WHERE DOES INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT GO FROM HERE?

Perhaps the Independence Movement, whatever that is now, should ask itself a few questions before it tries to answer that. I promised Pablo Escobar, a follower on Twitter that I would try to answer some of the questions asked daily by Unionists, many of whom are not really interested in the answers. I had indeed resolved to update my views on the question of Scottish Independence, before Pablo made the request and had started to look back on many of the articles I had submitted on my blog Spectator, regularly until a couple of years ago, in the months leading up to the Referendum in 2014 and for some months after. I found that many of the questions asked daily by Unionists were answered in those blogs, references for which will be appended at the end of this piece. The truth is that many Unionists, for perfectly understandable and genuine reasons, will never be converted to Independence; just as I and many other Nationalists will never be committed to the Union, whatever form it takes. I am a committed Scottish Nationalist, dedicated to the independence of Scotland; independent from both the government of the UK in Westminster and independent of the EU. I write from that standpoint and many of the more uncomfortable questions will be aimed at the SNP, Alba and Greens as they are the parties currently claiming that the political positions they occupy are in favour of Independence. We will see.

INDEPENDENCE; 

What does it mean to those who currently profess to believe in it? Under international law, independence means, "External Sovereignty" ie "right to exercise freely the full range of power a state possesses under international law. The status of a fully independent state should be contrasted with that of dependent or vassal states, where a superior state has the legal authority to impose its will over the subject state." - Montevideo Convention 1937. Independent states should have the following:-

1) permanent population
2) defined territory
3) a government
4) an ability to form relations with other nation states.

SOVEREIGNTY

The concept of Sovereignty means something entirely different in Scotland from the meaning which prevails in England. In Scotland, Sovereignty rests with the Scottish people while in England, it rests with the Crown in Parliament. On July 4th 2018 the House of Commons officially endorsed the principle of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland's needs. But this was a non-binding agreement and did not create any legal recognition of the Claim of Right. That does not take us much further in understanding what the concept of Sovereignty means in the modern world but a clear understanding of the concept and its ramifications are essential if we are to pass judgement on the beliefs and behaviour of those who claim to be in favour of Scottish Independence.

Sovereignty in the modern political context is the ultimate resting place of legitimate authority. Sovereignty means the supreme and controlling power of an absolute and independent authority (such as a state). It is the place where arbitration stops, it is the source of final decisions from which there is no further appeal. The emphasis here is on the word "legitimate" because sovereignty can be usurped by means of armed force, brainwashing, propaganda etc.(common practise of foreign states using England instead of UK or insistence Britain is a single country. UK practise of using Anglo treaties rather than UK) It is true that power can be exercised directly or delegated by a sovereign authority, but power is all too frequently exercised without such legitimisation, or even against the will of the sovereign authority, under the principle of "might is right". The fact that it may not be possible or expedient to oppose such exercise of power effectively does not legitimise it in the slightest.

Sovereignty is not simply an abstract concept, it has practical applications. A claim to sovereignty is a claim by some representative authority in the name of "the people" to exercise a monopoly of law making and law-enforcement within a designated territory. In an increasingly interdependent world, sovereign states have accepted specific treaty limitations on their law-making rights BUT NOT NECESSARILY on a permanent basis. The "sovereignty of the people" is the international standard in states all over the world with vastly differing socio-economic structures. In most cases it is written into their constitutions. To get a flavour of just how corrupted the terminology currently being used in the debate surrounding the meaning of  words such as "Independence" and "Sovereignty" we have only to listen to any number of SNP members, from Nicola Sturgeon to MSPs to ordinary SNP members. The definition of Independence has become so elastic that almost any combination of circumstances equates to "Independence". The famous Dundee actor Brian Cox, trumpeted on BBCs Question Time, "I am not a Nationalist I am an Internationalist". No one on the panel had the wit to ask him how he got one without the other. He may be a talented actor but Mr Cox, to use a weel kent Dundee phrase, kens he-haw aboot politics. Nicola Sturgeon has stated she would prefer to change the name of the Scottish National Party because she dislikes the word "National".

Then we had Andrew Wilson, author of the infamous Growth Report and SNP anchor man during TV summaries of the recent election results, telling Andrew Neil that the only truly independent country in the world is North Korea. His comments and preference for Sterlingisation, which he championed in his Growth Report, will be covered in my next blog when I look at the economic implications of Independence and discuss the need for a Scottish currency. Perhaps the most ludicrous definition of Sovereignty in recent times, was that of EU Commission Chief, Ursula van der Leyan who claimed, "sovereignty actually means being able to work, study and do business in any of 27 countries...to make members heard in a world of Great Powers". This fits very well however with the SNP's absolute and total commitment to full membership of the EU, which they insist should be called Independence in Europe, a slogan coined by Jim Sillars in 1988 and foisted on the SNP without the party ever having debated it. Jim Sillars has now decided that the true nature and intentions of the EU, make that slogan no longer appropriate.

Despite anyone who has any idea of the politics of the EU being able to recognise what is required in order to first of all join, then retain membership, the SNP, Greens and Alba (the last named now favour membership of EEA and call that Independence) continue to argue members of the EU are Independent. Although having asked countless times for ANY member of the SNP, from Nicola Sturgeon to ordinary party members, who dutifully parrot the party mantra, to EXPLAIN how the 19 members of the euro, none of which has its own currency, central bank or control of its own economy, can be Independent. I have yet to receive a single response. I have asked the question in different ways but can't get past the wall of silence. I debated with Alyn - keep the light on - yes Scotland will adopt the euro - Smyth, some years ago at Beith in Ayrshire, on the question of Scotland and the EU. We both made our presentations and one questioner asked Alyn Smith if he could explain "Independence in Europe" as he found it difficult to grasp the concept. Smith's answer was, "You have heard my presentation. I have nothing further to add." He has maintained that silence ever since. Are these people stupid, lying or just taking Scottish people for granted and feel they don't need to answer? You decide but over one million Scots voted against membership of the EU and have been ignored ever since.

Readers will find details of the following in many of the references listed at the end of this piece, but it does no harm to repeat them for the benefit of those who will not bother to read the relative references, to what it means to be a member of the EU. That includes those in the SNP, Greens and Alba who claim to be in favour of Independence and seek membership of the EU or EEA at one and the same time. Any country seeking membership of the EU - that includes Scotland if it decides to end the Union with England - must - satisfy the conditions of membership agreed under the Copenhagen Criteria agreed in 1993. They are as follows:-

1) stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, human rights and respect for minorities, the rule of law

2) functioning market economy and capacity to cope with competition and market forces within the EU

3) the ability to take on and implement immediately the obligations of membership including                      adherence to the aims of Political, Economic and Monetary Union.

Candidates must adopt, implement, enforce all EU rules - THE AQUIS

Anyone who claims to be in favour of Independence and membership of the EU at the same time really must read the conditions of membership of  the EU and ask themselves if that is what they really want.

In 1986 I wrote the following in my regular column in the Scots Independent, "Patriotism/Nationalism or love of one's country has nothing to do with economics. The desire to be free should not be measured in direct proportion to the level of per capita income that will or may be enjoyed once "freedom" has been won.....Unless Scots can be persuaded to look at Scotland as something a bit more than just a meal ticket, then freedom from the suffocating alliance with England will forever remain a dream". I still believe that to be true. The following year the SNP fought the disastrous election of 1987 when it lost both Dundee East and Western Isles, using the ludicrous Pact with Plaid and Hung Parliament strategy dreamed up by that mastermind of strategy, Alex Salmond. Scotland's traditional Labour support, persuaded by the SNP's promise of a hung parliament at Westminster, returned another nine Labour seats in Scotland, bringing their total MPs to 50 - the infamous "Feeble Fifty". In the UK the Tories won a majority of 102.

To date the entire case for membership of the EU/EEA has been based on access to a market of 500 million. The question of what that means for the independence of Scotland has gone ignored, unanswered when questioned and lied about by the SNP, Greens and Alba leadership. The rules of membership show how little independence members have but there are even more disturbing issues about the EU which should cause concern. On May 9th David Pratt, Foreign Editor of The National, wrote a piece called "Europe's right turn?" in which he detailed the rise of the Right in EU politics. It received little attention in Independence circles but it is well worth reading because it touches on an issue which the Independence Movement and other Europhiles tend to avoid viz. Fascism. My late wife and I travelled widely in Europe, both East and West. As a keen horseman I took every opportunity to find a handy equestrian centre and have seen more than tourists normally see by going riding. Not only that, I have spent many hours in the company of ordinary Europeans who talked much more naturally and freely than they might do in the corridors of power. I never got involved in deep political discussion but I listened a great deal to what was being said, some of which made me uncomfortable. Whatever Nationalists say about England/Britain, Fascism as a creed never took root here but the same cannot be said about the member states of the EU. Of the original six member states, Germany and Italy had Fascist governments while France had Vichy. Of the current members of the EU, Spain and Portugal had 40 years of Fascist government while the Greeks had the Colonels, Austria, Croatia were totally Fascist and even Norway had Quisling. If the Right does make a reappearance in the EU, as I believe it will, it has a long history to build on. Does the wider Independence Movement really want to become a part of a European Union, in which it will have little or no influence and which intends becoming even more centralised? Think about it.

References.

1) Was Independence done Any Favours? May 2013

2) And That Is Independence? May 2013

3) Scottish Alternatives to the EU May 2013

4) I am Not a Nationalist - But October 2012

5) An Independent Scotland does Have Alternatives November 2012

6) Do Scots Have And Identity And Is It Important? December 2012

7) Politics And Opportunity Cost October 2012

8) "We Are Bought And Sold For English Gold" Or The £500 Jocks January 2014

9) Independence - Don't Make Me Laugh January 2014

10) Carmichael And Darling Do The No side No Favours January 2014

11) Are Scots The Most Venal People On Earth - Or Is It Just Our Politicians?

12) Did Mark Carney Clarify Anything That Scots Did Not Know Already? Jan 2014

13) Poverty - The Curse Of Scotland February 2014

All of the above can be found on jimfairlie.blogspot.com

Alex Salmond as The Great Independence Strategist

 I have been writing articles, columns and Blogs for over 50 years. On only two occasions did Alex Salmond figure as the main or only subject; the first when I did a summary of his first leadership term for my Spectator Column with the Perthshire Advertiser. The second occasion was when I wrote in my Spectator Blog, "If Scots Vote NO Blame Alex Salmond" This was written in the aftermath of his debate with Alistair Darling prior to the Referendum on Independence in 2014. I argued that his obsession with forcing the Westminster Government to agree to a Currency Union with an "Independent" Scotland would create confusion among Scots voters, leading to uncertainty over the ability of an "Independent" Scotland's ability to run its economy. And so it proved as the vast majority of Scots, including those in the SNP who backed Salmond's demand for a Currency Union, failed to understand that had a Currency Union been granted, Scotland would not have been independent as London would have continued to control Scotland's economy. Salmond's claim that what was more important was Fiscal Autonomy made his claims even more ludicrous, particularly as he worked as an "oil economist" with the Royal Bank.

What prompts this latest blog is the creation of the new political party Alba and the repeated claim that Alex Salmond is a political strategist with a political record second to none, in his pursuit of Scottish Independence. For a start, I do not believe Salmond actually wants independence, having supported the imposition of Independence in Europe at the SNP Annual Conference in 1988, he has been a strong supporter of membership of the EU ever since, despite the ever increasing centralisation of the EU through the Luxembourg Agreement abolishing the veto in the important areas of government, the Single European Act, Maastricht and the setting up of the euro. SNP members who still maintain that membership of the EU, including the single currency, does not affect Scottish independence, resolutely refuse to explain HOW members of the EU retain their independence. I have pursued SNP leaders and members over a number of years, from Nicola Sturgeon down, to give that explanation only to be met by a wall of silence. But my cynicism of Salmond's commitment to Independence goes back further than 1988,

When I demitted office as Deputy Leader I retained my place on the NEC and, as a member of the Election Committee which was responsible for the vetting and training of those who wanted to be included on the party's candidate's list, I interviewd Salmond in 1984. We put candidates under pressure, putting questions to them they were likely to meet if they were ever adopted for a parliamentary constituency. I put it to Salmond, "If you could be certain that Scotland would be worse off under Independence, would you still be a Nationalist?" I put that question to every candidate just to see how they would handle it because the question of Scotland's ability to "afford" Independence was the most common objection to Independence they were likely to face. As my own position was well known, as someone who wanted Independence for its own sake and not based on the question of affordability or economics, candidates were normally cautious about how they answered. Salmond replied, "I don't think I could be as definite as you. That is something I would have to consider." He was the only potential candidate EVER to give that answer.

Salmond always saw his great strength in publicity and he was elected to the office of Vice Chairman for Publicity in 1985. At the Annual Conference in 1986 he launched his "big idea" of the pact with Plaid Cymru. This relied on the notion that the next election - probably 1987 - would result in a hung parliament, "If Westminster should have a hung parliament, let it hang by a Scottish rope" became the campaign slogan. He advocated the pact with Plaid should offer to keep Labour in power in order to deny the Tories under Thatcher, another term in office. For that to be a realistic option the Labour Party would have had to be in a position where it was relatively close to the Tories in the previous General Election in 1983. The actual result in 1983 gave the Tories a majority of 144. Was the situation in Scotland any more likely to persuade Scots that the Salmond strategy could work. The 1983 election had been a disaster for the SNP which returned two MPs, Gordon Wilson and Donnie Stewart and polled only 11.8% of the popular vote. Nevertheless Salmond forecast that we would take at least seven Tory seats and that the greatest victories would be between the Tay and Moray Firth.

But what about the Labour vote in Scotland? How would the Salmond strategy go down in the Labour heartlands of West Central Scotland? If the SNP's election campaign was to push the idea that Labour would come so close to winning in the rest of the UK, as to create a hung parliament situation, would that not encourage Scots sympathetic to Labour in any case, to be all the more likely to vote for them in the hope of winning throughout the UK? That thought never seemed to enter Salmond's mind is the generous interpretation of his lack of overall strategy. It could also be claimed he was not concerned about the potential Labour vote in Scotland and how it would effect fellow SNP candidates who were contesting in Labour held seats, after all he was contesting the Tory held Banff and Buchan seat. In the event the Labour Party in Scotland won another nine seats, taking them to a total of 50 with an increased share of the vote of 7.3% to a total of 42.4%, while the SNP won three Tory held seats, increasing their share of the vote by 2.3% to 14.1% and losing Dundee East and Western Isles in the process, both to Labour. My article in the SI, "You Were Warned", written in the aftermath of that election sums up just what a disaster the Salmond strategy was for the SNP as a whole.The Tories won the election with a majority of 102.

 

Salmond supporters claim with justification, that he was responsible for getting Cameron to agree to a Scottish Referendum in 2014. What they tend to forget, he also agreed to a Section 30, thereby agreeing that Westminster should have the final say on whther Scots can hold referenda in the future. That was a complete surrender of Scottish sovereignty and still haunts the current SNP government to this day. His "once in a generation" comment, meant no doubt as an encouragement to Scots to come out and vote, has been hijacked by the Unionist opposition in a most ludicrous and dishonest fashion. One would have thought that would have taught him a lesson but, true to his customary short termism and fondness for the smart comment, he has now saddled the Independence Movement with his latest gaffe, the "Supermajority" needed to justify Independence. What is a "Supermajority" and how many seats does it mean? No doubt the Unionists will tell us shortly. Salmond may have been instrumental in getting the Cameron Government to agree to the 2014 Referendum but he then destroyed any possibility of  Scots voting "Yes" with his obsession with the Currency Union, thereby insisting that London should continue to control the Scottish economy. He more than anyone, destroyed any chance the Independence Movement had of winning that referendum.

We will have to see whether or not Alba will continue to seek membership of the EU or attempt to fudge the issue by suggesting EFTA. If it suggests membership of the EEA, Scots will still be subject to EU regulations but it will no doubt continue to be sold to the Scottish electorate as "Independence". Alex Salmond may be many things, but a strategist is most definitely not one of them.

ENDS