4 days ago
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
