SNP Civil War II? This time its personal.

Been a while since last blog, and there's been plenty I could have updated with, May resigning, Boris or Hunt as unelected PM, brexit exit date moved, but ironically its about a rift forming within the Scottish Independence sphere, from self id, to and this is the reason for the blog…

Are the SNP now too comfortable cosseted in Westminster Leather?

This is not a reason for the hilarity that ensued the last time along the lines of “SNP Civil War”, with protect the shortbread mines, its a deepening rift, that no such hilarity will come of – for more than one reason.

1.What was seen as contempt on self id debate, and has been taken as an attack on women in the indy sphere for speaking out not against the idea of self id – but on how it will affect women's lives and private spaces.

2.Voting for Westminster to enact a form of home rule on NI by the Snp, noble gesture politics, that in effect may have removed our human rights on a different area – by setting a precedent that Direct Rule is acceptable by Scotland, thus can be enacted on Scotland.

3.There will be no debate at this years conference on alternative methods of delivering Scottish independence – I like to think thats because its something I believe in wholeheartedly, and many in the sphere are beginning to get clued up on.

4.No clear drive for another independence referendum – only a vague date, complete with it being denied, that was quite literally a “shush trust us we’re on it” statement.

5. Insert many other reasons right here.

First off I will state categorically, mathematically, historically that now, or very, very soon is the opportune moment for any indy ref in my opinion, the starting pistol WAS and IS brexit itself, and at the time of writing its been moved from 31 March 2019 to Halloween 2019 – goalposts moved, but ball is still in play.

While the numbers 1-5 above I dont think were enough to warrant the line “SNP civil war II” individually, combined you fucking bet they are.

Its like the SNP are imploding, forgetting that they have a triple locked mandate, and there's positioning going on not just in internal policy, but DARE I say it intentions on the big boy pants of leadership - by the loudest doing their damnedest to put fucking holes in the hole while doing so.

There's an arrogant complacency there that Labour once had believing that Scots would always vote for them, that all indy folk only have one representative voice. An arrogance that has seen Labour 4/5th in Scots politics, as well as reduced in England and Wales on recent polls 3rd. Its a self defeating prophecy kind of arrogance – that means although we are nearly there, we are in penalties and overtime and the goalkeeper is already in the showers.

But I digress – this article is all about the alternative methods of delivery, that wont be debated at the conference, where all I can ask is EXACTLY who decided that would be the case, was the membership even asked, and has a critic or two with alternative ideas been silenced?

Over my tweets and the past few months I have highlighted, as I often do, that the SNP aren't thinking radical enough about supplying independence, from here on in I hope to offer some radical ways – and reasons for them to supply those alternative routes.

UDI and Thatchers warning, May’s “now is not the time”, The Referenda bill and incremental independence.

UDI

The SNP are reluctant to talk UDI, seems like thats always been the case – but it hasn't. Many countries have achieved their independence, including from Britain itselt, through the action of UDI – the unilateral declaration of independence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence

Even Thatcher herself commented, “Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. She just needs to send a majority of nationalist MP’s to Westminster to have a mandate for independence.”

The irony of this is that there still is no inclusion of this in the SNP manifesto, and had there been so, in the next general election after the indy ref in 2014 itself – we would be home already, sitting on the porch watching England implode on brexit – and where the socialists of us will be clapping as the regions get the devolution they too deserve, but cannot see for Union Flag ear defenders and St George blinkers.

Now is not the time.

I often go on about how if this is an equal and voluntary union, then why do we need to ask permission from the other partner just for referendum, with a vote that they decide the question for to prove we want to stay in it – or when we know its not equal, and they know the result is us leaving, then denied the democracy that delivers the ability to leave that obviously unequal union.

There's the problem, the “union” of course is between England and Scotland, we can exclude NI as its annexation of part of a country that gained its independence from Britain already, through a much harder deadlier delivery method of independence. Then theres Wales, it never even had a choice, not even to say Yes – unless you call submission a choice.

So what we have here is a single country, controlling a “UK” parliament through the sheer number of seats in it, known as the democratic deficit, with a Govt the largest partner has chosen, thus imposed on the rest of the UK that has rejected it. Where in the case of Scotland, and the Tories, either since the 50s, or if we must be pedantic since the modern Tory party was created in 1965 – where the Scots have never voted for them as Westminster Govt once, nor as its Holyrood Govt EVER.

Add to this having to ask permission, being told “Now is not the time” - while plans are prepared for a part of Scotland be annexed like a NEW Northern Ireland? And that is where we are, so perhaps thats the reasoning for not discussing UDI – where Aberdeen, or the Shetlands, might well be a New English shire.

Which might well be the driving reason behind May’s “Now is not the time” not Brexit talks.

Incremental Independence , I.I

There's a little advertised fact that the Scots are in this union purely because they “choose” to be today, not because of Lords in the 18th century, through the mechanism that the Scots themselves being Sovereign currently agree to it. Without that consent, well it opens up other mediums of independence.

This sovereignty is essential to the argument that Scotland is not a colony, and is the Achilles heel to Westminster – but only if the SNP, and the independence movement at large choose it to be, and use it - against it.

Thats where the Referenda bill coming through Holyrood comes in – as sovereign people Westminster can neither deny its implementation, creation, or the results of any of its voting results – though it will try.

While it could be argued that it can be used to do an indy ref straight out the starting gate, its my opinion it would only be argued through the supreme court that any result without an article 30 being granted, due to precedent already set, would be null and void.

However, should an alternative measurement be used, confirming the Scots as Sovereign and the legislation robust first, through a test referendum, say on a single reserved matter and our removing that consent, it does indeed pave the way to either using it for an independence referendum proper, or used as I have termed “Incremental Independence” BY removing our consents to reserved matters one by one.

And the ideal first reserved matter consent, many of my followers will already know – its our right to legislate, regulate, and control our own broadcasting.

Broadcasting itself is another delivery vehicle to independence, or the preventer of if held by those we seek to leave, and IF the Scots as a Sovereign country its being illegally denied us, having never been asked for our consent, then again after the last independence referendum denied it being devolved to us on asking for it.

Broadcasting as I often tweet is a human right of every country in the world to their own without question, without interference from another country, backed by the EU and the UN, of which the British state, of 4 individual countries is a signatory to.

IF Scotland is TRULY sovereign, thus a country, then consent cannot be taken without being asked – only granted on being asked.

Broadcasting being denied us should then be considered an act of colonialism – opening up its removal from any independence debate, through UN articles on colonialism and independence seeking countries - unless its our own beforehand.

Final thought

But ALL or any of this takes debate, and including it in the SNP manifesto, and as it turns out – its a debate that the SNP are at this juncture unwilling to have.

Naemairmaisters.