Latest news with #EdinburghAgreement
The National
4 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Shouldn't all of our efforts be focused on de facto referendum route?
The petition is in the hands of Justice for All International, a non-government group recognized by the UN, which accepts the description of the circumstances of Scotland set out by LS. That description purports to expose English colonisation of Scotland right through the Union, in every branch, and indeed in almost every nook and cranny of its history and current affairs. Though sceptical, I leave aside the likelihood of the petition being granted, and the expectation of LS. I accept the goodwill of that organisation and its honest desire for Scottish independence. READ MORE: Tory MSP fumes as expert says Scotland 'not a partner in a union' In its constitution and other publications, LS accuses 'the English Crown' of 'the denial of any domestic legal and political route for Scottish self-determination'. That accusation is a fundamental element of the organisation's raison d'etre. But it is false. Scotland has in its own hands a route to self-determination, comprising the means of a) holding the vote and b) implementing a majority Yes result. It is true that London forbids Scotland from holding a referendum on independence. The Supreme Court has definitively held that a reservation under Holyrood's founding act prevents Holyrood from legislating to organise an independence referendum. It would be possible for London to grant permission, as it did in 2014, but that is at the discretion of the UK Government, and all major UK parties have said they will not grant it. Does that constitute the denial complained of by LS? Well it would, if there was no other route available. But it is open to any party standing throughout Scotland to issue a manifesto in any UK General Election seeking votes for Scotland to leave the Union, and undertaking to implement that if it receives the majority of Scottish votes. Any such majority would fill virtually every Scottish seat with an indy MP so mandated by the democratic choice of the people of Scotland. Those MPs are the people's supreme representatives, and there are none higher. READ MORE: Top roles on BBC Scottish dramas 'more often based in London' As for implementation, if London still declined to negotiate Scotland's independence, UK law and constitution do not prohibit the Scottish MPs from restoring Scotland's sovereign independence by declaration, withdrawing from Westminster and taking its place as the supreme legislative body of the country, which would also be in line with the democratic imperative following the majority Yes vote. London would have no case against it, given the absence of any prohibition in UK law or constitution, or in international law; its acceptance in the Edinburgh Agreement that Scotland could leave if its people wished and its repeated (though rare) statements to that effect; the legislative right of Northern Ireland to leave the UK by majority vote; and its refusal of a Holyrood-mandated referendum. All London would have would be its own whim, and it is not going to turn itself, before all the world, into a hoodlum with a cosh over Scotland. That being so, it would perhaps be better for LS to apply its efforts in trying to get the SNP to put itself in order and do the business, or to have a replacement political group do so. Alan Crocket Motherwell
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Alberta's push for independence pales in comparison to Scotland's in 2014
One day after the Liberal Party secured their fourth consecutive federal election victory, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith tabled legislation to change the signature threshold needed to put citizen-proposed constitutional questions on the ballot. She lowered it from the current 600,000 signatures to 177,000. Since the pro-independence Alberta Prosperity Project already claims to have 240,000 pledges in support of an Albertan sovereignty referendum, the change clears a path to a separation referendum. In 2014, Scottish voters went to the polls on a similar question to the one proposed by the Alberta Prosperity Project, but asking voters whether they wanted to regain their independence from Britain. Although the Scottish 'Yes' campaign was defeated, it garnered 45 per cent of the vote, far exceeding what most thought was possible at the start of the campaign. The 2014 Scottish referendum injected a huge amount of enthusiasm into the Scottish separatist parties, with the largest, the Scottish National Party (SNP) — which led the fight for the Yes side — soaring from 20,000 members in 2013 to more than 100,000 months after the referendum. While the Yes campaign did not achieve its goals and the Scottish historical context is very different from Alberta's, there are still important lessons about how people can be won over to the cause of independence. Albertan separatists don't seem to be heading down the same path. Smith has suggested that if the necessary signatures were collected, that she would aim to hold a referendum in 2026. But the Alberta Prosperity Project's Jeffrey Rath suggested the group would push Smith to allow a referendum before the end of 2025, giving the referendum a maximum of seven months of official campaigning. The broad ground rules of the Scottish referendum were established in the Edinburgh Agreement in October 2012. On March 2013, the SNP-led Scottish government announced the date of the independence referendum — Sept. 18, 2014. The long campaign period allowed a wide variety of grassroots campaign groups to organize in favour of independence. While Alberta separatism is less likely to be buoyed by artist collectives and Green Party activists like Scottish independence was, a longer independence campaign would allow a variety of members of Albertan society to make the case for independence. Dennis Modry, a co-leader of the Alberta Prosperity Project, recently told CBC News that the initial signature threshold of 600,000 was not all bad, as it would 'get (us) closer to the referendum plurality as well.' That remark suggested Modry sees value having more time to campaign before a referendum is held. In this regard, he and Rath seem to be sounding different notes. Hints that the Alberta Prosperity Project is already divided raises broader questions of leadership. In 2014, the Scottish Yes side had a clear and undisputed leader — First Minister Alex Salmond, head of the SNP. The late Salmond led the SNP to back-to-back electoral victories in Scotland, including the only outright majority ever won in the history of the Scottish parliament in 2011. Salmond was able to speak in favour of independence in debates and to answer, with democratic legitimacy, specific questions about what the initial policy of an independent Scotland would be. The SNP government published a report, Scotland's Future, that systematically sought to assuage skeptics. Its 'frequently asked questions' (FAQ) section answered 650 potential questions about independence. The Alberta Prosperity Project, on the other hand, only answers 74 questions in its FAQ. Whereas Salmon's rise to the leadership of the Scottish independence movement was done in full public view and according to party rules, the Alberta Prosperity Project's leadership structure is far murkier. The organization claims there 'is no prima facie leader of the APP, but there (is) a management team which is featured on the website Follow that link, however, and no names or management structures are listed. While independence always involves some unknowns, clear leadership can provide answers about where a newly independent nation might find stability. The Yes Scotland campaign promised independence within Europe, meaning Scotland would retain access to the European Union's common market. By contrast, the Alberta Prosperity Project isn't clear on the fundamental question of whether a sovereign Alberta should remain independent or attempt to join the United States as its 51st state. Despite the claim on its website that 'the objective of the Alberta Prosperity Project is for Alberta to become a sovereign nation, not the 51st state of the USA,' the organization backed Rath's recent trip to Washington, D.C. to gauge support for Albertan integration into the U.S. Rath has also said that becoming a U.S. territory is 'probably the best way to go.' The 2014 referendum in Scotland was called a 'festival of democracy', and even anti-independence forces agreed the referendum had been good for democracy. It took time and leadership to put forward a positive case for independence, one that voters could decide upon with confidence. Alberta could learn from Scotland and strengthen its democracy by holding a referendum based on legitimate leadership, reasonable timelines, diverse voices and clear aims. Or it could lurch into a rushed campaign, with divided leaders of dubious legitimacy, arguing for unclear outcomes — and end up, no matter which side wins, weakening its democracy in the process. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Piers Eaton, L'Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa Read more: Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here's why that's a dangerous myth Danielle Smith's subservient Florida trip flouts the Team Canada approach to fighting Trump Why Alberta's Danielle Smith is rejecting the Team Canada approach to Trump's tariff threats Piers Eaton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The National
16-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
False analysis on independence from the SNP is sowing confusion
It seems he can hardly put pen to paper without doing so, in blithe unawareness of the danger that the more often this irrational analysis is put about, the more enfeebled becomes the self-confidence of many in the independence movement – or the more bitter become many others at the disingenuous approach of the SNP. This is shown by the party's declining membership and the shortfall in their votes while half the country steadfastly supports independence. The false analysis is far from his alone. It has acquired the status of a creed of the party. READ MORE: Don't Tommy Sheppard's proposals risk drifting into political fantasy? So what is it that is wrong with Mr Sheppard's message? In his article, in discussing 'a mandate for independence', he states: 'The main problem, though, is not that we don't have a mandate, but that we have no means of executing it.' Then he immediately slides straight into discussion of the right to hold a referendum, with no indication whatsoever that he is changing the subject, demonstrating that as far as he is concerned these are one and the same thing. He therefore assumes, without giving any authority whatsoever, that what goes for the referendum right also goes for the independence right itself. He simply conflates the two, and the article ambles ahead on that basis. So in his mind, since the law prohibits Holyrood from legislating to hold an independence referendum, ipso facto it also prohibits the people of Scotland from deciding on independence. So don't blame us (the SNP). Blame the UK Government and the Supreme Court. READ MORE: Scottish independence is a moral obligation, not a mere preference It is a completely bogus stance, but it has been swallowed by the party and is constantly regurgitated, not only by almost every speaker of authority from the SNP, but by many, perhaps most, pro-indy commentators and correspondents. Anathema to independence as it actually is, it is taken to be the self-evident truth of the matter, which need only be spoken and need never be evidenced. The real truth of the matter is that there is no prohibition on Scotland making its own decision on whether the country should go independent. UK law and constitution, for what they are worth, do not prohibit it. The Supreme Court decision said nothing about it, being only about the referendum question (any other remarks being entirely incidental and non-binding). In signing the Edinburgh Agreement ahead of the 2014 referendum, the UK Government already accepted that the decision was Scotland's alone and that there was nothing to prevent it, which was perfectly in line with all of the rare UK statements on the issue. And the way of making our decision is equally simple. Any General Election to the Union parliament can be made into an independence plebiscite by the appropriate manifesto, a head-count win on which would swamp the Scottish seats with indy MPs with the power and authority to declare Scottish independence by fiat. (Though the likelihood is that then, but only then, London will come to the table and independence will actually come about by a negotiated arrangement.) So long as the SNP of Mr Sheppard and his ilk blind themselves to the straightforward reality of the issue, and keep wittering on about the useless diversion of a never-never referendum, independence will elude us. Brian Boyce Motherwell
The National
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The National
Former SNP MP in call for independence meeting ahead of national council
Alyn Smith, the former MP for Stirling, has called for the local branch to meet up ahead of the SNP's national council meeting in June, where strategies for achieving independence will be debated. In an email seen by The National, Smith told Stirling branch officials: 'The party nationwide is organising a special national council in June to thrash out our options and agree a strategy. READ MORE: 'A woman is an adult female': Keir Starmer breaks Supreme Court silence 'I think we should do the same in Stirling in advance of this meeting and write to propose the constituency association organise a meeting open to all members to debate and agree a submission from Stirling to the June council. 'I think this will be a useful meeting, as well of considerable interest to members. I have my own thoughts on how best to win, but I am very open to all ideas however unconventional.' Smith, who is seeking selection as the SNP candidate for Stirling in next year's Holyrood election, suggested inviting experts, such as Bruce Crawford (above), who was 'instrumental' in cementing the Edinburgh Agreement, which paved the way for the 2014 independence referendum. The former MP added: 'I think the party needs to remember why we're here – to deliver independence. READ MORE: 'Important milestone' as SNP launch new disability benefit across Scotland 'How we do that given the unreasonable and undemocratic intransigence of the UK Government is a challenge, yet independence has a higher support than ever. I think this could be an energising meeting and a significant step in upping our activism.' In a separate email to SNP members in Stirling canvassing support for his candidacy, Smith argued that agreeing a constituency position on independence strategy could make the city – which has strong historical connections with the cause – the 'epicentre of the national fightback'. The SNP's Stirling branch was approached for comment.
