the "why do you make me hurt you?" of every abusive relationship.

Furthermore, imagine a situation where a national minority like the Scottish hold a debate, a vote, by clear majority votes for independence and the UK sends in the tanks because it happened without their consent. In what world can you say the UK is in the right without resorting to base tribalism?

So, to the legal side. There is undeniably a right to self-determination as part of international human rights law that apply to all peoples, what is up for debate is in what situations it applies and to what degree. The right to self-determination follows from both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsand the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as binding international law: "The States Parties to the present Covenant (…) shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations." The right applies to all peoples, which includes historic national minorities like the Scottish "characterised by their own history, culture, language, traditions, cuisine etc. — all humanistic values recognized by UNESCO."1 So while the sui-generis mechanism set up UN for former colonies does not apply to a case like Scotland, the general right of self-determinationestablished in the previosuly mentioned conventions are general and still apply. The question is what it entails.

Self-determination can be both internal and external. Traditionally unilateral self-determination in the form of secession has been seen as only available in remedial situations, hereunder "situations of former colonies; where a people is oppressed, as for example under foreign military occupation; or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development."2 This theory has however largely been construced on the basis that the principle of territorial integrity must be respected with regard to the existing state, limiting the right to self-determination. As for instance was stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Quebec: "The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states."2 This very theory was dismissed by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Kosovo's declaration on independence: "the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States." In line with this statement the principle of territorial integrity cannot be applied internally to limit the self-determination of internal minorities wishing to seceede.3 The conclusion of the International Court of Justice was that the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law. The natural consequence of that conclusion is that the validity of a unilateral declaration of independence is not the constitutional order or territorial integrity of the existing state, but international law.

The Canadian Supreme Court did, while denying the relevance of international law, establish a dignified and democratic mimum-standard to deal with internal self-determination movements:

"Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation.  The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole.  Democratic rights under the Constitution cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations.  Nor, however, can the reverse proposition be accepted: the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada.  The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others.  The negotiations that followed such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed.  There would be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue.  Negotiations would need to address the interests of the other provinces, the federal government and Quebec and indeed the rights of all Canadians both within and outside Quebec, and specifically the rights of minorities.

The negotiation process would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities, namely, the majority of the population of Quebec, and that of Canada as a whole.  A political majority at either level that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community."

And the International Court of Justice3 did not clearly define in what cases secession was legitimate:  

"A number of participants in the present proceedings have claimed, although in almost every instance only as a secondary argument, that the population of Kosovo has the right to create an independent State either as a manifestation of a right to self-determination or pursuant to what they described as a right of “remedial secession” in the face of the situation in Kosovo. The Court has already noted (see paragraph 79 above) that one of the major developments of international law during the second half of the twentieth century has been the evolution of the right of self-determination. Whether, outside the context of non-self-governing territories and peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation, the international law of self-determination confers upon part of the population of an existing State a right to separate from that State is, however, a subject on which radically different views were expressed by those taking part in the proceedings and expressing a position on the question. Similar differences existed regarding whether international law provides for a right of “remedial secession” and, if so, in what circumstances. There was also a sharp difference of views as to whether the circumstances which some participants maintained would give rise to a right of “remedial secession” were actually present in Kosovo. (...) The Court considers that it is not necessary to resolve these questions in the present case."

This is therefore still somewhat unclear, but it is my view Scotland would do the world far more a favour to stand by the principle that the wish for independence by a significant part of a national minority must be met by meaningful cooperation of the constituted state in good faith, hereunder a debate and a referendum. And stand for the legitimacy of peaceful democratic measures like a debate and a referendum in the case that cooperation is not forthcoming. This is where the Catalans failed, failed to gain independence and to create positive change for historic national minorities around the world. If they had defended their project to the end and proceded they would have created invaluable democratic presendence. It was not to be. And now it Scotland's turn to make the same choice. Unilateral independence may not be the best way to go, but facing a state that refuses to cooperate or negotiate in good faith with the wishes of teh majority of the representatives of the Scottish population even to debate and vote, it might be the only way.

1 https://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com/2017/11/11/4-questions-on-catalonia/
2 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii793/1998canlii793.html
3 https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/141/141-20100722-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf

There's a lot to say on this but in whole honesty, the reason it is important to give this matter a lot of thought is that it is one of the more important democratic issues in the western world of our days, and how we deal with it, the choices we make, will mark us and our ideas about democracy for the future.

is it me being paranoid but this March UK census 2021 looks sinister to me.

{{ Heres some classic Unioist tatics for you- and why they wont work.
The Tories have been puttting up billboards across Scotland, to much derision and amusement, attacking the SNP for focusing on independence and not on vaccinations.



Problem is heres the chart for vaccine rollout in countries globally-



As you can see Scotland is 3rd in the entire world for vaccine rollout, slightly ahead of England in 4th, so um more a case of Unionists stop wasting time, money and effort trying to prevent indy 2 and thwart the democratic will of a nation and focus on the day job you numpties! }}